Same concept, new approach

[Stone]

(Related to the "is this too cheesy post")

 

Supreme Serpent had an interesting idea and after thinking about it, I think it would have the effect I am looking to achieve. Here is his suggestion:

 

If the second, then consider extra EB dice with a limitation, based on how many times target has been hit with the attack already. Something like: "Matter Erroder: 6d6 EB, AP. +2d6 EB AP if target has been hit by ME in last minute. +2d6 EB AP if target has been hit by ME twice in last minute. +2d6 EB AP if target has been hit by ME three times in last minute." etc.

 

Again the concept is that the attack begins to chip away at a targets defense becoming more powerful each time it successfully hits a target (the attack this linked to is a 12d6 AP). Here is the construct I have right now. Do you think this would work or what suggestions do you have for this sfx?

 

 

10d6 EB

Armor Peircing +1/2

Reduced END (0 END) +1/2

Limited Power (Cannot Spread or Bounce) -1/4

Linked (to greater power only at full power) -3/4

Limited Power (incremental, +2d6 per each additional hit after the first successful attack) -1

 

Total of 33 pts

 

On the incremental attack, do you think the -1 is a correct limitation? I am not trying to create an "uber" cheesy attack. I am just trying to create an fx that represents the character having learned to focus his attack into a more effective attack.

[zornwil]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

Are you trying to avoid how Find Weakness can fizzle once you blow the roll?

 

I think -1 is kind of a lot, after all, don't you expect to hit somewhat frequently? I'd go a progression something like -1/4, -1/2, -3/4, on up for each successive shot. I think.

[Stone]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

Yes I am trying to avoid Find Weakness. An additional half action roll, plus like you said it can fail on a bad roll. However on the other side of that, it can be even more damaging than what I am looking to do as far as lowering a target's defenses.

 

I'm afraid you lost me somewhat on the progression. Are saying the 1st +2d6 are -1/4, the +2d6 are -1/2, 3rd -3/4, etc..?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

Again the concept is that the attack begins to chip away at a targets defense becoming more powerful each time it successfully hits a target (the attack this linked to is a 12d6 AP). Here is the construct I have right now. Do you think this would work or what suggestions do you have for this sfx?

 

10d6 EB

Armor Peircing +1/2

Reduced END (0 END) +1/2

Limited Power (Cannot Spread or Bounce) -1/4

Linked (to greater power only at full power) -3/4

Limited Power (incremental, +2d6 per each additional hit after the first successful attack) -1

 

Total of 33 pts

 

On the incremental attack, do you think the -1 is a correct limitation? I am not trying to create an "uber" cheesy attack. I am just trying to create an fx that represents the character having learned to focus his attack into a more effective attack.

 

Minor nit, but this is a 100 AP power, and it's linked to a 90 AP power. Maybe the 12d6 blast is also 0 END? A more significant issue - as written, the 12d6 EB will apply to defenses separate from this 10d6 EB (in Linking them, you are stating they are otherwise two completely separate powers). If the intent is to add dice to the 12d6 base EB, then there should be no Linked limitation.

 

The "incremental" limitation should read "on the same target", shouldn't it? That makes a series of successful attacks less likely, so a higher value limitation.

 

"Is -1 reasonable" is a campaign-specific question. In my game, I suspect it would be reasonable, but that's because I wouldn't expect six shots from the same character to hit the same opponent very often. But I wouldn't allow the 12d6 AP blast to begin with in my game, so there's no way I'd allow a further 10d6 tacking on - your game may have different parameters that make six or more hits on the same target more common.

 

You could complicate matters by using a different limitation for each 2d6 increment, I suppose, since a second shot is more likely than a sixth, but why overcomplicate?

[Stone]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

Sorry, I should've have put more of the campaign up to explain the world. The character has been played up to 500 pt + level (started off at 250 pts, have been playing this campaign for quite some time now. The attack started off as 8d6 AP 1/2 END). The attack is a 12d6 AP 1/2 END cannot spread/bounce (105) pts. The attack is rarely used at full power unless I am facing a higher end villian . I usually use an entangle to set up villians for my team mates. The GM will throw villian teams that are 100+ pts higher than the PC's.

 

You are right, it should read for the same target. What level of additional dice would you feel comfrotable adding?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

Sorry, I should've have put more of the campaign up to explain the world. The character has been played up to 500 pt + level (started off at 250 pts, have been playing this campaign for quite some time now. The attack started off as 8d6 AP 1/2 END). The attack is a 12d6 AP 1/2 END cannot spread/bounce (105) pts. The attack is rarely used at full power unless I am facing a higher end villian . I usually use an entangle to set up villians for my team mates. The GM will throw villian teams that are 100+ pts higher than the PC's.

 

You are right, it should read for the same target. What level of additional dice would you feel comfrotable adding?

 

You could go a different way again. If the attack was linked with a PD drain for example you would need to lose (on average) 14 PD for the second shot to be worth an extra 7 after armour pierced defences - or 5D6 drain with standard effect.

 

Obviously the drain would only work if the target had previously been hit with the attack in the last minute which might be worth a substantial limitation.

[zornwil]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

Yes I am trying to avoid Find Weakness. An additional half action roll, plus like you said it can fail on a bad roll. However on the other side of that, it can be even more damaging than what I am looking to do as far as lowering a target's defenses.

 

I'm afraid you lost me somewhat on the progression. Are saying the 1st +2d6 are -1/4, the +2d6 are -1/2, 3rd -3/4, etc..?

Yes, though my assumption, unlike Hugh's is that he's going to frequently get in the 2nd 2d6, less frequently the 3rd, and so on.

 

If you really think the 2nd d6 won't get in about half the time, -1 is appropriate.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

Have You considered Gradual Effect?

 

6d6 as per your basic construct

+6d6 with Gradual Effect

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

Yes, though my assumption, unlike Hugh's is that he's going to frequently get in the 2nd 2d6, less frequently the 3rd, and so on.

 

If you really think the 2nd d6 won't get in about half the time, -1 is appropriate.

 

I'd call the 1st bonus -1/4, second -1/2, third -1, fourth -1 1/2 and 5th -2, but that's based on my expectation of how many shots it will take to KO the typical opponent, and how many people will have attacked that character, in my games.

 

"How many dice" depends on normal DC for the game. I'd likely allow for the third addition to hit the normal campaign max DC's.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

I agree with Zornwil's assessment of the -1 limitation being too much. In fact, I don't think it ever warrants more than a -1/2 as it is currently built. Here's why:

 

1. This is your primary attack power. You can use it every phase without a problem and a minute is 5 turns. Meaning at SPD 2 it is looking at your last ten actions. If you are at the very last phase of a minute cycle you are still not looking at "Limiting Half the Time" for having hit him 4 prior times.

 

2. You have 0 END cost on this power means you will never have any problem with having the energy to use it.

 

 

My recommendation is to use boostable charges with the limitation "Can only boost as many charges equal to successful hits in last minute; -1/2). This gets you your Reduced Endurance cost and makes it less complicated of a power.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

Have You considered Gradual Effect?

 

6d6 as per your basic construct

+6d6 with Gradual Effect

Gradual Effect implies damage shows up later after the attack is made whether or not a second or third attack was actually made.

[Stone]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

I agree with Zornwil's assessment of the -1 limitation being too much. In fact, I don't think it ever warrants more than a -1/2 as it is currently built. Here's why:

 

1. This is your primary attack power. You can use it every phase without a problem and a minute is 5 turns. Meaning at SPD 2 it is looking at your last ten actions. If you are at the very last phase of a minute cycle you are still not looking at "Limiting Half the Time" for having hit him 4 prior times.

 

2. You have 0 END cost on this power means you will never have any problem with having the energy to use it.

 

 

My recommendation is to use boostable charges with the limitation "Can only boost as many charges equal to successful hits in last minute; -1/2). This gets you your Reduced Endurance cost and makes it less complicated of a power.

 

 

Interesting Idea. Can you post an example to make sure I am understanding you correctly?

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

Sure.

 

Standard Attack: 6d6 EB, Reduced Endurance

Boost Attack: +1d6 EB, Charges(32 Boostable), Can Only Boost Charges Equal to Number of Times Boost Attack Has Hit Target in Last Minute (-1/2), Must have Hit with Standard Attack before Boost Attack can be used(-1/4)

 

First attack hits at 6d6.

Second attack hits at 7d6 (uses 1 charge)

Third attack hits at 8d6 (uses 2 charges)

Forth attack hits at 9d6 (uses 3 charges)

Fifth attack hits at 10d6 (uses 4 charges)

Sixth attack hits at 11d6 (uses 5 charges) This would be the cap unless you get approval from GM

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

interesting, i think it's a novel way to go about the problem, i'll have to try it out with a villian or PC sometime, see what i think of it

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

Standard Attack: 6d6 EB, Reduced Endurance

Boost Attack: +1d6 EB, Charges(32 Boostable), Can Only Boost Charges Equal to Number of Times Boost Attack Has Hit Target in Last Minute (-1/2), Must have Hit with Standard Attack before Boost Attack can be used(-1/4)

 

Adding in some costing, +1d6 EB, Charges(32 Boostable; +1/2), Can Only Boost Charges Equal to Number of Times Boost Attack Has Hit Target in Last Minute (-1/2), Must have Hit with Standard Attack before Boost Attack can be used(-1/4) cost 4 points.

 

Pretty good when you consider a +1d6 EB, 32 charges would cost 6. The character gets the option of using multiple charges to boost damage (albeit only after the first shot), and an effective -1/2 limitation on the extra damage. I don't think the limitations on "boostability" should cancel out (much less eliminate) the cost of being able to boost the power.

[pinecone]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

Just to muddy the waters but can't you model "damage getting through" with PEN?...Maybe just put a time delay limit on the penetrating advantage and you've modelled the "inevitible penitration" thang pretty well....

[Stone]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

Sure.

 

Standard Attack: 6d6 EB, Reduced Endurance

Boost Attack: +1d6 EB, Charges(32 Boostable), Can Only Boost Charges Equal to Number of Times Boost Attack Has Hit Target in Last Minute (-1/2), Must have Hit with Standard Attack before Boost Attack can be used(-1/4)

 

First attack hits at 6d6.

Second attack hits at 7d6 (uses 1 charge)

Third attack hits at 8d6 (uses 2 charges)

Forth attack hits at 9d6 (uses 3 charges)

Fifth attack hits at 10d6 (uses 4 charges)

Sixth attack hits at 11d6 (uses 5 charges) This would be the cap unless you get approval from GM

 

If my math is correct, it would require 15 charges to get to the max level. Also charges are only good for once per day. While it is unlikely there would be more than two (at the most) in game day, this does greatly reduce the effect I am looking to achieve. It is very likely the character would have to hit more than one target in a combat and thereby spread out the charges amongst the targets.

 

Right now the only way I am seeing to achieve the desired effect is thru an ED drain or the incremental EB (not charges). I put 0 END on the power, because is not something the character consciously does. His powers have grown. The attack hits hard (particle beam AP) and after each additional hit against the same target begins to wear down the targets defenses.

 

It is not that I do not appreciate your idea, I really do and will use it for some other concepts I have for the campaign. Does anyone have any additional ideas how to achieve this effect?

[Stone]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

Just to muddy the waters but can't you model "damage getting through" with PEN?...Maybe just put a time delay limit on the penetrating advantage and you've modelled the "inevitible penitration" thang pretty well....

 

I thought about that, but penetration for this attack (non-ka) would get only stun through the defenses and then based on how well the roll is. While I am not looking to develop a different type of KA, I would like the sfx to be able to effect non-organic things as well (walls, vehicles, etc...)

[Stone]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

You could go a different way again. If the attack was linked with a PD drain for example you would need to lose (on average) 14 PD for the second shot to be worth an extra 7 after armour pierced defences - or 5D6 drain with standard effect.

 

Obviously the drain would only work if the target had previously been hit with the attack in the last minute which might be worth a substantial limitation.

 

A drain was my first attempt (ED though). However Hugh correctly pointed out to me that drains against defenses are halved, and it would require an additional advantages of ranged & switchable targets (types of ED) to make it work. I would be interested to see your work up on this though. My attempt seemed a little clunky.

[zornwil]

Re: Same concept, new approach

 

You *could* do a cumulative transform, "make target's defenses ablative but only to me/this attack" (certainly worth at least some limitation), link it to the attack, and if the GM permits the transform's effects would be gradual/proportional. This is pretty clunky, too, though, I'm just spitballing here...

 

Oh, you could also do some sort of additional d6 with Armor Piercing stacked on them and Limited per the uses...also clunky...