Is Find Weakness mispriced?

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Does this help?

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Ok, now I understand the problem with the rule as quoted. That does become stupid then. FW also becomes much less unbalanced than AP then. However, it is not my problem, as I use the fifth edition frule from FREd, as it was meant to be. As I said before if it isn't in the rulebook then it is optional, and since it isn't in my rulebook, I have no problem.

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Check the FAQ and / or 5th Edition Revised. Sean's statement is not in fact a lie, it is based upon more complete information than you have available in your 5th Edition Rulebook.

 

 

To be fair, I never said he was lying. I said that he was either using a different edition (which he was) or he was lying.

 

To be fair in another respect FRED more than has enough of what is needed. The game is difficult enough as it is without bogging the game down with useless additional rules such as those presented in this FW debate. I am sure there are some other rules it has added, which are not useless, but still in truth the game does not need any new rules.

[Robyn]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

the defense in question would obviously have to be based off of the attack the power was purchased to be used with. So if you had FW with a punch' date=' you would obviously not choose an exotic defense for your FW to work against. You would choose normal defenses.[/quote']

 

Why? Is there something about a punch that means we would "obviously" choose normal defenses instead of something else, such as an exotic defense?

 

A mecha's punch might realistically be an HKA, and if a mystic's punch was so light as to inflict no actual damage (but meant to inflict some sort of mystical blow against the target's aura) it could very easily work against exotic defenses.

 

SFX do not belong to just one attack-type group. HERO is very flexible that way.

[schir1964]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Ok' date=' now I understand the problem with the rule as quoted. That does become stupid then. FW also becomes much less unbalanced than AP then. However, it is not my problem, as I use the fifth edition frule from FREd, as it was meant to be. As I said before if it isn't in the rulebook then it is optional, and since it isn't in my rulebook, I have no problem.[/quote']

There's been more than one person who have been somewhat... less than enthusiastic about Steve Long's clarifications of the official 5th Edition Hero (Non-Revised) rules. The intent of how the rules were meant to be understood don't mesh with many people's sensibilities.

 

But if you want to know what the true intent of a rule by the designers is, you need to read the FAQs which are considered just as official as the words in the book. Not to mention the supplements.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Why? Is there something about a punch that means we would "obviously" choose normal defenses instead of something else, such as an exotic defense?

 

A mecha's punch might realistically be an HKA, and if a mystic's punch was so light as to inflict no actual damage (but meant to inflict some sort of mystical blow against the target's aura) it could very easily work against exotic defenses.

 

SFX do not belong to just one attack-type group. HERO is very flexible that way.

 

We're quibbling over straws here. The initial instance I mentioned a punch I specifically said a "simple" punch. Meaning a normal punch. Obviously there are cases to the contrary, such as a fire projector surrounded by an RKa damage shield. And if a mystic came up to me and said I punch so weak, that the defense should be mental defenses I would laugh them out of my game. In that specific case, I would allow them to take reduced penetration, if anything at all. a 5 to 10 strength works fine to show such a character.

 

In any case, Chris Mullins, has shown me how the text applies to different types of defenses, better than was shown before and now I understand it better. It still is not a problem for me as I use FRED, not the Revised rules.

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

There's been more than one person who have been somewhat... less than enthusiastic about Steve Long's clarifications of the official 5th Edition Hero (Non-Revised) rules. The intent of how the rules were meant to be understood don't mesh with many people's sensibilities.

 

But if you want to know what the true intent of a rule by the designers is, you need to read the FAQs which are considered just as official as the words in the book. Not to mention the supplements.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

You might think so. That might even be the official line at Hero, but at the end of the day (and by day I mean a serious length of time) when people look back at what the rules of a game were in a previous edition, they will look at the rule book, not countless supplements and FAQ's. I stand by my opinion that FRED is the rules I use, and I have no problems with it.

[schir1964]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

In any case' date=' Chris Mullins, has shown me how the text applies to different types of defenses, better than was shown before and now I understand it better. It still is not a problem for me as I use FRED, not the Revised rules.[/quote']

You may be confusing some people here with your use of terms. (8^D)

 

FRED on these boards means Fifth Revised EDition.

 

UnRrevised on these boards means the initial release of the 5th Edition.

 

I don't have 5th Edtion Revised (FRED).

I have the original 5th Edition and use it in conjunction with the FAQs for 5th Edition.

 

PS: I try to avoid using the term FRED just so there won't be this type of confusion. (8^D)

 

PPS: If you want Willpower, I can email you the FAQs pdf file for 5th Edition. (schir1964 @ netzero.com)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Vondy]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I use the rulebook and only the rulebook. I don't consider the FAQ an obligatory reference. Official? Yeah, but not obligatory. This isn't just because I find some of the answers in the FAQ patently strange. Its also because the FAQ is ridiculously long. One book to rule them all.

[Robyn]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

You may be confusing some people here with your use of terms. (8^D)

 

FRED on these boards means Fifth Revised EDition.

 

UnRrevised on these boards means the initial release of the 5th Edition.

 

There's a term I haven't seen before

 

One minor note: around here' date=' "FRED" is usually used to refer to the 2001 edition (~370 page) of the 5th Edition rules. The 2004 Revised Edition (~590 pages) is typically refered to as "5ER." If you're not sure which one you have, just count the pages or see if the cover has the words REVISED in large friendly letters. Not trying to sharp-shoot you, just didn't want you to get confused later on. [/quote']

 

Well, bigdamnhero, it's later on. And now I'm confused

[schir1964]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Well' date=' bigdamnhero, it's later on. And now I'm confused [/quote']

And this is exactly why I chose not to use the term FRED.

 

FRED was created and used for the initial release. What's that? You ask why? (8^D)

 

Hero 4th Edition (aka BBB): Was referred to BBB for the Big Blue Book (mostly).

Hero 5th Edition (aka FRED/5th): When Steve Long was asked what acronym should be used, he said, "You can call it FRED for all I care." Thus, FRED was born.

Hero 5th Edition Revised (aka FRED/5ER): Some chose to adapt the FRED acronym for the 5th Edition Revised, some chose to go with 5ER, while others chose to go with 5th Revised. Thus this confusion pops up from time to time. Unfortunately not everyone chose to go with the same acronym.

 

I had forgotten that some still referred to the original book as FRED.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Oh my giddy Aunt, we do seem to be off in a bit of a strange place at present, don't we

 

Can I just check if anyone is happy with the 'defence differentiation' rules for FW (and Lack of Weakness) in 5ER, the revised, most recent and longer verion of the Big Black (and green) Book?

 

Anyone?

[schir1964]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Oh my giddy Aunt, we do seem to be off in a bit of a strange place at present, don't we

 

Can I just check if anyone is happy with the 'defence differentiation' rules for FW (and Lack of Weakness) in 5ER, the revised, most recent and longer verion of the Big Black (and green) Book?

 

Anyone?

Sorry about thread drift. (8^D)

 

Is the rules in 5th Edition Revised the same as what is described in the FAQs?

If so, I think it is inconsistent with how attacks/defenses work in general.

 

- Christopher Mulllins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Sorry about thread drift. (8^D)

 

Is the rules in 5th Edition Revised the same as what is described in the FAQs?

If so, I think it is inconsistent with how attacls/defenses work in general.

 

- Christopher Mulllins

 

Yes, you seem to have it right, although there is none of this talk about sfx - it is all pure mechanical differences, which makes it particularly galling to my mind.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Yes' date=' you seem to have it right, although there is none of this talk about sfx - it is all pure mechanical differences, which makes it particularly galling to my mind.[/quote']

 

 

But it's a mechanic created to fill a need that no longer exists in the current rules.

 

As I've stated before:

1. Find Weakness was originally created to simulate targeted/accurate shots before HERO had any Hit Location rules.
   
2. There is no SFX for Find Weakness that does not boil down to some form of targeting.
   
3. There is nothing preventing it's combination with an attack that has the Armor Piercing advantage.
   
4. #3 is also true for targeted shots using Hit Locations. When combined with AP attacks it is essentially equivalent to attacking 1/4 of the original defenses (when not hardened).

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

But it's a mechanic created to fill a need that no longer exists in the current rules.

 

As I've stated before:

1. Find Weakness was originally created to simulate targeted/accurate shots before HERO had any Hit Location rules.
   
2. There is no SFX for Find Weakness that does not boil down to some form of targeting.
   
3. There is nothing preventing it's combination with an attack that has the Armor Piercing advantage.
   
4. #3 is also true for targeted shots using Hit Locations. When combined with AP attacks it is essentially equivalent to attacking 1/4 of the original defenses (when not hardened).

I'm not sure I buy off that the original intention for FW was to compensate for the lack of a detailed hit location mechanic.

 

I disagree strongly that FW implies any necessity of targeting, per se. It can be "his electrothermal shield has a weakness when my Energy Blast signature is recalibrated to a Sin wave!" or "ah-ha, my sonic blast will be incredibly effective if I wait for him to blink when I let it loose!".

 

From this perspective, I would more eagerly embrace Sean's recommended changes (the notion of targetting senses makes sense even if a location is not the targetted objective, since one has to perceive a weakness in some manner).

[BNakagawa]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I'm not sure I buy off that the original intention for FW was to compensate for the lack of a detailed hit location mechanic.

 

I disagree strongly that FW implies any necessity of targeting, per se. It can be "his electrothermal shield has a weakness when my Energy Blast signature is recalibrated to a Sin wave!" or "ah-ha, my sonic blast will be incredibly effective if I wait for him to blink when I let it loose!".

 

From this perspective, I would more eagerly embrace Sean's recommended changes (the notion of targetting senses makes sense even if a location is not the targetted objective, since one has to perceive a weakness in some manner).

 

I've never felt comfortable with FW being interpeted as affecting the attack power because it is possible to FW on targets A and B then fire your attack at target A, have target B dive for cover in front of the attack and the FW still takes effect.

 

(this situation refutes both the notion that you are tuning your attack for a specific defender's weakness and the notion that FW must be used with a carefully placed attack)

 

It makes much more sense to interpet FW as a power that affects the victim's defense, making it increasingly ineffective against your attack.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I am taking a very long view approach when talking about the history of Find Weakness since I am referring to its earliest incarnations in the rules.

 

I disagree strongly that FW implies any necessity of targeting' date=' per se. It can be "his electrothermal shield has a weakness when my Energy Blast signature is recalibrated to a Sin wave!" or "ah-ha, my sonic blast will be incredibly effective if I wait for him to blink when I let it loose!".[/quote']

 

The first example is actually talking about adjusting the attack power which could more accurately be modelled with variable sfx or variable advantages (possibly built naked) . But by building the effect with Find Weakness you leave the door open to double dipping by adding those advantages as well.

 

The second example is just analyse style with bonus OCV put towards either extra DC's or specific hit locations.

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

When did that happen? FRED was actually the original nickname used to describe 5th edition. It was chosen as the nickname before 5th edition even came out. I know, because I helped name it such. Steve Long actually coined the term. When I had posed the question, "What is going to be the new editions nickname?" (as we had always called 4th Edition the BBB, or the Big Blue Book) Steve said something like, "You can call it Fred for all I care." I then responded back, "FREd it is." And then went on to give it the anagram, "Fifth Rules Edition."

 

Now using it as Fifth Revised Edition, does seem to work better, but since the whole name was created by Steve and I, then I will always refer to 5th edition as FREd, at least personally. Though since this has become standard terminology here to refer to the Revised edition as FRED, then I will do so on here from now on, and simply refer to my edition as FRED when not on the web boards.

 

PS, I don't know if the boards go back far enough to confirm that this is how it happened or not, but it is in fact, how FREd was named.

 

You may be confusing some people here with your use of terms. (8^D)

 

FRED on these boards means Fifth Revised EDition.

 

UnRrevised on these boards means the initial release of the 5th Edition.

 

I don't have 5th Edtion Revised (FRED).

I have the original 5th Edition and use it in conjunction with the FAQs for 5th Edition.

 

PS: I try to avoid using the term FRED just so there won't be this type of confusion. (8^D)

 

PPS: If you want Willpower, I can email you the FAQs pdf file for 5th Edition. (schir1964 @ netzero.com)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

There's a term I haven't seen before

 

 

 

Well, bigdamnhero, it's later on. And now I'm confused

 

Hmm... Well theres a discussion that seems to be needed if we are going to continue to refer to the game based on its nickname simply so we don't have to continuously type out Hero System Fifth Edition, and Hero System Fifth Edition Revised. I too had originally thought FREd was the nick of the original 5th edition. (As I helped name it) But was unsure of what the revised edition was referred to as. I always quote from the original 5th edition.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

When did that happen? FRED was actually the original nickname used to describe 5th edition. It was chosen as the nickname before 5th edition even came out. I know, because I helped name it such. Steve Long actually coined the term. When I had posed the question, "What is going to be the new editions nickname?" (as we had always called 4th Edition the BBB, or the Big Blue Book) Steve said something like, "You can call it Fred for all I care." I then responded back, "FREd it is." And then went on to give it the anagram, "Fifth Rules Edition."

 

Now using it as Fifth Revised Edition, does seem to work better, but since the whole name was created by Steve and I, then I will always refer to 5th edition as FREd, at least personally. Though since this has become standard terminology here to refer to the Revised edition as FRED, then I will do so on here from now on, and simply refer to my edition as FRED when not on the web boards.

 

PS, I don't know if the boards go back far enough to confirm that this is how it happened or not, but it is in fact, how FREd was named.

 

You got it.

I think most posters just use 5E and 5ER to differentiate the 2 with the least amount of confusion.

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

And this is exactly why I chose not to use the term FRED.

 

FRED was created and used for the initial release. What's that? You ask why? (8^D)

 

Hero 4th Edition (aka BBB): Was referred to BBB for the Big Blue Book (mostly).

Hero 5th Edition (aka FRED/5th): When Steve Long was asked what acronym should be used, he said, "You can call it FRED for all I care." Thus, FRED was born.

Hero 5th Edition Revised (aka FRED/5ER): Some chose to adapt the FRED acronym for the 5th Edition Revised, some chose to go with 5ER, while others chose to go with 5th Revised. Thus this confusion pops up from time to time. Unfortunately not everyone chose to go with the same acronym.

 

I had forgotten that some still referred to the original book as FRED.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Well, as I said before. Fifth Revised EDition, does make more sense for the revised edition's name, and so publicly I will use that name for revised from now on. Though, I do not own Revised, so I am not sure how much I will use it. I may take you up on your offer Chris thanks.

[Vondy]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

 

I had forgotten that some still referred to the original book as FRED.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

I forgot, too.

 

I used 5ER and only 5ER.

[Vondy]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

When did that happen? FRED was actually the original nickname used to describe 5th edition. .

 

I knew the original term, and was a party to the threads that kicked it off, but started using it differently without even thinking about it within the past six months.

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I'm not sure I buy off that the original intention for FW was to compensate for the lack of a detailed hit location mechanic.

 

I disagree strongly that FW implies any necessity of targeting, per se. It can be "his electrothermal shield has a weakness when my Energy Blast signature is recalibrated to a Sin wave!" or "ah-ha, my sonic blast will be incredibly effective if I wait for him to blink when I let it loose!".

 

From this perspective, I would more eagerly embrace Sean's recommended changes (the notion of targetting senses makes sense even if a location is not the targetted objective, since one has to perceive a weakness in some manner).

 

Unless of course the SFX has to do with the manipulation of luck, or something like that. (IE, Luck is with me in my fight against you this day, so all my shots are hitting exceptionally good.)

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I've never felt comfortable with FW being interpeted as affecting the attack power because it is possible to FW on targets A and B then fire your attack at target A, have target B dive for cover in front of the attack and the FW still takes effect.

 

It makes much more sense to interpet FW as a power that affects the victim's defense, making it increasingly ineffective against your attack.

 

the situation you describe is one of those rare events, that the rules don't really cover completely. Personally depending on the SFX, I would call that even if you had FW on B, you wouldn't get it hitting him by accident instead of A, your intended target. There are some SFX, that would change my mind on this though.