Is Find Weakness mispriced?

[Willpower]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Var. Adv. maybe, not really Var. SFX though. Obviously with var. SFX if you have a wide enough ability with it you could target specific weaknesses, such as vulnerabilities. But it would not work for getting partially around FF's and such by recalibrating the energy signature, when such a weakness was not present.

 

Think of it like Star Trek. If the energy of the Phaser beam is the same signature as that of the Shields used to protect the ship, then the phaser goes right through. The energy is the same, just its particular wavelength is different. The ship is not bought with a Vulnerability to Phaser Wavelength 16705-ROF64G. Particularly, because the wavelength of the energy can be changed given time.

 

Typically people don't take vulnerabilities to particular energy signatures, even when they have a FF. It could be a good idea to do but would not really be too noteworthy, unless it was a stander thing in your game though.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Var. Adv. maybe, not really Var. SFX though. Obviously with var. SFX if you have a wide enough ability with it you could target specific weaknesses, such as vulnerabilities. But it would not work for getting partially around FF's and such by recalibrating the energy signature, when such a weakness was not present.

 

Think of it like Star Trek. If the energy of the Phaser beam is the same signature as that of the Shields used to protect the ship, then the phaser goes right through. The energy is the same, just its particular wavelength is different. The ship is not bought with a Vulnerability to Phaser Wavelength 16705-ROF64G. Particularly, because the wavelength of the energy can be changed given time.

 

Typically people don't take vulnerabilities to particular energy signatures, even when they have a FF. It could be a good idea to do but would not really be too noteworthy, unless it was a stander thing in your game though.

 

Well, technically Variable Advantage would be enough since it would allow the use of Variable SFX as one of the possible advantages that include AP, Penetrating, Indirect, NND and AVLD which are appropriate for the given example. The common theme I was pointing out though was that these are ALL changes to the ATTACK instead of the targets defenses. Purchasing Find Weakness and defining its SFX as a modification of the ATTACK like this does not preclude or increase the cost of adding those same advantages to the attack as well.

[Robyn]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

The ship is not bought with a Vulnerability to Phaser Wavelength 16705-ROF64G. Particularly' date=' because the wavelength of the energy can be changed given time.[/quote']

 

I would call that "Variable wavelength" (Advantage) with "Vulnerable to current wavelength" (Limitation).

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I would call that "Variable wavelength" (Advantage) with "Vulnerable to current wavelength" (Limitation).

 

80 Tunable Phasers: (Total: 90 Active Cost, 80 Real Cost) RKA 4d6 (Real Cost: 60) plus Indirect (Any origin, always fired away from attacker; +1/2) for up to 60 Active Points of RKA (30 Active Points); Requires A Skill Roll (RSR Skill is subject to Skill vs. Skill contests, Active Point penalty to Skill Roll is -1 per 20 Active Points; Must determine 'Shield Frequency' using sensors.; -1/2) (Real Cost: 20) End 9

[BNakagawa]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

the situation you describe is one of those rare events' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Steve Long addressed that situation in the FAQ.

[zornwil]

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.

 

 

 

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.

My point is, it might be each of those if it's a smarts type guy, a Batman sort.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

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

Good point. But I think then you'd apply Clairsentience or a Trigger or a similar workaround, if we want to make it a regular power.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

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

 

Excellent riposte (actually, looking at the word 'riposte': very appropriate ), although 'luck' is (to my mind) one of those 'catchall' sxf I was going on about earlier. Generally when a player says 'it is luck-based' they are saying 'It just works, OK?'.

 

Now if they don't want to do the legwork, then it is open to the GM to do it: OK, this is luck based, but you make your own luck - you are subconsciously noting weaknesses in the combat style and defences that enable you to hit vulnerable places...or whatever.

 

You might well be able to come up with a non-sense sfx, but the thing is that the power AS IS is a sensory one: if someone manages to 'flash' or 'darkness' your find weakness, it won't work.

[schir1964]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Just curious if anyone had given any more thought to Sean's Find Weakness mechanic or even mine?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Steve Long addressed that situation in the FAQ.

 

As I had mentioned before. I don't consider anything, but what is in the rulebook as required. Hell, even that is not required if you so choose. FAQ's are cool, and really help a GM in determining how to handle things, but I have seen FAQ's give divergent answers in two different examples at times.

 

It is not like the gaem designers have all possible situations handled already, and just didn't put them in the book. So a lot of the time, when a FAQ handles a situation not specifically outlined in the rulebook, it is the designer reading the situation and telling others how they would handle it. This is why sometimes the answer would vary depending on the specific situation, when the designer is writing the FAQ, and which designer is handling that particular situation at the time.

 

I know technically they are "official" rulings, though that doesn't mean you have to handle them the same way if you have a reason not to choose so.

 

This will probably be an unpopular suggestion, cause I know everytime I have disagreed on something like this in the past the lemmings all roll out to dump on me.

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Well' date=' technically Variable Advantage would be enough since it would allow the use of Variable SFX as one of the possible advantages that include AP, Penetrating, Indirect, NND and AVLD which are appropriate for the given example. The common theme I was pointing out though was that these are ALL changes to the ATTACK instead of the targets defenses. Purchasing Find Weakness and defining its SFX as a modification of the ATTACK like this does not preclude or increase the cost of adding those same advantages to the attack as well.[/quote']

 

You know I never thought of that. You are right Var. Adv. at the lowest level would even allow you to change your SFX somewhat. Thats cool.

[schir1964]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

It is not like the game designers have all possible situations handled already' date=' and just didn't put them in the book. So a lot of the time, when a FAQ handles a situation not specifically outlined in the rulebook, it is the designer reading the situation and telling others how they would handle it. This is why sometimes the answer would vary depending on the specific situation, when the designer is writing the FAQ, and which designer is handling that particular situation at the time.[/quote']

Except that the "designer" in this case is always Steve Long. Variances do occur, but that is not is being addressed here.

 

I know technically they are "official" rulings' date=' though that doesn't mean you have to handle them the same way if you have a reason not to choose so.[/quote']

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Just as no one is suggesting that you read the book and handle it the way the book says to.

 

This will probably be an unpopular suggestion' date=' cause I know everytime I have disagreed on something like this in the past the lemmings all roll out to dump on me.[/quote']

Not sure what you mean by lemmings here, but I think it is important to be as well informed as possible on the intent of the rules, regardless of how you choose to run your campaign.

 

However, by not reading the FAQs puts you at a disadvantage when dicussing the rules "as intended", since how you think the rule works may be completely different from the intended way the rule was meant to work, via the FAQs. I've experienced this numerous times where someone thought a rule allowed something when in fact it never intended to allow it via the FAQs clarifications. Find Weakness is a perfect example of this. Thus the FAQs serve as "errata" in this case due to poor wording in the book leading one to an incorrect conclusion on the way it works.

 

I see the FAQs simply as a way to help clarify what the Baseline is for the how the rules were meant to work. Does this force anyone or use them as intended? Nope, it just means we can now agree on what those rules were intended to do and then go from there.

 

This Clarification Brought To You By

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Here's what I'm wondering: Why is Find Weakness even in the game, aside from modelling Karnak from the Inhumans? We've got AP and Penetrating. Do we really need Find Weakness with a whole different mechanic?

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Here's what I'm wondering: Why is Find Weakness even in the game' date=' aside from modelling Karnak from the Inhumans? We've got AP and Penetrating. Do we really need Find Weakness with a whole different mechanic?[/quote']

I think it's a form of equalizer for characters who want low-damage attacks but to be super-specialized at reducing defenses only after some study - basic Batman. As stated above, I don't disagree it could be done with existnig mechanics, but it does require a tweak for the cumulative degradation since AP does not stack, or an Adjustment power approach (only applicable for the attacking character).

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Well, it was a mostly rhetorical question. The fact that it has a cumulative effect is indeed what makes it unique. It also seems to be a big bone of contention in the thread. If a cumulative effect is potentially unbalancing, then you should disallow the power in your game.

 

Besides, how many special effects does Find Weakness really emulate?

 

A lot of folks use FW for their martial artist type character. Ok, you roll find weakness! You find a weak spot! Do you:

 

a) Quickly strike at the opening, dealing a devastating blow or

 

Study it some more, hoping to find an even weaker spot.

 

Really, in most comics or action genre stuff where people have a find weakness type of skill, you will usually find option a. For martial arts applicatons, the power defies logic.

 

Now, if you have the power to study something, finding ever increasing weaknesses, then you could justify a find weakness on a cumulative level. However, I can't personally think of any examples. Even Karnak, who has it as a kind of perception power doesn't seem to use this applicaton.

 

Perhaps a nice middle ground would be to allow only one extra halving of defenses?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

....

Perhaps a nice middle ground would be to allow only one extra halving of defenses?

 

I agree.

 

A -8 OCV targeted shot to the Head already does this since doubling the damage is functionally equivalent to halving the defense.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Well, it was a mostly rhetorical question. The fact that it has a cumulative effect is indeed what makes it unique. It also seems to be a big bone of contention in the thread. If a cumulative effect is potentially unbalancing, then you should disallow the power in your game.

 

Besides, how many special effects does Find Weakness really emulate?

 

A lot of folks use FW for their martial artist type character. Ok, you roll find weakness! You find a weak spot! Do you:

 

a) Quickly strike at the opening, dealing a devastating blow or

 

Study it some more, hoping to find an even weaker spot.

 

Really, in most comics or action genre stuff where people have a find weakness type of skill, you will usually find option a. For martial arts applicatons, the power defies logic.

 

Now, if you have the power to study something, finding ever increasing weaknesses, then you could justify a find weakness on a cumulative level. However, I can't personally think of any examples. Even Karnak, who has it as a kind of perception power doesn't seem to use this applicaton.

 

Perhaps a nice middle ground would be to allow only one extra halving of defenses?

I think Sean's construct works fine, I would just raise or remove the cap. I think the notion (regardless of execution) of FW makes perfect sense for many heroes, whether MA or not.

 

But as to any of the bones of contention, in terms of balance I don't think anyone's demonstrated that non-abused FW is a problem, even if taking someone to 1/64th defenses. The problem is primarily in its mixture, in terms of balance, setting aside orphan mechanic and consistency arguments.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Point of note: each use of FW is a diminishing return as the 'added damage' you get through (due to halving of defences) also halves each time.

 

The effect on stun, however, will be 'instantaneous' as most attacks are already getting some STUN through. the effect on BODY is delayed because most attacks aren't.

 

I think that it may well be the BODY damage that is the most unbalancing effect of Find Weakness' multiple cumulative halvings.

[Robyn]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

doubling the damage is functionally equivalent to halving the defense.

 

Even though I haven't read the combat chapter, I still can't imagine any way this could work that would function as you describe.

 

For example: 20 damage, 8 defenses. 12 damage gets through. Double the damage (40) and 32 damage gets through. Halve the defenses (4) and 16 damage gets through.

 

Double the damage after defenses (12) and 24 gets through (more than was dealt in the first place, which makes this a pretty neat trick if you can pull it off ).

[schir1964]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Even though I haven't read the combat chapter' date=' I still can't imagine [i']any[/i] way this could work that would function as you describe.

 

For example: 20 damage, 8 defenses. 12 damage gets through. Double the damage (40) and 32 damage gets through. Halve the defenses (4) and 16 damage gets through.

 

Double the damage after defenses (12) and 24 gets through (more than was dealt in the first place, which makes this a pretty neat trick if you can pull it off ).

Perhaps I can clarify as it were. Not sure this is what Hyper-Man was getting at but...

 

If one is using the Hit Locations, this usually means it is a Heroic game.

In Heroic games defenses are usually Armor that is purchased as equipment or possibly the power with the "Real Object" limitation on it.

This lends itself to the partial coverage rules for defenses.

 

Therefore, unless the character being attacked specifically had on a Helmet or other type of Head Armor, a Hit Location roll to the Head bypasses most external defenses.

 

The character only gets to use his normal innate defenses vs the increased damage attack.

 

But this is only one interpretation on how to run a Heroic game. I've never ran one, but this is what I understand from reading other posts.

 

- Christopehr Mullins

[Fearghus]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I was looking at Find Weakness, and it occurs to me odd that it costs the same whether the character with it is hitting for 4 DC's or 14. Since in many ways it is similar to an Advantage on a specific attack, wouldn't it make more sense for FW to use a sliding scale so it gets more expensive as the size of the attack increases? Perhaps a base cost of 1 Point for every Damage Class of the attack(s) it can be used with?

 

Face it, a brick hitting for 15d6 is going to get a lot more mileage out of Find Weakness on his Punch than an MA with Find Weakness on his 8d6 Martial Strike even though both paid the same amount for the Power.

 

I think of find weakness like I think about flash... It seems broken only because nobody ever takes lack of weakness. Just like Flash defense. The protection from the power costs less than the power does. It's just not a defense that every character starts with, but that defense is cheap to buy.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

As I had mentioned before. I don't consider anything, but what is in the rulebook as required. Hell, even that is not required if you so choose. FAQ's are cool, and really help a GM in determining how to handle things, but I have seen FAQ's give divergent answers in two different examples at times.

 

It is not like the gaem designers have all possible situations handled already, and just didn't put them in the book. So a lot of the time, when a FAQ handles a situation not specifically outlined in the rulebook, it is the designer reading the situation and telling others how they would handle it. This is why sometimes the answer would vary depending on the specific situation, when the designer is writing the FAQ, and which designer is handling that particular situation at the time.

 

I know technically they are "official" rulings, though that doesn't mean you have to handle them the same way if you have a reason not to choose so.

 

This will probably be an unpopular suggestion, cause I know everytime I have disagreed on something like this in the past the lemmings all roll out to dump on me.

 

It's a curious stance, I'll admit.

 

It makes me wonder at the logic of it all.

 

Isn't it a bit like going to a thread about Vista issues and telling everyone about how Windows 2k does it?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

...and just be clear, there is nothing wrong with lemmings

[Vestnik]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I'm not going to read through the whole thread, so perhaps this has already been suggested.

 

How about reimagining Find Weakness as a Naked Advantage? Armor-Piercing, Activation Roll, Cumulative? That way its cost will depend upon the power of the attack.

[Tech]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I think of find weakness like I think about flash... It seems broken only because nobody ever takes lack of weakness.

 

I'm really not sure why you think this because there are enough villains who take Lack of Weakness in CKC. I have villains and heroes that I've created who have Lack of Weakness. My brothers and friend's heroes and villains have Lack of Weakness here and there. I've seen character write-ups of characters on the forums where Lack of Weakness was bought. I don't understand this point of view.