Is Find Weakness mispriced?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Or you could just partly or completely relax her limitation on her HA power' date=' for minimal if any XP expenditure. Anyway, the choice is yours, of course.[/quote']True enough, although her doing 10d6 AP along with her high SPD would violate our campaign's current self-imposed guidelines (SPD + DC <= 20) for damage. But it wouldn't cost any XP at all to drop that Limitation; the -¼ doesn't provide any actual savings in cost. That would be the smarter way to do it if it didn't make her too powerful in combat.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Treb, why not just limit your Find Weakness to one or two successful rolls per target? That caps the defense reduction that can be achieved, and shaves a few points off the cost.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Find weakness is not mispriced, it is misplaced: it should not be in the system at all.

 

It is functionally very different from RSR AP as it can stack with itself, and it does not scale, as has already been pointed out.

 

It is OK in certain games at certain effect levels for certain builds but it is not a toolkit item IMO as it has such narrow applicability.

 

Replacing it with a naked RSR AP has much to recommend it, even though I'm not really that keen on naked advantages.

 

You could even introduce a more expensive version of AP that DID stack with itself in some circumstances.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Find weakness is not mispriced, it is misplaced: it should not be in the system at all.

 

It is functionally very different from RSR AP as it can stack with itself, and it does not scale, as has already been pointed out.

 

It is OK in certain games at certain effect levels for certain builds but it is not a toolkit item IMO as it has such narrow applicability.

 

Replacing it with a naked RSR AP has much to recommend it, even though I'm not really that keen on naked advantages.

 

You could even introduce a more expensive version of AP that DID stack with itself in some circumstances.

So how would you build it so that you apply the RSR only once, potentially well prior to the attack, and make the AP cumulative for each successful RSR?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

So how would you build it so that you apply the RSR only once' date=' potentially well prior to the attack, and make the AP cumulative for each successful RSR?[/quote']

 

It does not matter mathematically whether you apply an RSR for each attack or each opponent or each combat, and functionally the latter approach probably makes more sense. There is some advantage in the increased predictability but that is sort of built into FiWe anyway.

 

8d6 EB 40 points

AP on that 20 points limited by RSR (-1/2) cost = 13 points

 

Total cost = 53 points

 

Now you cannot apply AP more than once so you need a custom advantage (or some complicated extra damage build), so I'd suggest that we just increase the cost of AP to +3/4 or +1, or even buy it multiple times, and I'd do it with acticvation rolls rather than RSR to avoid the point scaling problem.

 

I'm going with multiple buys (and the associated assumption this allows AP stacking)

 

AP on 8d6 Eb = 20 points

14- activation cost -1/2 and extra time (1/2 phase) -1/4 = 11 points

PLUS

AP on 8d6 EB = 20 points

12- activation (-3/4) extra time -1/4 and can only apply if 1st roll succeeds -1/2 = 8 points

 

....and so on. This example costs 40+11+8 = 59 points and allows you to quarter your opponent's defences which would take two half phases and two activation rolls, at 14- and 12-. Not quite FiWe but not far off and a much more logical structure that scales to the attack.

 

An equivalent FiWe would cost 25 points for the basic power at 14- and maybe -1/4 (can't more than quarter opponent's defences), for 20 points.

 

FiWe also has this bizarre mechanical tie-in as it has to be 'aimed' at certain defence types - normal/resistant/exotic, which I figure balances out the fact I forgot to factor in 'no END' and can't be bothered to go back and do it.

 

This costs well as you decide the maximum level of effect when buying the power and each level gets cheaper (although you are not constrained to making the activation roll harder).

 

The other approach is that you buy defence drain or supress that only works for you. Someone else can cost that.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

A better mechanic might be to buy extra DC with the attack (EB, HA or KA) with the limitation: Only to Reduce Defenses (-1). You could add RSR to these extra dice to determine how many are applied.

 

Example:

 

EB 8d6 (40 Active/Real)

plus

EB 8d6 (40 Active), Only to Reduce Defenses (-1), RSR: +2 DC per point the roll is made by (-1/2) (16 Real)

(Total 80 Active, 56 Real)

 

To use, determine if target has Hardened Defenses or not. If they don't make the RSR to determine how many bonus dice to roll (8d6 max). Roll this damage seperately vs. the Defenses and discard any extra. Then roll the normal Damage and apply vs. the lowered (possibly to 0) remaining Defenses.

 

I would never use such a construct since it is still tied to specific attacks . I would recommend using CSL's vs. Hit locations instead.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

A better mechanic might be to buy extra DC with the attack (EB, HA or KA) with the limitation: Only to Reduce Defenses (-1). You could add RSR to these extra dice to determine how many are applied.

 

Example:

 

EB 8d6 (40 Active/Real)

plus

EB 8d6 (40 Active), Only to Reduce Defenses (-1), RSR: +2 DC per point the roll is made by (-1/2) (16 Real)

(Total 80 Active, 56 Real)

 

To use, determine if target has Hardened Defenses or not. If they don't make the RSR to determine how many bonus dice to roll (8d6 max). Roll this damage seperately vs. the Defenses and discard any extra. Then roll the normal Damage and apply vs. the lowered (possibly to 0) remaining Defenses.

 

I would never use such a construct since it is still tied to specific attacks . I would recommend using CSL's vs. Hit locations instead.

 

 

I don't know about better but it certainly another way of doing it, although you may run into AP limits here (as you may well on some other builds including at least one of my suggestions) and the effect is rather different from FiWe, potentially removing all of the oppoennt;s defence in effect on a single roll. Also I don't think 'only to reduce defences' is worth much at all as it will, in effect, be applied first and so the bulk of the attack will be against defences in any event.

 

 

Also I'd be inclined to run with activation rolls rather than RSR as RSR is a harder roll for a bigger attack which doesn't make much sense here: you are either firing at a weak point or you are not.

 

How about:

 

8d6 EB (40 points)

+2d6 EB 14- (7 points)

+2d6 EB 11- (5 points)

 

60 active, 52 real, which at least has the advantage of being simple to build and administer and has much the same effect as find weakness would?

 

Against campaign average defences of, say, 20 points, the base attack gets 8 points through and then 15 or 22 if the other bits activate.

 

FiWe on an 8d6 attack would get 8 points through base, 18 through on one reduction and 23 on two. Close enough for government work.

 

(against DEF 30 we have 0/5/12 for the above build and 0/13/20 for FiWe - it is definitely very much more effective agaisnt higher defences)

 

The advantage of an 'advantaged attack' is that you get a good idea of the overall power: FiWe kinda adds to the power of attacks without being reflected in the AP total.

[Frenchman]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I haven't seen anywhere the point that Find Weakness can only affect one 'set' of defenses per roll - it doesn't affect all of the targets PD, only the PD they bought under a particular power build.

Find Weakness also doesn't work against non-visible defenses, such as Armor (the power) and PD (the characteristic)

This reduces its efficacy enough that even with hit locations, our group rarely saw any problems with it.

One thing we did try out (in response to a sniper-type character's behavior) was to roll Hit Location for the weakness - so the Find Weakness roll was made in conjunction with a 3d6 hit location roll, and that location is the area where the weakness was, which could then be halved repeatedly. If they didn't like where they found a weakness, they could try again, or make a called shot with Find Weakness. FrEx, if he wanted to find a weakness in a specific location (the head, usually) he took a -8 to the Find Weakness roll.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

It does not matter mathematically whether you apply an RSR for each attack or each opponent or each combat, and functionally the latter approach probably makes more sense. There is some advantage in the increased predictability but that is sort of built into FiWe anyway.

 

8d6 EB 40 points

AP on that 20 points limited by RSR (-1/2) cost = 13 points

 

Total cost = 53 points

 

Now you cannot apply AP more than once so you need a custom advantage (or some complicated extra damage build), so I'd suggest that we just increase the cost of AP to +3/4 or +1, or even buy it multiple times, and I'd do it with acticvation rolls rather than RSR to avoid the point scaling problem.

 

I'm going with multiple buys (and the associated assumption this allows AP stacking)

 

AP on 8d6 Eb = 20 points

14- activation cost -1/2 and extra time (1/2 phase) -1/4 = 11 points

PLUS

AP on 8d6 EB = 20 points

12- activation (-3/4) extra time -1/4 and can only apply if 1st roll succeeds -1/2 = 8 points

 

....and so on. This example costs 40+11+8 = 59 points and allows you to quarter your opponent's defences which would take two half phases and two activation rolls, at 14- and 12-. Not quite FiWe but not far off and a much more logical structure that scales to the attack.

 

An equivalent FiWe would cost 25 points for the basic power at 14- and maybe -1/4 (can't more than quarter opponent's defences), for 20 points.

 

FiWe also has this bizarre mechanical tie-in as it has to be 'aimed' at certain defence types - normal/resistant/exotic, which I figure balances out the fact I forgot to factor in 'no END' and can't be bothered to go back and do it.

 

This costs well as you decide the maximum level of effect when buying the power and each level gets cheaper (although you are not constrained to making the activation roll harder).

 

The other approach is that you buy defence drain or supress that only works for you. Someone else can cost that.

I guess what I don't see is why jump through hoops when FW well articulates the fictional source material already?

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I haven't seen anywhere the point that Find Weakness can only affect one 'set' of defenses per roll - it doesn't affect all of the targets PD, only the PD they bought under a particular power build.

Find Weakness also doesn't work against non-visible defenses, such as Armor (the power) and PD (the characteristic)

This reduces its efficacy enough that even with hit locations, our group rarely saw any problems with it.

One thing we did try out (in response to a sniper-type character's behavior) was to roll Hit Location for the weakness - so the Find Weakness roll was made in conjunction with a 3d6 hit location roll, and that location is the area where the weakness was, which could then be halved repeatedly. If they didn't like where they found a weakness, they could try again, or make a called shot with Find Weakness. FrEx, if he wanted to find a weakness in a specific location (the head, usually) he took a -8 to the Find Weakness roll.

True, and I have found that even running it more liberally (which I have), the trade-off of having to perform the separate action creates a solid enough issue that I see only specific character concepts embracing it. At least in my games.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I haven't seen anywhere the point that Find Weakness can only affect one 'set' of defenses per roll - it doesn't affect all of the targets PD, only the PD they bought under a particular power build.

Find Weakness also doesn't work against non-visible defenses, such as Armor (the power) and PD (the characteristic)

This reduces its efficacy enough that even with hit locations, our group rarely saw any problems with it.

Since when doesn't Find Weakness affect Armor or PD? Those seem to be its most probable defenses for halving, especially for a martial artist. If it can't halve either of those, it's nearly worthless.

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

5ER, p.174: Find Weakness can target Normal Defenses (PD or ED, including Damage Resistance).

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

5ER' date=' p.174: Find Weakness can target Normal Defenses (PD or ED, including Damage Resistance).[/quote']Then it should obviously be able to target Armor as well; since Armor is also a "normal" Resistant defense.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Orphan Mechanic. Trying to shoehorn it into the rest of the system would probably involve monstrosities like the below, which still involves some handwaving and ends up being pretty expensive.

 

"Find Weakness" : AP on 60 active point attack (30pts) AVLD +1 1/2(ignores hardening, works vs. LoW instead, includes multiple effect mechanic), O END +1/2, Extra Time (half-phase to "activate", maintains bonus without extra time thereafter) -0, Requires Skill Roll w/no active point penalty & subject to skill vs skill (vs. LoW "contest"), skill roll takes range modifiers{+ -1/4} -1/2, lose benefit between encounters, must start over -1/2

+2 in Advantages, -1 in limits

 

30 active points of Armor Piercing bought this way would run 45pts, not counting the cost of the skill. On a 6d6 attack would cost 22pts plus cost of the skill.

 

Of course, to an extent AP itself goes against the general grain of HERO, and a more uniform attack/defense system would probably go with a version of Piercing and Piercing Defense instead.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Then it should obviously be able to target Armor as well; since Armor is also a "normal" Resistant defense.

 

Find Weakness uses the words "normal" and "resistant" in a way totally different than every other rule in HERO.

 

For more details please see this post from my 2004 thread on a similar subject:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=378819&postcount=104

If you have a copy of Conquerors, Killers and Crooks you will notice that Durak has 30Pd/30Ed with Full Damage Resistance with hardened bought on the normal defenses as well as the Damage Resistance itself. He also has 5 points in Lack of Weakness for Normal Defenses.

 

Durak can safely handle something like a 3d6 RKA with x2 Armor Piercing without taking more than 3 points of BODY max. (Unless possible Hit Location or Critical Hit modifiers are used to double the initial damage before defenses.)

 

But, since he doesn't have Armor or a Force Field he does not need Resistant Lack of Weakness according to the rules as written. A Find Weakness attempt against Resistant defenses strangely does not apply to him in this case!

 

Seeing that made it click for me.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Find Weakness uses the words "normal" and "resistant" in a way totally different than every other rule in HERO.

 

For more details please see this post from my 2004 thread on a similar subject:

 

If you have a copy of Conquerors, Killers and Crooks you will notice that Durak has 30Pd/30Ed with Full Damage Resistance with hardened bought on the normal defenses as well as the Damage Resistance itself. He also has 5 points in Lack of Weakness for Normal Defenses.

 

Durak can safely handle something like a 3d6 RKA with x2 Armor Piercing without taking more than 3 points of BODY max. (Unless possible Hit Location or Critical Hit modifiers are used to double the initial damage before defenses.)

 

But, since he doesn't have Armor or a Force Field he does not need Resistant Lack of Weakness according to the rules as written. A Find Weakness attempt against Resistant defenses strangely does not apply to him in this case!

 

Seeing that made it click for me.

That all assumes two things:

 

1) "Official" characters are good exemplars of the rules as written. This has been demonstrably proven false many times on these boards. It's assuming a lot to make the entire interpretation of what Find Weakness affects based off a single character build.

 

2) That the intention was to make Durak invulnerable. I put it to you that it might just as well have been to leave him with some minor flaw to his defenses a character with the right build might exploit.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I guess what I don't see is why jump through hoops when FW well articulates the fictional source material already?

 

Well I'm not sure it does (that guy from The Inhumans, maybe. Maybe not.) and 10 points for a 62% chance of halving your opponent's defences as a half phase non-atatck action is a bargain. Doesn't scale: 2d6 EB and 20d6EB get the same benefit at the same low low price. Really awkward and frankly illogical mechanics: I challenge you to make them make sense.

 

OK, specific challenge:

 

Character A has tough skin, built as (visible) armour, character B has tough skin built as pd and (visible) damage resistance. Character C has tough skin built as increased PD and a force field. In each case the sfx are identical. Thick, grey knobbly skin plates all over the outside of the character.

 

Explain what twisted logic means that Find Weakness affects each one differently.

 

Just not a good idea.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I haven't seen anywhere the point that Find Weakness can only affect one 'set' of defenses per roll - it doesn't affect all of the targets PD, only the PD they bought under a particular power build.

Find Weakness also doesn't work against non-visible defenses, such as Armor (the power) and PD (the characteristic)

This reduces its efficacy enough that even with hit locations, our group rarely saw any problems with it.

One thing we did try out (in response to a sniper-type character's behavior) was to roll Hit Location for the weakness - so the Find Weakness roll was made in conjunction with a 3d6 hit location roll, and that location is the area where the weakness was, which could then be halved repeatedly. If they didn't like where they found a weakness, they could try again, or make a called shot with Find Weakness. FrEx, if he wanted to find a weakness in a specific location (the head, usually) he took a -8 to the Find Weakness roll.

 

 

FiWe has to be targetted at normal or resistant (or exotic) defences, and you have to pick which ones it effects when you make the roll (although, stupidly, resistant defecnes built with a particular power count as normal), so if your target has extra PD that looks like a force field, you are going to be confused.

 

Also I believe one of the problems witht he 'logic' of FiWe is that it does effect even 'invisible' defences, like armour and pd (the power specifically notes that it works against both) even if the character witht he power shouldn't be able to detect that there si a power there at all (oor only detect it by results).

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Then it should obviously be able to target Armor as well; since Armor is also a "normal" Resistant defense.

It can; the next sentence notes that Find Weakness can target Resistant defenses such as Armor or Force Field.

 

Sorry, I should have put that in the original post. I was agreeing with you on both counts.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

That all assumes two things:

 

1) "Official" characters are good exemplars of the rules as written. This has been demonstrably proven false many times on these boards. It's assuming a lot to make the entire interpretation of what Find Weakness affects based off a single character build.

 

2) That the intention was to make Durak invulnerable. I put it to you that it might just as well have been to leave him with some minor flaw to his defenses a character with the right build might exploit.

 

This is not an isolated example. Steve was asked to clarify in the rules thread and the copied details are here: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=379040&postcount=106

 

Take a look at Steve's earlier answer to a question from Zanthas:

 

Zanthas asked:

I successfully use Find Weakness targeting resistant defenses against a target with 4 PD (characteristic) and Armor: 10rPD and no other defenses.

 

1. His defenses become 4 PD and 5rPD, correct?
   
   
2. If my Find Weakness is with one attack only, that attack being a single non-killing attack such as Martial Strike, was it legal to target resistant defenses?
   
   
3. Assuming #1 & #2 are yes, then if I attack with my Martial Strike, I'm going up against 9 defense (4PD+5rPD)?
   
   
4. If I had targeted normal defenses instead, the target would have 2 PD and 10rPD against my attack, correct?
   
   
5. If #4 is yes, then in that situation my Martial Strike would be going up against 12 defense (2PD+10rPD) correct?

Steve answered:

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes.

Based on this if we switched Armor (or Force Field for that matter) from the original example question to an equivalent level of defense by use of Damage Resistance for the exact same expenditure of points we should be able to ask Steve the following:

 

If I successfully use Find Weakness targeting resistant defenses against a target with 14 PD (characteristic) and Damage Resistance 10 rPD (5 active points) and no other defenses *.

* For clarification, before Find Weakness, if attacked with a punch the target character normaly defends with 14PD, if attacked by a HKA he defends with 10rPD.

 

1. His defenses do not change! they are still 14 PD of which 10 points are resistant due to Damage Resistance?
   
2. It is still legal to target resistant defenses with Find Weakness but now this character does not have any according to the Find Weakness rules?
   
3. If I attack with a Martial Strike I am going up against 14 PD (10 of which just happens to be resistant via Damage Resistance to killing attacks)?
   
4. If I had targeted normal defenses instead, the target would now have 7 PD or 5 rPD against my attack, correct?
   
5. If #4 is yes, then in that situation my Martial Strike would be going up against 7 defense. A HKA would be going up against 5 defense?

and get the following answers:

(hypotheticaly of course, as I have no interest in asking Steve this questions )

1. yes
   
2. yes
   
3. yes
   
4. yes
   
5. yes

[pinecone]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Yes, at least thats how I do it anyway...

 

It does create a weirdness that either Find weak man can "cosmicly" sense what type of defences you have...or it becomes a odd sort of "go fish" power.

 

Lack of w is if anything too cheap, so the force you to buy it in "flavors" too bring the cost up. And for a dude who has inpentrable skin (Lack of W on PD) but wears less than perfect body armor on top.....

 

Maybe one way for a normal supers game to eliminate it would to create a custom power...."Uses hit chart" for say 10 to 15 points. Then Batmanclone-guy can just buy targeting levels as desired.....

 

I will disclose that one of my favotite chars has Find weak as his main power, so I likey Find weaky, even though I complain about it as much as anyone...

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Well I'm not sure it does (that guy from The Inhumans, maybe. Maybe not.) and 10 points for a 62% chance of halving your opponent's defences as a half phase non-atatck action is a bargain. Doesn't scale: 2d6 EB and 20d6EB get the same benefit at the same low low price. Really awkward and frankly illogical mechanics: I challenge you to make them make sense.

 

OK, specific challenge:

 

Character A has tough skin, built as (visible) armour, character B has tough skin built as pd and (visible) damage resistance. Character C has tough skin built as increased PD and a force field. In each case the sfx are identical. Thick, grey knobbly skin plates all over the outside of the character.

 

Explain what twisted logic means that Find Weakness affects each one differently.

 

Just not a good idea.

This comes back to the point someone made earlier - where are the in-play problems? Have we forbidden these builds altogether or where they have occurred do they work? I have not seen people generally get FW without a reason and not seen it wreck play. To your point, for that 62% chance you could also buy other mechanics that require no time, and many people find time precious enough they don't buy this. I grant a scalability problem but then you fix that on the end of the scale - like Damage Reduction. The so-called scalability problem is a general HERO one, not a problem with FW per se.

 

PS - I don't make FW work differently against those, anyway.

 

PPS - sorry, was rushing - FW makes sense as the uncanny ability to suddenly find a weakness in your opponent, or, as BNakagawa put it, "Create Weakness." It's how Batman wins, basically.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Personally I always assumed Batman won by extensive research and planning, enabled by his iron will and OCD

 

The point is that the rules as writ don't make sense - even the advocates change them - it MIGHT make some more sense if they worked against sfx, but not much more, and generally I don't allow it at all, I have the player buy ArPi with or without limitations.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Personally I always assumed Batman won by extensive research and planning, enabled by his iron will and OCD

 

The point is that the rules as writ don't make sense - even the advocates change them - it MIGHT make some more sense if they worked against sfx, but not much more, and generally I don't allow it at all, I have the player buy ArPi with or without limitations.

Shrug, I still come back to a lack of any reported play problems. For those who have proactively stopped it, it clearly doesn't fit something for them, but otherwise as Lucius wrote there doesn't seem to be a purported actual break ni play.

 

As to SFX, I don't see what it's got to do with that. It's finding or creating a weakness in your opponent.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Shrug, I still come back to a lack of any reported play problems. For those who have proactively stopped it, it clearly doesn't fit something for them, but otherwise as Lucius wrote there doesn't seem to be a purported actual break ni play.

 

As to SFX, I don't see what it's got to do with that. It's finding or creating a weakness in your opponent.

 

In every supers level game it was allowed, it ended up being a game-breaker.

 

There are far too many ways to exploit it. Far too many.

 

Either by itself or in combination, it always ended up forcing the GM to fudge like crazy to keep the game interesting. Better IMO to just not allow it in the first place.