Is Find Weakness mispriced?

[BNakagawa]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

There is nothing to stop someone doing a FW AND a dodge in a single phase. Slows down the accumulation but at the advantage of a substantial DCV bonus

 

The problem I have with FW though is that it is a seperate and dead end branch of Hero evolution.

 

What did you make of the +1/2 per halving for AP idea?

 

I also dislike FW for being an orphan mechanic.

-----

The +1/2 for each halving of defenses is essentially a modifier for increasing damage (albeit one with diminishing returns) which makes it vulnerable to advantage stacking.

 

Sure, for most commonly encountered defenses, it will be outperformed by raw damage.

 

On the other hand, you can easily stack this with stuff like area effect 1 hex, explosion, autofire etc.

 

Therefore, I give it a thumbs down on general principle.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Sean' date=' I believe I agree on all counts to the last couple posts.[/quote']

 

We can't go around agreeing about things, zornwil: one of us will have to change their mind - heads or tails?

 

For Hugh:

 

An alternative approach would be to reduce defences directly. We could base the cost on the supress mechanic: 5 points per 1d6, or 10 points for a 3 point reduction in normal defence or a 2 point reduction in resistant defence (bearing in mind the 'half effect on defences' rule).

 

Let us build it as a talent.

 

So for each 10 points dedicated to finding weakness you can reduce your opponent's defence - for that attack - by 2 or 3 points. In addition, we would need to make it 0 END, so 15 points per 3 points (let us ignore the resistant thing) and assume 15 points = 3 points or 2 points, or (taking an average) 30 points = a 5 point reduction.

 

As it is based on supress you can use it multiple times and it stacks.

 

However supress is an attack action in itself and adjustment powers usually take effect last in a phase, after any linked attack. We can wave that away, trading off against the fact that the activation roll (see below) gets worse with each iteration..

 

The adjustment would only apply to one or more attacks by the specific individual: -1 for 'one attack', -1/2 for 'group' and -0 for 'all'.

 

In addition you need an extra time mechanic (1/2 phase) -1/2, and an activation roll: say 14- (-1/2) and 'roll made worse by lack of weakness power (-1/2).

 

We can also have 'sense linked' for -1/2 - you have to define a sense (normal or enhanced) that this talent works through, and if that sense is not working then neither is the FW

 

So for a single power to have FW would cost 30 points for -5 defence

-1 one attack

-1/2 14-

-1/2 for 'roll made worse by LOW'

-1/2 for extra time

-1/2 'sense linked'

-1/2 can't try again on a failure

 

Total cost = 30/4.5=7 points

 

SO, for 7 points and a half phase and an activation roll you can reduce your opponents defences against ONE of your attacks by 5 points. You can do that as many times as you like, but the activation roll suffers a penalty of -2 each time you do it.

 

To do this for a group of attacks costs 8 points per -5 and for all your attacks it is 9 points per -5. I'm not bothered about the small difference - generally it will apply to the most effective attack anyway. Now this does not take into consideration things like advantages on defences, which would make them generally harder to supress, so we will up the cost a bit:

 

10 points to effectively reduce your opponent's defence by 5 points for one attack on 14- with half phase sense based non-attack action.

 

12 points for a group of attacks

 

14 points for all attacks.

 

You can buy up to three levels of find weakness. Find weakness always removes normal defences before resistant ones. You should consider the cost of the power when looking at the AP effectiveness of your attack powers.

 

EG in a 60 AP attack game a 8d6 EB with 2 levels of find weakness is approximately equivalent to a 12d6 EB.

 

EG against 24 point defences:

 

12d6 EB: 42-24 = 18 stun through

8d6 EB with 2 levels of FW (1st roll made) = 28-14 = 14 stun through

8d6 EB with 2 levels of FW (2nd roll made) = 28-4 = 24 stun and 8 body through. Nasty.

8d6 EB with 2 levels of FW (3rd roll made) = 28- 0 = 28 stun and 12 body through. Fatal.

 

What do we think?

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Arguably therefore even the advocates are not using FW, just something very like it.

 

I'm just saying

 

I'm sorry... What was asked for was a SFX for the power that would make sense for the rules. This is what I have provided. I did not provide the write-ups for the power, because as you have mentioned the Di Mok version would not work against certain enemies. (rigid armor, FF, comepletely alien physiology) The write up for the power would reflect this, as an appropriate limitation. (IE Does not work against rigid armor, FF, completely alien physiology: -1)

 

Every power and SFX concept, will have some areas, where they will not completely fit logically. It is a simulation of reality, not reality itself or we would not be playing a game based on super heroics.

 

And as to your conclusion, no the advocates DO use FW as written. But as most if not all powers with a stop sign or magnifying glass, you need to watch them closely. I do not clear all uses of it, but the uses of it I do clear, are all used by the book.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I'm sorry... What was asked for was a SFX for the power that would make sense for the rules. This is what I have provided. I did not provide the write-ups for the power, because as you have mentioned the Di Mok version would not work against certain enemies. (rigid armor, FF, comepletely alien physiology) The write up for the power would reflect this, as an appropriate limitation. (IE Does not work against rigid armor, FF, completely alien physiology: -1)

 

Every power and SFX concept, will have some areas, where they will not completely fit logically. It is a simulation of reality, not reality itself or we would not be playing a game based on super heroics.

 

And as to your conclusion, no the advocates DO use FW as written. But as most if not all powers with a stop sign or magnifying glass, you need to watch them closely. I do not clear all uses of it, but the uses of it I do clear, are all used by the book.

 

 

OK, big gun: how do your targetting laser and dimmok sfx explain the differentiation between normal and resistant defences, and their having to be targetted seperately?

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

 

1. Get rid of the normal/resistant distinction and have the power, as a base, halve all defences.

 

2. Remove the 'can't try again' mechanic and replace with 'can try again at one point up the time table OR allow the character when building the power to determine how often it 'resets': i.e. you could have it reset every turn or never (so some characters you fail against and can never effect again, some you always effect at a agiven level, if you pick 'never', OR you can always try again - losing bonuses too - after a set time)

 

3. Specifically mention in the write up that the cost of FW should be considered along with the cost of attack powers when looking at campaign AP limits.

 

1. I would agree with this, if there is such a rule in place currently. I do not remember it being included, but then I am an old school player going back to 2nd edition, so some of the things that have changed I do not recall.

 

2. The going up a time increment to try again, sounds as though it fits in with the standard mechanics, I would agree, but what I can't see is why you would argue for something like this when it would make even less sense than the current way from the stand point you are talking. "I tried and failed against this guy several times now so I can't try again for a month agaisnt him, and him alone. That is the other problem with this approach as well as the always work to a certain degree, or never works if failed against option. I agree those make the most sense, but it then becomes the type of power which requires a notebook to keep track of who you have succeeded against, and who you have failed against.

 

3. I do not think FW should be included with attack powers in figuring AP limits because its cost is not figured in the same way as other powers. But then, as I have mentioned I use a different way to figure standard power limits than AP, which works better than AP in my opinion.

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

So for each 10 points dedicated to finding weakness you can reduce your opponent's defence - for that attack - by 2 or 3 points. In addition, we would need to make it 0 END, so 15 points per 3 points (let us ignore the resistant thing) and assume 15 points = 3 points or 2 points, or (taking an average) 30 points = a 5 point reduction.

 

Don't take this as an agreement that FW needs to be fixed, because I am still unconvinced, though I do agree it is an orphaned mechanic, though you at times need those in all game systems. But you would have to include in the description, cannot reduce defense below 0, or you would end up having people claim the power is broken because it adds damage to your attack. And I am not quibling here. I have seen this arguement used before in other game systems (cough, D&D 3.5) when basic common sense wording was left out for a rule.

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Again, I have to check my rulebook again on the wording of something like that, but on instinct I would simply say, the targetting laser would have two seperate settings. One most likely to stun (or a tun setting) and one most likely to kill (or a lethal setting). The same could go for the Di Mok manuever. They target two seperate muscle groupings.

 

OK' date=' big gun: how do your targetting laser and dimmok sfx explain the differentiation between normal and resistant defences, and their having to be targetted seperately?[/quote']

[schir1964]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Let us build it as a talent.

Finally! The fun stuff is about to begin! (8^D)

 

The adjustment would only apply to one or more attacks by the specific individual: -1 for 'one attack'' date=' -1/2 for 'group' and -0 for 'all'.[/quote']

Actually, to use the more official/orthodox method for this:

 

Find Weakness (Suppress) success works in conjunction with a Single Attack by default.

2 Attacks +1/2

4 Attacks +1

8 Attacks +1 1/2

16 Attacks +2

 

This method is taken from the Adjustment Powers section for affecting multiple powers.

 

Just Trying To Help

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Again' date=' I have to check my rulebook again on the wording of something like that, but on instinct I would simply say, the targetting laser would have two seperate settings. One most likely to stun (or a tun setting) and one most likely to kill (or a lethal setting). The same could go for the Di Mok manuever. They target two seperate muscle groupings.[/quote']

I think what Sean was asking for was the rationale (SFXwise) for why the Laser that can find weaknesses in Tank Armor, but does absolutely nothing vs Human Skin.

 

What rationale would explain that or what SFX by description would work that way?

 

Just Trying To Clarify What I Think Is Being Asked (But Could Be Wrong)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

1. I would agree with this' date=' if there is such a rule in place currently. I do not remember it being included, but then I am an old school player going back to 2nd edition, so some of the things that have changed I do not recall. [/quote']

 

It does, unfortunately - a relatively recent innovation. It groups normal and damage resistance defences in one group and other resistant defences in a seperate one, which makes no real sense in game as pd+damage resistance can look and feel exactly the same as armour or even force field powers from an sfx pov - they are only distinguished mechanically. That bit definitely has to go.

 

2. The going up a time increment to try again' date=' sounds as though it fits in with the standard mechanics, I would agree, but what I can't see is why you would argue for something like this when it would make even less sense than the current way from the stand point you are talking. "I tried and failed against this guy several times now so I can't try again for a month agaisnt him, and him alone. That is the other problem with this approach as well as the always work to a certain degree, or never works if failed against option. I agree those make the most sense, but it then becomes the type of power which requires a notebook to keep track of who you have succeeded against, and who you have failed against.[/quote']

 

To be honest I had not anticipated it getting to that length of time but it kinda makes sense: maybe the weakness is just really hard to find ont hat particular individual. The way I had envisaged it working was that any significant gap reset the counter, so in practice you'd never get past the '1 turn' mark in any given combat, and it was just trying to create mechanics that were easily explicable and adapted. Mind you it might make sense if you could chose when you build the power which option you want to take.

 

3. I do not think FW should be included with attack powers in figuring AP limits because its cost is not figured in the same way as other powers. But then' date=' as I have mentioned I use a different way to figure standard power limits than AP, which works better than AP in my opinion.[/quote']

 

The thing i think we need to look at is some measure of the effectiveness of the (FW+ATTACK) gestalt: FW clearly makes the attack more effective and is of no use at all in isolation. I was not suggesting that we should treat (FW+ATTACK) active points as a cap necessarily, just that it was a consideration when considering whether to allow a power, or more importantly a synergystic whole. I think that the effects of synergy have been overlooked in Hero to a large extent with too much concentration on the unbalancing effects of individual powers: a superhero with 45 strength, or 26" of flight or 27 DEX, or 4x5 point combat levels might not raise eyebrows, but concentrate them all together in one character and you have someone who can do 18d6 movethroughs at an effective OCV of 8, which is plain nasty.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Finally! The fun stuff is about to begin! (8^D)

 

 

Actually, to use the more official/orthodox method for this:

 

Find Weakness (Suppress) success works in conjunction with a Single Attack by default.

2 Attacks +1/2

4 Attacks +1

8 Attacks +1 1/2

16 Attacks +2

 

This method is taken from the Adjustment Powers section for affecting multiple powers.

 

Just Trying To Help

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

 

Good point. That'll make it more expensive which might not be a bad thing, but then we need to address the 'only works for me' bit either as a limtiation or as the counterbalance for 'doesn't need an attack roll'.

 

Doesn't make a huge difference to the cost though, as there are already a lot of andvantages and limitations it there:

 

So for a single power to have FW would cost 30 points for -5 defence

 

-1/2 14-

-1/2 for 'roll made worse by LOW'

-1/2 for extra time

-1/2 'sense linked'

-1/2 can't try again on a failure

 

Total cost = 30/3.5=9 points

 

Two attacks would be 13 points, 4 would be 17 points and so on.

[schir1964]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Yes, but if you round off the initial cost of the ability to 10 Points for the base level and, then we get something really nice:

10 Points for 1 Attack

15 Points for 2 Attacks

20 Points for 4 Attacks

25 Points for 8 Attacks

30 Points for 16 Attacks

 

A lot can change based on when and where you decide to set your "base level" for the ability.

 

Just Some Thoughts

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Yes, but if you round off the initial cost of the ability to 10 Points for the base level and, then we get something really nice:

10 Points for 1 Attack

15 Points for 2 Attacks

20 Points for 4 Attacks

25 Points for 8 Attacks

30 Points for 16 Attacks

 

A lot can change based on when and where you decide to set your "base level" for the ability.

 

Just Some Thoughts

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

 

That looks much more acceptable

 

In fact, that would mean that for 1 attack 2 points = 1 point defence reduction, which may be a better way to buy it with the advantage for multiple attack types added on.

 

So...

 

Find Weakness (Talent)

 

2 character points to reduce a target's defences by 1 point on a successful activation roll of 14-

The reduction ONLY applies for the attack it is bought for. See below for the cost per level if additional attacks are required.

2 Points for 1 Attack

3 Points for 2 Attacks

4 Points for 4 Attacks

5 Points for 8 Attacks

6 Points for All Attacks

Subsequent further reductions can be made if a further activation roll (suffering -2 per attempt) is made

Each attempt takes a half phase action

If an attempt is failed it cannot be repeated against that target until the GM gives permission for a repeat attempt.

You cannot buy more than 10 points of defence reduction with this power without GM permission

Find weakness reduces both normal and resistant defences but reduces the normal defences first and cannot reduce any defence below 0.

[CraterMaker]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Boy that looks good - How about extrapolating on how it's related to senses and how to narrow the SFX Find Weakness II effects?

 

_CraterMaker

 

P.S. Thanks for doing the Heavy Lifting!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Boy that looks good - How about extrapolating on how it's related to senses and how to narrow the SFX Find Weakness II effects?

 

_CraterMaker

 

P.S. Thanks for doing the Heavy Lifting!

 

Doh! Forgot those bits - but they are figured into the cost. Thanks for reminding me.

 

Should have added:

 

The talent is sense linked and you must define a (usually targetting) sense that the talent works through. If you are denied the use of that sense you cannot use this talent.

The activation roll is reduced on a 1 for 1 point basis by the power 'Lack of Weakness'

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

So the whole thing now reads:

 

Find Weakness (Talent)

 

2 character points to reduce a target's defences by 1 point on a successful activation roll of 14-

The reduction ONLY applies for the attack it is bought for. See below for the cost per level if additional attacks are required.

2 Points for 1 Attack

3 Points for 2 Attacks

4 Points for 4 Attacks

5 Points for 8 Attacks

6 Points for All Attacks

Subsequent further reductions can be made if a further activation roll (suffering -2 per attempt) is made

Each attempt takes a half phase action

If an attempt is failed it cannot be repeated against that target until the GM gives permission for a repeat attempt.

You cannot buy more than 10 points of defence reduction with this power without GM permission

Find weakness reduces both normal and resistant defences but reduces the normal defences first and cannot reduce any defence below 0.

The talent is sense linked and you must define a (usually targetting) sense that the talent works through. If you are denied the use of that sense you cannot use this talent.

The activation roll is reduced on a 1 for 1 point basis by the power 'Lack of Weakness'

[schir1964]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Find Weakness (Talent/Half Phase Action)

Find Weakness allows the character to reduce target's defense for one attack with a successful activation roll. The player must specify what attack and targetting sense that Find Weakness will work with when it is purchased. Find Weakness only works for the character who has purchased it.

 

Guidelines

• The character must be able to perceive the defense in order to use Find Weakness.
  
• Each successful activation roll is culmulative.
  
• Each additional activation attempt suffers a culmulative -2 penalty.
  
• Once an activation roll fails no further attempts can be made. The GM then determines how much time or what circumstances a new attempt can be made with Find Weakness.
  
• The amount a defense can be reduced is limited to 10 Points Per Activation. GM permission is required to exceed that limit.
  
• Find Weakness affects both Normal and Resistant defenses by default. Normal defenses are reduced first and defences may not be reduced below zero.
  
• Find Weakness is half phase action.
  
• Each point of Lack Of Weakness reduces the Activation Roll of Find Weakness.

 

Cost

2 Points Per 1 Point Defense Reduction with 1 Attack (Activation Roll: 14-)

3 Points Per 1 Point Defense Reduction with 2 Attacks (Activation Roll: 14-)

4 Points Per 1 Point Defense Reduction with 4 Attacks (Activation Roll: 14-)

5 Points Per 1 Point Defense Reduction with 8 Attacks (Activation Roll: 14-)

6 Points Per 1 Point Defense Reduction with All Attacks (Activation Roll: 14-)

 

Anything need to be changed?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Looks like Piercing updated as a naked advantage with an activation roll.

[schir1964]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Looks like Piercing updated as a naked advantage with an activation roll.

I know its been described before, but exactly how does Piercing work again?

 

BTW: I don't have the supplement that has it.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Looks like Piercing updated as a naked advantage with an activation roll.

I was just thinking of Piercing, too. Maybe this could do both reasonably?

 

To schir1964, I can't recall where Piercing got resurrected but I have it somewhere, but not a great time to look. If nobody else comes up with it I can go back to it later.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I just did a quick scan through my old stuff and didn't find it yet.

 

It boils down to extra damage dice using standard effect and only to reduce defenses. I believe a certain amount of it was stopped by each level of hardened the on the defenses. It was convoluted to say the least.

 

Many of the superskill extra-damage effects in Dark Champions are an evolution of this idea. Since most deal with increasing the damage done by otherwise 'standard' bullets it seems reasonable to assume that the extra damage is due to increased accuracy of the shot.

 

As with Find Weakness, It's just an alternative to using the Hit Location rules.

[CraterMaker]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Find Weakness (Talent/Half Phase Action)

 

-----------------

[*]The amount a defense can be reduced is limited to 10 points. GM permission is required to exceed that limit

====================

 

Anything need to be changed?

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

I'd note in that sentance that a defense can be reduced by a maximum of ten points per roll... The way it reads makes it sound like 10 pts is the max effect of find weakness..

 

*very nice*

 

-CraterMaker

 

P.S. Oh, and a blurb needs to be put in mentioning that Find Weakness Defense Reduction only works for the character with FW unless appropriate advantages are put on it.. (!)

[schir1964]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I'd note in that sentance that a defense can be reduced by a maximum of ten points per roll... The way it reads makes it sound like 10 pts is the max effect of find weakness..

 

*very nice*

 

-CraterMaker

 

P.S. Oh, and a blurb needs to be put in mentioning that Find Weakness Defense Reduction only works for the character with FW unless appropriate advantages are put on it.. (!)

Done.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[BNakagawa]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I was just thinking of Piercing, too. Maybe this could do both reasonably?

 

To schir1964, I can't recall where Piercing got resurrected but I have it somewhere, but not a great time to look. If nobody else comes up with it I can go back to it later.

 

Around 150 posts ago I mused about piercing being deleted and find weakness being retained.

 

I think piercing showed up in Champions III.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I think piercing showed up in Champions III.

 

I scanned that one as well as 4th ed. Dark Champions. I'll dig further tonight.