Post "gotchas" here

[James Gillen]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

It counts as a gotcha because of the subjective interpretation of "Has the Means to Do so" You should at least have to overcome the character's resistant defense in order to just walk over to someone and kill them as a full phase action.

 

That's what I'd think. You could do it to someone whose only resistant defense is Combat Luck, or even an armored knight, if you can find an eyehole or something to stick a stiletto through. Against Ogre, less likely.

 

JG

[James Gillen]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I think this has not been covered yet:

Adding damage becomes a little more complicated if the attack has Advantages that directly affect how the victim takes damage. (See 6E2 98 for a suggested list of these Advantages.)

First, calculate the Damage Classes in the attack, using the rules on 6E2 96. The Damage Class Table on 6E2 97, make this an easy task in most cases, but you may have to do some quick calculating for heavily-Advantaged attacks and other unusual situations. (If possible, do this in advance so you don’t slow down the game.)

Second, add damage according to the rules below. You can use the accompanying Damage Class Quick-Reference Table to quickly determine how much damage a character does with an

Advantaged Normal Damage or Killing Damage attack. Add up the total Advantages, then find the appropriate column. Go down the column until you locate the attack’s dice of damage. Then count one step down the column for each +1 DC, and that tells you the final damage of the Advantaged attack plus added DCs.

 

So that, in the example on page 102 of 6E2, Spirit Dragon has a base 20 STR attack and bought a "Fiery Phoenix Fist Technique" that is HA +8d6 with the Armor Piercing and Penetrating Advantages, worth +3/4 Advantage total. When you add 20 STR to an attack with those Advantages you have to prorate the STR as though it had those Advantages, so on the page 101 table, that yields +2d6 for the STR (rounded down, since there is no '1/2 Damage Class').

 

This differs from Fifth in that 5ER did specifically say that you could add Extra DCs to an HA with Advantages at full DCs without prorating the DCs or even the STR, as long as your base STR at least equaled the un-Advantaged base HA. Thus, I could have a martial artist with a base 20 STR, +4d6 for an Offensive Strike, +4 Extra DCs, for a total of 12d6 on a Kung Fu Kick, THEN get a martial arts technique bought as HA +4d6 with Armor Piercing Advantage and have a total of 16d6 with AP (effectively DC 24) even if I only paid for the AP Advantage on the 4d6 HA. [5ER, pp. 407-408, specificially 'STR And Advantaged HAs']

 

At one point I had specifically asked Steve in the Q&As if that specific construction was legal in the 5ER rules, and he'd said essentially, "Yes, but that doesn't mean a GM would let you use it in his campaign."

 

JG

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

That's what I'd think. You could do it to someone whose only resistant defense is Combat Luck, or even an armored knight, if you can find an eyehole or something to stick a stiletto through. Against Ogre, less likely.

 

JG

Don't Ogre's have eyes too?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I more and more lean to the removal of HKA and renaming RKA simply "Killing Attack". If you don't want your killing attack to have Range, make it No Range. That's what you do with any other attack to remove its Range.

 

If you want it to be higher because you are strong, spend the points for a larger KA. That's what the guy with a 50 INT who wants to do more damage because he targets vital spots, or a guy with 35 DEX who wants to do more damage because he can attack with such great precision, does.

 

You could even put a Limitation on your KA, or your extra KA dice, that it Locks Out an equal amount of your STR. With no such limitation, it's quite all right to perform a Multiple Power Attack combining a Strike with your HKA and a Strike with your Strength, something I rarely see the guy with the claws consider.

 

And what about Blast and HA? Same? Are you saying you'd be in favor of removing all direct correlation between Str and damage in the system, and leave that entirely up to Limitations on Attack Powers (i.e. half of a HA power could be built with "must be matched with 5 Str per DC)?

[James Gillen]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Don't Ogre's have eyes too?

 

Depends on how much STR it takes to open his eyelid.

 

JG

[SteveZilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

So what do we do with a 60 STR character (perhaps a Gargoyle) who also wants Claws?

 

Sorry, you can't buy them because 1 DC gives you 4d6+1 which is way too efficient, and buying 4d6 gives you 8d6 which is way too much?

 

I dislike "rules changes" like eliminating the cap on damage addition, but not really because we'll suggest elsewhere that you add it back in again.

 

the same thing when a player of a 60 STR character also wants a (invent whatever SFX is needed) +12d6 HA?

 

I envision the GM saying something like "This is a 12 DC limit game, remember? While you can have the powers, for Game Balance reasons, you won't be able to do more than 12 DCs with those two combined."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

And what about Blast and HA? Same? Are you saying you'd be in favor of removing all direct correlation between Str and damage in the system' date=' and leave that entirely up to Limitations on Attack Powers (i.e. half of a HA power could be built with "must be matched with 5 Str per DC)?[/quote']

 

I would prefer to replace Hand Attack with Limited STR. This might be "+15 STR, no lifting -1/4" or "+15 STR, only for direct HTH damage, -1/2". This would also necessitate revisiting Martial DC's, since "Only for Martial Arts Attacks" should have a higher limitation than "No Lifting".

 

With the removal of figured characteristics, using limited STR (and limited other characteristics) rather than historical constructs like Hand Attack, many skill levels, lightning reflexes and Enhanced Perception seems much more viable. It's also a streamlining technique - we explain how the characteristic works in general, and set limitations for removing some of the functionality.

 

It also highlights costing issues. +1 to any one PRE-based skill roll costs 4 points, but +1 to all PRE-based rolls at once, and +1d6 PRE attack, and +5 PRE defense costs 5 points? That extra point seems to have a lot of utility. I doubt I would let someone buy +1d6 PRE attack OR +5 PRE defense for 1 point. Given that, why would I expect anyone to buy the skill level instead of the far more useful increase to the characteristic.

[The Main Man]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

It also highlights costing issues. +1 to any one PRE-based skill roll costs 4 points, but +1 to all PRE-based rolls at once, and +1d6 PRE attack, and +5 PRE defense costs 5 points? That extra point seems to have a lot of utility. I doubt I would let someone buy +1d6 PRE attack OR +5 PRE defense for 1 point. Given that, why would I expect anyone to buy the skill level instead of the far more useful increase to the characteristic.

 

Don't forget about Characteristic Maxima (at least in Heroic campaigns), and that Draining Skill Levels, while not illegal, are very unlikely.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I would prefer to replace Hand Attack with Limited STR. This might be "+15 STR, no lifting -1/4" or "+15 STR, only for direct HTH damage, -1/2". This would also necessitate revisiting Martial DC's, since "Only for Martial Arts Attacks" should have a higher limitation than "No Lifting".

 

With the removal of figured characteristics, using limited STR (and limited other characteristics) rather than historical constructs like Hand Attack, many skill levels, lightning reflexes and Enhanced Perception seems much more viable. It's also a streamlining technique - we explain how the characteristic works in general, and set limitations for removing some of the functionality.

 

It also highlights costing issues. +1 to any one PRE-based skill roll costs 4 points, but +1 to all PRE-based rolls at once, and +1d6 PRE attack, and +5 PRE defense costs 5 points? That extra point seems to have a lot of utility. I doubt I would let someone buy +1d6 PRE attack OR +5 PRE defense for 1 point. Given that, why would I expect anyone to buy the skill level instead of the far more useful increase to the characteristic.

 

Hmm. I do have to admit I've been thinking along those lines since starting through 6E. Especially with SLs and CSLs, which suddenly seem a bit to expensive and way to complicated to me (then again non-combat SLs can potentially be bought across Skills that do not share a Characteristic, or aren't even Characteristic-based...). I'm a little on the fence at the moment about HA. Does it fit better with straight Str, or with Blast, or do they all belong together?

[Nevenall]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I would prefer to replace Hand Attack with Limited STR. This might be "+15 STR, no lifting -1/4" or "+15 STR, only for direct HTH damage, -1/2". This would also necessitate revisiting Martial DC's, since "Only for Martial Arts Attacks" should have a higher limitation than "No Lifting".

 

 

But that's exactly what the Hand to Hand attack power is now. It's strength with a limitation to represent it's only for damage.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

But that's exactly what the Hand to Hand attack power is now. It's strength with a limitation to represent it's only for damage.

 

I'm pretty sure it is based on Blast, not STR, just as it has been in the past.

 

And shouldn't STR only for damage be cheaper than STR, no Lifting (which can also be used to Shove, break entangles and grabs, maintain grabs, etc.?). That implies more than a -1/4 limitation (6e level) such that "not for lifting" can be -1/4?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Maybe "not for lifting" is worth even less but -1/4 is as low as we go and Steve felt that -0 was too little...

 

 

EDIT: I thought in 5ER it specifically stated that it was Limited STR. Wasn't that listed as part of the reason that HA and STR together both counted as "Base Damage" for the whole "no more than Double 'base' Damage" in the mess of Damage Adding rules?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Well, in 6E Hand-to-Hand Attack does not state that it is limited Strength. It states that it adds to your damage from Str, and how much it costs.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I've never assumed Hand Attack is derived from Energy Blast/Blast.

 

Consider: No Range is a -1/2 Limitation. Hand Attack Limitation was moved to -1/4.

Hand Attack adds to Strength, Energy Blast/Blast does not (and would require an Advantage to do so!)

 

Given those two factors at the very least it seems obvious that Hand Attack is a Limited Strength and not even remotely close to a Limited Blast of some nature.

 

I can't find any reference to the idea that Hand Attack was ever based on Blast.

[James Gillen]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Don't forget about Characteristic Maxima (at least in Heroic campaigns)' date=' and that Draining Skill Levels, while not illegal, are very unlikely.[/quote']

 

 

You don't need to Drain Skill Levels when you can now Drain the CV stats directly.

 

JG

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Well' date=' in 6E Hand-to-Hand Attack does [i']not[/i] state that it is limited Strength. It states that it adds to your damage from Str, and how much it costs.

 

"...(in essence, HA is just a Limited form of STR)." (6E1 231)

 

It's the same wording that was in 5E.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

"...(in essence, HA is just a Limited form of STR)." (6E1 231)

 

It's the same wording that was in 5E.

 

I must be thinking 4e for the EB connection.

 

Of course, when STR - No Figured is a -1/2 limitation, Hand Attackat -1/2 means "give back all the other effects for free".

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Well, in the basic description it basically talks about simply buying Active Points of the power and it adding to Str damage. Then, just below the part you quoted:

 

Even though HA is in effect built from STR' date=' generally speaking you shouldn’t treat it like STR— treat it like the distinct Power that it is.[/quote']

 

Also note that the mandatory Limitation is now only -1/4.

[Nevenall]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Considering how much of the utility of STR is damage, I think a -1/4 limitation is appropriate for *most* campaigns.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Doesn't HA* also say it is useable only if the character has STR of his own? I.e., 0 STR + 12d6 HA = 0d6 attack? I'd call that a bit more limiting than just "no lifting"...

 

*5ER, at least. I don't have 6E yet.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Considering how much of the utility of STR is damage' date=' I think a -1/4 limitation is appropriate for *most* campaigns.[/quote']

 

The Hand Attack limitation restricts STR to direct damage. It loses application for lifting, grabbing, holding, breaking grabs and holds and throwing, as well as lifting. That seems more restrictive than STR that does not lift.

 

A Martial DC costs the same 4 points and enhances damage from all martial attacks, even those that are not augmented by basic STR. Granted, you have to buy the martial maneuvers to make full use of the ability, but this seems much more versatile than "STR, only to increase Normal Damage attacks".

[Peregrine]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Don't forget about Characteristic Maxima (at least in Heroic campaigns)' date=' and that Draining Skill Levels, while not illegal, are very unlikely.[/quote']

 

Don't forget that Characteristic Maxima is explicitly optional, even for Heroic settings. 6E1-49

[The Main Man]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Don't forget that Characteristic Maxima is explicitly optional' date=' [i']even for Heroic settings[/i]. 6E1-49

 

The point is not that CM is an absolute rule (I knew that already), but that it makes Skill Levels more viable in campaigns that use them due to increased costs that diminish return value.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

The point is not that CM is an absolute rule (I knew that already)' date=' but that it makes Skill Levels more viable in campaigns that use them due to increased costs that diminish return value.[/quote']

 

To me, CM made it impossible to price skill levels. At 5 points (in 5e) for +1 to all INT or PRE skills, clearly it was better to just buy the characteristic. But if the characteristic cost were doubled, less than 5 points would be a huge bargain. So the choice became "overprice them for games without CM or underprice them for games with CM'.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Isn't that still sort of the situation?