HA, Ranged

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

And yet' date=' in some circumstances, buying an HA or HKA with [i']Ranged[/i] is okay? The final result looks the same to me. And I'd personally consider the Advantage to be one that affects damage, so IMO it would take 7.5 Str to bump the damage. **shrug**

 

An EB can be used at point blank range or longer range. If you remove the ability to attack at range, you get a -1/2 limitation.

 

Adding range to an attack which is not ranged is a +1/2 advantage. I would suggest a non-ranged atack is a hand to hand attack. The purpose of the advantage is to make such an attack ranged.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

I've thought since 4E that you should be able to put Ranged (+1/2) on either HA or HKA' date=' and [i']Boosted by Str (+1/2)[/i] on either (Energy) Blast or RKA.

 

I've been crunching numbers for a Characteristic Adds to Power Advantage. I haven't gotten very far yet, but +3/4 seems to be a more appropriate value. If it was +1/2, it's more efficient to buy the Characteristic than more dice of the Power (especially at low power levels).

[Duke Bushido]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

My 30 STR character can pay 60 for a 12 d6 EB' date=' or 45 for a 6d6 EB with STR Adds?[/quote']

 

 

You lost me here. Did you mean EB as in the traditional ranged attack?

 

Or did you mean specifically a hand-to-hand attack (extra DC for hth damage, etc).

 

If you meant EB, then strength should not add to it, even when used at point blank (skin-to-skin, even) range.

 

If you mean hand-to-hand attack, then you _do_ get more than 1 DC for five points: you get "STR adds to damage."

 

Someone worked it out in a thread some time back that EB, no range, is something in the neighborhood of 2.5-3 points. Add on an Advantage "STR adds to damage" takes it back to five points.

 

You _are_ getting something for your points.

 

And if I've _totally_ misunderstood what it is you're saying, then I'll have to remember to stop posting at two in the morning.

[prestidigitator]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

I think what he meant was that if you could put an Advantage Str Adds (+1/2) on EB, you could buy a 6d6 EB with Str Adds for 45 points, and 30 points of Str for another 20 points. Now if you can do that, why would you ever buy a straight 60-point 12d6 EB if you can pay about the same number of points for 6d6 EB + 6d6 Str and use the Str for plenty of other useful things?

 

I have to ponder that myself, but it's not as if the question hasn't already existed in several forms for a while anyway.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

But there is not one single construct in the game which provides 1 DC and no other benefits for 5 points. STR provides 1 DC HTH + Lifting and the other advantages of STR (Grab and Hold, for example) that adds to STR. Blast provides 1 DC which can be Spread for +1 OCV or to target everyone in a hex.

 

To "STR Adds - +1/2", I hate the idea that characters with high SR can get a 25% discount on other attacks by using such an advantage. My 30 STR character can pay 60 for a 12 d6 EB, or 45 for a 6d6 EB with STR Adds?

 

Unless we're going to open the field up to allow a +1/2 advantage on any attack to enhance it with any other attack, it seems unreasonable to allow STR to have this benefit.

 

Just to have my original comment here.

 

I've been crunching numbers for a Characteristic Adds to Power Advantage. I haven't gotten very far yet' date=' but +3/4 seems to be a more appropriate value. If it was +1/2, it's more efficient to buy the Characteristic than more dice of the Power (especially at low power levels).[/quote']

 

At +3/4, I still want to buy a 6d6 "Blast enhanced by STR" for 52.5 instead of a 12d6 Blast for 60. I'll toss it in a Multipower of other 6DC "enhanced by STR" attacks to go with my 30 STR.

 

Of course, it gets even better if I don't have that "capped at double the base power" restriction.

 

You lost me here. Did you mean EB as in the traditional ranged attack?

 

Or did you mean specifically a hand-to-hand attack (extra DC for hth damage, etc).

 

If you meant EB, then strength should not add to it, even when used at point blank (skin-to-skin, even) range.

 

If you mean hand-to-hand attack, then you _do_ get more than 1 DC for five points: you get "STR adds to damage."

 

And if I've _totally_ misunderstood what it is you're saying, then I'll have to remember to stop posting at two in the morning.

 

As Prestidigitator notes, I'm extrapolating from the "+1/2 advantage - add SR to determine damage".

 

I think what he meant was that if you could put an Advantage Str Adds (+1/2) on EB' date=' you could buy a 6d6 EB with [i']Str Adds[/i] for 45 points, and 30 points of Str for another 20 points. Now if you can do that, why would you ever buy a straight 60-point 12d6 EB if you can pay about the same number of points for 6d6 EB + 6d6 Str and use the Str for plenty of other useful things?

 

I have to ponder that myself, but it's not as if the question hasn't already existed in several forms for a while anyway.

 

Absolutely. It's just unfortunate the question did not get a better answer in 6e.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

As Prestidigitator notes, I'm extrapolating from the "+1/2 advantage - add SR to determine damage".

 

Ah; I see. Thank you for the clarification.

 

Well, I suppose I could offer a couple of "situations," but at that point-- situations versus mechanics-- it sounds more like making excuses, so I can see why you'd be unhappy with it overall.

 

For the sake of discussion, though-- just to see if anything new falls out from any of us, let me ask this:

 

Is there a situation in which an EB could be used that STR could not? Restrained, or something like that? In such a case, clearly the "straight" EB would be the better (or at least stronger) of the two powers.

 

(now as I said: these are just situations, and shouldn't be taken as hard and inviolable proof of the system)

 

Does 6e still do those "multiple power attacks" that essentially amount to "I target everything in the room at once and unload one of everything?" If so, then how many times on your phase can you use STR-based attacks? Would using "STR adds" mean that in order to get your "full" EB that you would have to release the goon you're grappling with? For that matter, would grappling with the goon keep you tied up enough to prevent the use of the EB at all?

 

(sorry; I'm just assuming that "STR adds" is going to somehow tie this power to your hands. I could be completely wrong, of course).

 

Just some random thoughts; feel free to pick them apart. We might walk away with something new

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

Ah; I see. Thank you for the clarification.

 

Well, I suppose I could offer a couple of "situations," but at that point-- situations versus mechanics-- it sounds more like making excuses, so I can see why you'd be unhappy with it overall.

 

For the sake of discussion, though-- just to see if anything new falls out from any of us, let me ask this:

 

Is there a situation in which an EB could be used that STR could not? Restrained, or something like that? In such a case, clearly the "straight" EB would be the better (or at least stronger) of the two powers.

 

I'm not aware of any situation where STR is restrained. If anything, the fact that a Blast has a location on the body from which it is fired, while STR is universal throughout the body, makes the Blast easier to restrain.

 

Does 6e still do those "multiple power attacks" that essentially amount to "I target everything in the room at once and unload one of everything?" If so' date=' then how many times on your phase can you use STR-based attacks? Would using "STR adds" mean that in order to get your "full" EB that you would have to release the goon you're grappling with? For that matter, would grappling with the goon keep you tied up enough to prevent the use of the EB at all?[/quote']

 

Multiple attacks (firing on multiple targets and/or the same target multiple times) require a full phase, and impose an OCV penalty. Combined attacks (multiple powers used against a single target at the same time) impose no penalties. So if you want to fire your handgun and slash with your cutlass at the same target, 1/2 phase and no penalties. If you want to slash at one target and shoot another, full phase and penalties. You could both fire your handgun and slash with your cutlass at two targets in a single phase, also full phase with penalties.

 

Technically, nothing in the 5e or 6e rules prevents a 60 STR characters with a 2d6 HKA (4d6 or 6d6 with STR) from doing a Multiple Power Attack/Combined Attack with his KA and Punch, doing both 12d6 normal and 4d6 (or 6d6) killing damage.

 

I'm not aware of any prohibition against, for example, maintaining a Grab and Stabbing the Grabbed target with a knife, which has STR added.

 

We were actually laughing about the whole prospect last night - "Healing, STR Adds", for example - when someone tossed out "Entangle, STR Adds" and my wife looked down at the bolos on her character sheet - thrown harder, wouldn't the bolos wrap tighter? Well, if the Entangle is enhanced, wouldn't tighter bandages enhance Healing?

 

I can certainly come up with lots of concepts where STR would enhance another attack. But I buy them by purchasing the relevant mechanical power, and defining its SFX as relating to the great STR of the power user. I don't get a discount on extra DC's because my character is strong. Unless, of course, I buy a Killing Attack!

 

If I have a 15 STR, I should buy a 4d6 HKA, STR Does Not Add, or a 4d6 RKA, No Range - it's 5 points more to buy a 3d6 HKA, and let my STR add to it. Or I should buy a 2d6 HKA and +15 STR for the same 45 points a 3d6 HKA would cost, and benefit from increased normal damage, lift, Grab, escape, etc.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

I think what he meant was that if you could put an Advantage Str Adds (+1/2) on EB' date=' you could buy a 6d6 EB with [i']Str Adds[/i] for 45 points, and 30 points of Str for another 20 points. Now if you can do that, why would you ever buy a straight 60-point 12d6 EB if you can pay about the same number of points for 6d6 EB + 6d6 Str and use the Str for plenty of other useful things?

 

I have to ponder that myself, but it's not as if the question hasn't already existed in several forms for a while anyway.

 

When I used this Advantage in my 5E games, I always ran it as the STR used for the attack being pro-rated for the "STR Adds to Damage" Advantage, the same as for a HKA with Advantages. Hence 30 points of STR would only add 4d6 damage, not 6d6.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

I'm not aware of any situation where STR is restrained.

 

 

Aye; I've given it some thought as well, and all I could come up with was Drain: STR, either directly or through Change Environment. I suppose if we wanted to find as many as possible, we could include Telekinesis: I seem to recall a couple of instances (4 and 5e) of it being used to "counter" STR.

 

I suppose Those would only limit the STR element, though, as they wouldn't have any specific effect on the EB itself.

 

If anything, the fact that a Blast has a location on the body from which it is fired, while STR is universal throughout the body, makes the Blast easier to restrain.

 

Agreed, at least from a mechanical standpoint. Most everyone defines their EB as originating from somewhere, but you've prompted to realize that unless a person specifically takes "Restrainable" on his power, there's no reason he can't shoot his "eyebeams" from his kneecaps! Pretty handy if someone was to clamp an iron hood over him or something.

 

Interestingly enough, I think that might be an example of a Limitation, simply by existing, adding power to everything else! Think about it thusly:

 

Ten, twelve years ago-- longer if you like-- you'd have thought nothing about telling a player "Captain Blasto can't use his BlastoBeam because he's been shackled in Fictionalium-lined gauntlets. They'll direct the blast back at him."

 

Then along comes "restrainable." "Captain Blasto, they've got you good. You wake up to find your hands shackled in Fictionalium-lined gauntlets.

 

 

"Oh, well that's okay. I didn't take "restrainable," so for the first time in my life, I'll just shoot my BlastoBeam from my nostrils. Should I find myself with Fictionalium nose plugs, I'll use my adam's apple...."

 

[this is actually one of my problems with the over-regulation and super-minutia that 5e was so filled with: too much restriction implies too much freedom where unrestricted; too much specified freedom implies too much restriction where freedoms are not specified ]

 

But moving on....

 

 

I'm not aware of any prohibition against, for example, maintaining a Grab and Stabbing the Grabbed target with a knife, which has STR added.

 

You're absolutely right, of course, and thank you for reminding me that I need not look to extremes to find examples. I was so busy cleaning the corners that I completely forgot the couch.

 

quote] my wife looked down at the bolos on her character sheet - thrown harder, wouldn't the bolos wrap tighter?

 

Excellent example! I say excellent simply because this is something that can be built so many ways. The most typical, I think we can agree, is as a focus.

 

Foci is one of those areas where the mechanics are confounding. Not the rules: they're very clear (unless you're making powered armor, apparently, as there seems to be a great deal of discussion on that from time to time). The mechanics for building the powers, however, get wiggy when you define something as a focus.

 

In the Bolo example, what's the "most right" build? Is it "STR adds?" Or is it a couple of additional dice with "STR min?"

 

It seems easy enough to say "one is as good as the other," or to Sean out all the numbers (Hi, Sean! Don't get me wrong: I loved your threads before, and I enjoy them just as much now! ) and see what "breaks best."

 

So we have to think about what is implied as opposed to what's specified. It seems to me that a Focus is built to do X thing. By applying "STR adds," then are we not implying that the focus itself always does X thing? That is, say someone wants to clunk a guy with a batarang. If the batarang is 4d6, STR adds, then the assumption (to me) is that no matter what, the batarang will do 4d6, with our without STR.

 

The implication here is "I want to clunk him lightly. I'm going to pull this shot a bit. I don't want to use the STR bonus, and I only want to try to hit him for about 2d6."

 

"I'm sorry, but your build implies that the batarang does 4d6, period. You can pull your STR, but you can't soften the batarang."

 

"What?! Boyd the Wonder does it all the time!"

 

"Yes, but _his_ batarangs are built as 4d6 with +2d6 on a STR min. They have the _potential_ to do 4d6, and he has the _potential_ to add 2d6."

 

I know--

 

we're going to end up in pure semantics along this line of thought, and that's really why I try not to think these things too far into the shadows, or it all falls apart anyway.

 

I can certainly come up with lots of concepts where STR would enhance another attack. But I buy them by purchasing the relevant mechanical power, and defining its SFX as relating to the great STR of the power user.

 

We are very much in agreement. Really, all I'm getting at is that "STR adds" has always felt, _to me_, like it was akin to "Real Weapon" as far as foci are concerned, even the amorphous "Focus of Opportunity."

 

Interestingly though, there is nothing to say that you _can't_ let your STR add to you Lightning Retribution.

 

Though ultimately it all comes down to concept and GM call. After all, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with "STR adds" to a cudgel or a set of bolos (though, having had the chance to try bolos once, I am always tempted to add a mandatory "Backfire, 17-" Obviously I wouldn't really do that. These are skilled super heroes, and I'm a clumsy oaf ).

 

Even STR adds to Entangle might skate past me, depending on the concept. If "Hundred Limbs Man" defined his Entangle as grabbing an opponent with a few extra appendages, then certainly: STR adds, so long as you take "Feedback."

 

However, STR adds wouldn't be allowed to apply to something like "my electo-knuckles are going to try to have a meeting with his jaw." If you want the ED and the PD, then build a Linked power (Oh no! :eep: Not _that_ can of worms!) linking HA to a STR-based strike, or even to STR in general.

 

Or build an entirely separate power and define it that way.

 

 

Hmmm....

 

Seems all these examples all come back to "GM's discretion." That being the case, then perhaps this innocuous-sounding Advantage should have had a magnifying glass or something? Hmmm....

 

 

 

 

If I have a 15 STR, I should buy a 4d6 HKA, STR Does Not Add, or a 4d6 RKA, No Range - it's 5 points more to buy a 3d6 HKA, and let my STR add to it. Or I should buy a 2d6 HKA and +15 STR for the same 45 points a 3d6 HKA would cost, and benefit from increased normal damage, lift, Grab, escape, etc.

 

Ah! That's the crux of it, then! Well there's the old "whatever costs the most is right" saw.. [friendly poke removed by order of error message]

 

But I wouldn't try to pull that one. Honest. I wouldn't. Everything should have some justification, after all.

 

And that one's easy to solve. Or no; I suppose it isn't, because it's been a bone of contention to so many people already.

 

To that, let me offer this:

 

We solved that specific issue a _long_ time ago with a measure that was satisfactory _for us_. For our group, I mean. We _do_ allow HKA: no STR bonus.

 

We do _not_ allow RKA: no Range.

 

It's not even a matter of figuring bonuses. Simply put: you can use an RKA at point-blank range already. You can use it at skin contact range. You can use it way out yonder across the ball field. It is because you can use it at distance that it is called "Ranged," after all. However, if you are removing range, then you are attempting to simulate an existing power: HKA.

 

Backpedaling into the Meta a bit,

 

it stuck us that if you started with one base power:

 

KA

 

you got 1d of Body, you got the stun Multiplier, you got the STR bonus.

 

This seemed like the base point for any KA build.

 

If you added "Ranged," it should cost more. Why doesn't it? Because it automatically Limits away the STR bonus.

 

that seemed workable to us.

 

Therefore, knocking off the "range" of RKA returned it to the "base build" of KA, resulting in KA, no STR bonus.

 

And that's what we required as the build: KA, no STR bonus, as opposed to RKA, no range.

 

I know: it's all semantics at this point; I won't even _begin_ to deny that, but like I said: you ponder any of this long enough, and you'll end up in semantics every time. [laughter removed by order of an error message]

 

That's what worked for us, anyway.

 

Your Mileage and all that good stuff. [grin removed by order of error message]

 

 

Oh, and thanks for the mental image with the "tighter bandages" thing:

 

"Is he healing faster?"

 

"not yet. Make it tighter."

 

"Okay, his leg is turning black. That's good, right?"

 

[hysterical rolling removed by order of the stick. Man those guys are sneaky!]

 

Nice!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

Agreed' date=' at least from a mechanical standpoint. Most everyone defines their EB as originating from somewhere, but you've prompted to realize that unless a person specifically takes "Restrainable" on his power, there's no reason he can't shoot his "eyebeams" from his kneecaps! Pretty handy if someone was to clamp an iron hood over him or something. [/quote']

 

The RAW require your Blast come from a defined origin point. Indirect can be used at +1/4 to have it originate from multiple points of origin.

 

In the Bolo example' date=' what's the "most right" build? Is it "STR adds?" Or is it a couple of additional dice with "STR min?"[/quote']

 

Change "Bolo" to "Sword" and the question remains - is the "most right" build "STR adds", or is it a couple of additional dice, or DC's, with "STR min?" Your question neatly points out that we don't NEED "STR Adds" for ANY power.

 

Though ultimately it all comes down to concept and GM call. After all, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with "STR adds" to a cudgel or a set of bolos.

 

Even STR adds to Entangle might skate past me, depending on the concept. If "Hundred Limbs Man" defined his Entangle as grabbing an opponent with a few extra appendages, then certainly: STR adds, so long as you take "Feedback."

 

However, STR adds wouldn't be allowed to apply to something like "my electo-knuckles are going to try to have a meeting with his jaw." If you want the ED and the PD, then build a Linked power (Oh no! :eep: Not _that_ can of worms!) linking HA to a STR-based strike, or even to STR in general.

 

Your electro-knuckles example is, however, a classic Hand Attack, to which STR does add.

 

My viewpoint is that any structure which provides one concept with a point advantage over another is inappropriate. In Hero, you get what you pay for, or at least you are supposed to. Letting some characters purchase the exact same mechanical effect for a price lower than other characters based on "concept" doesn't work for me.

 

Ah! That's the crux of it' date=' then! Well there's the old "whatever costs the most is right" saw.. [friendly poke removed by order of error message']

 

I don't subscribe to the theory that the most expensive choice is correct by default. But I do believe that the exact same mechanical effect should have the exact same point cost, whether that is higher or lower.

 

But I wouldn't try to pull that one. Honest. I wouldn't. Everything should have some justification' date=' after all.[/quote']

 

Ah, yes, the "buy it the more expensive way because it's in concept" argument. Unfortunately, what this tends to equate to is a quick realization that some concepts are more point-efficient, and others are less point-efficient, so make sure you pick a point-efficient concept if you want to be as powerful as the other characters.

 

We solved that specific issue a _long_ time ago with a measure that was satisfactory _for us_. For our group, I mean. We _do_ allow HKA: no STR bonus.

 

We do _not_ allow RKA: no Range.

 

Again, exact same mechanical bonus. The 30 STR character will buy a 2d6 HKA, no limitation, and do 4d6 HKA at a cost of 30 points. The 15 STR character can choose between 4d6 HKA, STR does not add, for 40 points, or 3d6 HKA, for 45 points. Three characters, three identical mechanical effects and three different costs.

[prestidigitator]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

When I used this Advantage in my 5E games' date=' I always ran it as the STR used for the attack being pro-rated for the "STR Adds to Damage" Advantage, the same as for a HKA with Advantages. Hence 30 points of STR would only add 4d6 damage, not 6d6.[/quote']

 

Yeah. See post #25.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

The RAW require your Blast come from a defined origin point. Indirect can be used at +1/4 to have it originate from multiple points of origin.

 

I'll take your word for it. As I mentioned to G-A a day or two ago, I don't have access to any of the newer books at the moment (and can't even remember what RAW means.

 

 

Change "Bolo" to "Sword" and the question remains - is the "most right" build "STR adds", or is it a couple of additional dice, or DC's, with "STR min?"

 

I'm sorry; I think I misunderstood you. Going from the example of your wife's character, I thought the bolo was designed as an Entangle. This is why I found it a good choice to approach from several angles: it's both a focus, and a power not generally seen as being affected by STR.

 

Your question neatly points out that we don't NEED "STR Adds" for ANY power.

 

Indeed it does. I always found that "STR adds" was more in keeping for very specific concepts. In most cases, additional dice of effect with the "STR MIN" limitation serves just as well, and for foci it has the nifty built-in "capping" of maximum damage at a set level. While it's technically possible for a particularly strong character to -- what is it now? Double? The effect of a focus such as a sword using his STR bonus, it just stands outside of good sense in some cases: you can only do so much with a foil before you bend it; you can only do so much with a hammer before it shatters or the head comes loose or whatever.

 

Using the "+Xd6; STR Min" model, you can decide at once just what the maximum potential for a focus actually is. For instance, you can only wind the bolo so tight before something snaps or comes loose or maybe you can only wind it so tight, period.

 

 

Your electro-knuckles example is, however, a classic Hand Attack, to which STR does add.

 

I intended that specifically as an example of ED Power being "added to" by PD STR. Now I realize that my group plays an amalgam of new stuff, driven by the heart of 2e (still like it better than anything since ), and that I may well be confusing "our" rules with official rules, but do the rules actually allow STR to add to a blatantly ED attack? I'm asking because I know there's no way on earth I _ever_ would (and never have), but I can't remember now if that's official, or just us.

 

 

I don't subscribe to the theory that the most expensive choice is correct by default.

 

Neither do I. In fact, your next comment:

 

 

Ah, yes, the "buy it the more expensive way because it's in concept" argument. Unfortunately, what this tends to equate to is a quick realization that some concepts are more point-efficient, and others are less point-efficient, so make sure you pick a point-efficient concept if you want to be as powerful as the other characters.

 

Makes me think you might have missed the point I was trying to make.

 

The point I was trying to make was that, while in addition to this:

 

 

But I do believe that the exact same mechanical effect should have the exact same point cost, whether that is higher or lower.

 

Each and every build has inherent implications beyond what is simply mechanics. There is more to this game, after all, than just rolling dice and finding the most "cost effective" way to get a particular range of results.

 

Now as I said: it simply feels to me that certain builds have some things inherent in them that work for or against them. "STR adds" is an obvious advantage, and should affect the character that way: he's getting "something extra" when he needs it.

 

"STR Min," however, is a Limitation, and should work that way: when the chips are down, he might not have enough. Or perhaps he's taken it multiple times:

 

A sword that does 4d6, +2d6 STR Min: 15, +2d6, STR Min: 20, + 1d6 STR Min: 25.

 

The first build provides the character with a sword that is finely tuned and balanced and sharpened, and allows his character (assuming a 4d Sword) to add up to four dice of STR (again; I don't recall the exact official limit for adding STR) and a sword mighty enough to do swing at 8d6 all day long.

 

The second build provides a sword that also provides 4 d6 damage, and for a 15 STR character allows him 6d6 of consistent damage. For an even stronger character, he can achieve eight dice. Or perhaps he's a STR 15 character using an END push to get that "little something extra" from his attack.

 

In the end, his sword _can_ deal up to 9 d6 with an appropriately strong character.

 

Now yes: when it comes to rolling dice, it's all the same, but the reality is that even a ten STR character can pick up the first sword and do 6 dice consistently, whereas the second construct would require that character to "work harder" and push a bit to get that same damage. Clearly, the second sword is different. A bit strong, given the tolerance of 9 dice, but more cumbersome and heavy, perhaps.

 

Personally, I prefer the +x with a STR Min for most melee foci, but there are those cases where I find that, game-wise, or "role-wise," for lack of a descriptive, the first build signifies a blade of far more exquisite craftsmanship and that is easier to simply pick up and use.

 

So yes: I support pay by the _concept_, but obviously that's only going to work with a group for whom the "feel" of something is more important than the "for the same points I can get better dice" aspect of the game.

 

For one, there is "improving through experience." Without the newer books, I wouldn't attempt to show a progression difference (no point posting something that's completely wrong, right? ), but advancing an Advantaged power is a slower, more costly progression than advancing a Limited power. While there will likely always be "breakpoints," it remains that 1 die for three points is still easier to come by than 1 die for 7 or eight points.

 

Now neither one of these extremes is ideal for everyone, simply because we all play to get different things out of our games, but the general issue seems to be that we all feel that there is a "perfect meeting" of dice mechanics and concept flavor somewhere in the middle, and there really doesn't seem to be one. After thirty years of Champions, we're still having the same musings.

 

 

I expect-- and this is just a random notion that pops in and out of my head every now and again, and shouldn't be taken as any more than that-- that it's because of the math. There's a lot of math in HERO, particularly for character generation. None of it is particularly difficult (contrary to the rumors), but there's a lot of it. Sometimes I wonder if that doesn't sort of shift us to a mindset of ultimately building to the math: worrying more about the cost of the final dice than the meaning of the construct itself.

 

 

 

I know I'm no exception; that's one of the reasons I think that I have stayed as far behind in editions as I have. Each subsequent edition provides an opportunity to more "finely tune" the points and the dice to the concept, and I am _horribly_ addicted to such things. Yes; believe it or not, given the opportunity, I m the guy who builds the munchkin monster who is totally incapable of actually earning a living because those PS: Day Job points were "more effective" offsetting range modifiers.

 

My shame is deep.

 

You know, I have to wonder something:

 

What are the odds that all this is "stuck" in here because of tradition?

 

Think about this:

 

Active points.

 

Remember the older edditions? When range was determined by Active points, and range modifiers were given every four hexes instead of every ten city blocks or so?

 

Perhaps that's why this stuff has more significance to me: It makes a larger, noticeable difference in my own play. Sometimes you will find noticeable differences that way: five dice is 25 active points; limitations don't reduce that. But take those same twenty five points and put advantages on them, and the active points go up.

 

This might be more related to Sean's current "AP is too inexpensive, but it's okay since Hardened now pays off enough to make it show up more often" thread. It's entirely possible that the things that, years ago, allowed a lot of this to have varying levels of _mechanical_ difference have been done away with or changed, yet these remnants remain.

 

Just another random thought, and I'm having way too many of them right now. I think I'm going to simply browse a handful of threads and go for a ride or something.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

RAW = Rules As Written

[bigbywolfe]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

Think about this:

Active points.

Remember the older edditions? When range was determined by Active points, and range modifiers were given every four hexes instead of every ten city blocks or so?

You mean way, way back in 5th Edition? Your long posts and train of thought switches with minimum segues are getting hard for me to follow, sorry. What on earth makes you think that range modifiers are significantly farther apart than they used to be? I’m not familiar with much before 5ER, but unless you’re referring to their size in 6E which I’m not privy to, it doesn’t sound like they’ve changed at all (they certainly weren’t “city blocks” in 5E). And Range was still determined by Active Points in 5E as well, though I think that changed in 6E. I’m not trying to be rude, but in short, what are you talking about, particularly with the quoted statement?

[Duke Bushido]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

You mean way' date=' way back in 5th Edition? [/quote']

 

Second and third editions.

 

Your long posts and train of thought switches with minimum segues are getting hard for me to follow, sorry.

 

They're bugging me as well. It's a problem associated with insomnia. Well, the rambling _and_ the increased typos. It'll fix itself eventually, and until then, I try reasonably hard not to post.

 

What on earth makes you think that range modifiers are significantly farther apart than they used to be

 

from 3e, you took a -1 for every 4". There was no "short, long, mid" range as was presented in 4e, and as best I recall, continued into 5.

[prestidigitator]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

The Range Modifer is exactly the same in 6E as it was in 5E®. It's just defined in terms of meters instead of hexes now. It's been defined on a logarithmic basis (multiplying by two adds a constant penalty) since at least 4E, though I've heard rumor that it might have been linear sometime before that.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

from 3e, you took a -1 for every 4". There was no "short, long, mid" range as was presented in 4e, and as best I recall, continued into 5.

Do you own 5E? Can you tell me where you are getting this from "short, long, mid" stuff from? A page number if you have 5ER or just what section it's under if you have 5E would be nice. Granted I'm tired, and may be remembering poorly, but I have no clue what-so-ever what you are talking about.

 

And my comment about "way, way back in 5E" wasn't meant to imply that it wasn't like that before, it was meant to imply that it hadn't changed (at least AP determining Range hadn't, not sure about the other anymore).

[Duke Bushido]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

I own three of them, but haven't got access to any of them at the moment (they're on loan to different folks; I don't expect to have them back before next weekend. I've got 4e buried on the bookshelf somewhere. I'll try to find it tomorrow and re-read what it has to say on Range Modifiers.

 

However, I've little doubt that the friendly folks here on the board can offer a summation of the Range Modifiers rules in 5e to correct any mistakes I may have made given my current state. If not, I'll certainly look it up when I get my books back and check on myself.

[ghost-angel]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

Ranges through the Ages.

 

From 1st through 3rd Edition Range Modifiers were -1 for every 4" (I believe after the first 4", i.e. Range 0-4 was no penalty, 5-8" was -1, etc). I don't have those editions anywhere and actually never played them. So someone else will actually have to verify that, but I know a few GMs that still use them so have had them applied to me.

 

4th and 5th Edition had a -2 for every doubling of Range after 4". 0-4" = No Modifier. 5-8" = -2. 8-16" = -4. 17-32" = -6. and so.

 

They both had an Optional Range Modifier Table that had a -1 per 2" after the first 4". 5-6" was -1. 7-8" was -2. and so on.

 

6th Edition changed to meters, and kept the modifiers the same. 2-8m = -0. 9-16m = -2. And so on. It also has the Optional Range Modifier that gives -1 per 4 meters after the first 8.

Essentially the same as 4th and 5th Ed. only measured in a more sane system.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

So there's never been some kind of default "short, medium, and long" range penalty or weapons have never had a s,m,l range assigned or anything like that then. Right?

[ghost-angel]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

Not that I'm aware of, no.

[prestidigitator]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

People are probably thinking D&D on that one. Medium range suffered a -2 and long range suffered a -5 to attack rolls in 2nd Edition AD&D. Can't remember how it worked before that. Don't care how it worked after. Heh.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

Prestidigitator may be onto something with the confusion. I suffer from insomnia, and haven't slept in a couple of days. I get a bit wiggy when it gets quiet, I'm afraid.

 

At any rate, I dug out my 4th ed as I promised, and my-- well, I don't really know if this is third or second ed: it looks like the second ed, but it's been colorized wiht a pale blue background. Published in 83, this was the book I bought to replace my demolished 2e. The contents are identical.

 

So going from there, page 52 in 2e/3e, last sentence of the first column, continued next column:

 

The range modifier is given as "-1 per 3 inches." This means that if the character attacks a target from 0-3 inches away his OCV will be normal. If he attacks a target from 4 to 6 inches away his OV will be -1. For each additinoal multiple of the attack's range modifier, the character's OCV is reduced by another -1.

 

To clarify that last bit:

 

Each ranged power had a specific range multiplier listed for it. Most were -1 per 3"; exceptions were listed under the Power description.

 

 

 

 

Then from 4th edition:

 

p 146 of the Hardback book titled "Champions." Second column, halfway down.

 

There is no range penalty out to 4". This means that any attack made at a target 4" away will be as easy to hit as an adjacent target. After 4", any attack is made with a -2 OCV Penalty (remember that an inch on a small scale map represents 2 meters or 6 1/2 feet). There is an additional -2 OCV Penalty for each doubling of the range thereafter: -4 OCV Penalty at 16", -6 OCV at 32", and so on.

 

 

From an e-mail to one of the folks borrowing my 5th ed books:

 

5th edition (non-revised). p 245, last entry:

 

There is no Range Modifier out to 4"-

{snip}

After 4", any attack suffered a -2 OCV modifier. There is an additional -2 OCV modifer for each doubling of the range thereafter: -4 OCV at 9-16", -6 OCV at 17-32", and so on.

 

The entry continues on p 246, but the rules here are identical to the rules in 4th ed.

 

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

 

regarding range:

 

5th edition lists range as being 5" x AP.

4th edition lists range as being 5" x AP.

2/3 edition lists range as being 5" x points. Note that this is "points spent," and not Active Points. The concept of Active Points did not exist in this edition.

 

All three editions equate one map inch to two meters.

 

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

 

As to the "long, short, mid range" comments:

 

Try as I might, I was unable then to recall the exact rule in 4e. However, I remembered with complete clarity the chart across the bottom of the page showing a hex map with a range line run the width of it. That chart is divided neatly into "range sections," each double the length of the previous section. I filled in the "short, mid, long" as convenient handles for the theme of that chart, not remembering the exact numbers. In retrospect, it was a poor decision.

 

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

 

Regarding the comments of Advantages and Limitations affecting range in "older editions:"

 

It was specifically the _older_ editions in which this occurs: the editions before the idea of "Active Points." Advantages add points cost to the power, which results in increased range. Limitations reduce the points cost of a power, resulting in diminished range.

 

 

 

Now I have done my level best, for the sake of clarity, to group this tightly and to keep extraneous thoughts "off the page," in a manner of speaking. In my current condition, this hasn't been particularly easy, and if I have managed to complicate it unnecessarily, I offer my sincere apologies. With any luck, the kids will be up in an hour or so, and I will be able to focus a little better.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: HA, Ranged

 

I see there is one thing I left out with regard to "short, medium, long, etc" ranges:

 

In the earliest additions, not all ranged powers suffered the same range penalties. -1 OCV per 3" was the most common, and it was the "default" for any non-ranged power bought with the "Ranged" advantage. Each power had its particular range penalty described in the power write-up.

 

4e changed that by creating a "range table" of sorts: all powers took identical range modifiers, and the points at which the modifiers changed doubled after each breakpoint, as noted above.

 

This is what resulted in a universally-mappable "range diagram," and is essentially what lead to my characterization as "short, mid, long, extreme, and so on and so forth." Not having it officially called that is more a semantic issue, considering the typical ranges for a combat scenario.

 

 

The kids are down for their naps; I hope to be able to sneak an hour or so of sleep myself, so-- should I not be able to return this afternoon, I bid you all a lovely afternoon.