fair cost for strength that isn't strong

[archermoo]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Am I hearing an echo?

 

Yeah, well, he seemed to have missed it the first time.

[ghost-angel]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

I'm just happy I got the House Rule out of him at this point.

[phookz]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

So you allow NND to do BODY damage if enough BODY damage is generated by the attack? Sounds like a very inexpensive way to bypass all that pesky PD and ED characters like to stack up on.

 

To each their own I suppose.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

So you allow NND to do BODY damage if enough BODY damage is generated by the attack? Sounds like a very inexpensive way to bypass all that pesky PD and ED characters like to stack up on.

 

To each their own I suppose.

NNDs don't do BODY unless

a= their SFX is such that the attack could have that consequence.

b= they do enough NND damage in one shot.

 

As someone said earlier, ITRW there are no NND attacks. It's an abstraction that makes sense under certain circumstances. Violate the premises of those circumstances, and it no longer makes sense.

 

Note also that if I'm honoring the logical implications of SFX to this degree, I'm doing it as much as I can in other ways as well.

 

Players have always liked to buy KA and NND (and put all sorts of other Ads on attacks) precisely because they want "to bypass all that pesky PD and ED".

 

This approach of honoring SFX as logically and consistently as possible helps maintain game balance IME.

[phookz]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

NNDs don't do BODY unless

a= their SFX is such that the attack could have that consequence.

b= they do enough NND damage in one shot.

 

As someone said earlier, ITRW there are no NND attacks. It's an abstraction that makes sense under certain circumstances. Violate the premises of those circumstances, and it no longer makes sense.

Yes, I noticed that someone did say that

 

Note also that if I'm honoring the logical implications of SFX to this degree, I'm doing it as much as I can in other ways as well.

 

Players have always liked to buy KA and NND (and put all sorts of other Ads on attacks) precisely because they want "to bypass all that pesky PD and ED".

 

This approach of honoring SFX as logically and consistently as possible helps maintain game balance IME.

 

I'm not sold on that maintaining game balance, but it's your campaign. NND trades doing actual BODY as part of it's game balance equation. However, I am a fan of doing whatever makes dramatic and common sense, so if it works for your game then run with it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

NNDs don't do BODY unless

a= their SFX is such that the attack could have that consequence.

b= they do enough NND damage in one shot.

 

As someone said earlier, ITRW there are no NND attacks. It's an abstraction that makes sense under certain circumstances. Violate the premises of those circumstances, and it no longer makes sense.

 

Note also that if I'm honoring the logical implications of SFX to this degree, I'm doing it as much as I can in other ways as well.

 

Players have always liked to buy KA and NND (and put all sorts of other Ads on attacks) precisely because they want "to bypass all that pesky PD and ED".

 

This approach of honoring SFX as logically and consistently as possible helps maintain game balance IME.

 

If you want your Killing Attack NND to do Body you should buy Does Body on it.

 

If you want your NND Martial Maneuver to do Body you should buy Does Body for it.

 

But at this point, I'm not epsecially convinced you actually know the rules.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

If you want your Killing Attack NND to do Body you should buy Does Body on it.

 

If you want your NND Martial Maneuver to do Body you should buy Does Body for it.

1= that means your NND MM does BODY no matter what the circumstances are. Very much an Advantage.

OTC, what I'm describing are much rarer circumstances.

 

2= HOWEVER, an NNDA that always does BODY is a blatent violation of one of the tenets of HERO- that NNDA are STUN specialists.

As a GM, I'd be looking -very- carefully at such a construct request.

 

But at this point, I'm not epsecially convinced you actually know the rules.

You are entitled to your opinion. Since I don't have 6 ed yet, I certainly have made no claims to know those rules.

 

And let's remember HERO system is not supposed to be a babysitter nor a dictator.

[ghost-angel]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

No, but it does help if it's Mechanically Consistent. . . .

 

if you don't want Does Body to apply all the time use a Naked Advantage.

And I'm not talking in terms of 6E rules in this thread.

[Phil]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Now I don't mean to sound patronising here, but surely, if you want an attack that mostly does Stun but occasionally does Body if the Damage roll is high enough.... well, strike me sideways with a wet kipper, isn't that what we call a Normal attack?! It mostly does Stun, and if there's not too much rPD then it also does Body.

 

You can then enhance this a number of way:

1. Armour Piercing - you want to simulate an attack that penetrates defences, this will do it.

 

2. Limited Str "Only to damage, Only to overcome PD"

 

3. Linked Limited HKA "Only when Stun damage is >X"

 

etc. etc. etc.

 

The thing with the Hero System is that there are so many ways within the game to adjust and tweak attacks without needing to change the rules as to how those attacks function.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Occam's Razor. If there is more than one way to get a result, the simpler way is usually superior.

 

The more complicated a HERO construct you make, the more likely it is to be game imbalanced.

 

Also, many of the worst rules abuses I've seen are negated by the simple expedient of making the game mechanic(s) involved logically consistent with the SFX.

[Phil]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Occam's Razor. If there is more than one way to get a result' date=' the simpler way is usually superior.[/quote']

 

Then from now on, every character I ever make on any point-based game will have the stats, powers and abilities that they want, because frankly that's the simplest way and in terms of speed-to-game, yes, it's superior.

 

The more complicated a HERO construct you make, the more likely it is to be game imbalanced.

The more you couple an unplaytested house rule to existing Hero rules, the more likely it is to be game imbalanced.

 

Also, many of the worst rules abuses I've seen are negated by the simple expedient of making the game mechanic(s) involved logically consistent with the SFX.

 

Also, many of the worst House rules I've seen are negated by the simple expedient of using the existing, play-tested and debated-unto-infinity rules that Lord Long Almight hath provided.

 

I apologise that persuasion and logic have failed, and concede defeat by falling on the pointy sword of exasperation.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Occam's Razor. If there is more than one way to get a result, the simpler way is usually superior.

 

The more complicated a HERO construct you make, the more likely it is to be game imbalanced.

 

 

This works both ways.

 

I still haven't seen you give a concrete answer (with a specific number/forumla) to either of my earlier super-strength + martial NND questions without it boiling down to: "I will make a case by case ruling each time this comes up". That sounds like a house rule that's too complicated to describe but it's not even that. It's just you making it up as you go along.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

If you want your Killing Attack NND to do Body you should buy Does Body on it.

 

If you want your NND Martial Maneuver to do Body you should buy Does Body for it.

 

But at this point, I'm not especially convinced you actually know the rules.

 

Agreed. If you want an attack that does BOD, buy an attack that does BOD.

 

1= that means your NND MM does BODY no matter what the circumstances are. Very much an Advantage.

OTC, what I'm describing are much rarer circumstances.

 

2= HOWEVER, an NNDA that always does BODY is a blatent violation of one of the tenets of HERO- that NNDA are STUN specialists.

As a GM, I'd be looking -very- carefully at such a construct request.

 

It's an advantaged NND that does both BOD and STUN without considering defenses. Such as radiation poisoning.

 

And let's remember HERO system is not supposed to be a babysitter nor a dictator.

 

Yet you are dictating that it is not possible to inflict a level of damage on a target without it doing BOD.

 

Occam's Razor. If there is more than one way to get a result' date=' the simpler way is usually superior.[/quote']

 

The simple approach, to me, is, if you want an attack that does BOD, buy an attack that does BOD. If you want one that does not, buy one that does not. And if the SFX of the attack you wish to construct mandates that it be capable of doing BOD, then an NND is not the appropriate construct as it does not do BOD.

 

Also' date=' many of the worst rules abuses I've seen are negated by the simple expedient of making the game mechanic(s) involved logically consistent with the SFX.[/quote']

 

To me, they are solved by requiring the ability to be constructed with the mechanics which generate a result logically consistent with the SFX.

 

Many of the worst GM Power abuses I've seen are caused by the GM imposing his view of how the player's character's abilities should work, rather than allowing the player to achieve his own vision of how his character's ability works.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

SFX are important, but they bend to the will of Mechanics. If you value SFX over the basic Mechanics that build the power, then I would fear playing in your game.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

This works both ways.

 

I still haven't seen you give a concrete answer (with a specific number/forumla) to either of my earlier super-strength + martial NND questions without it boiling down to: "I will make a case by case ruling each time this comes up". That sounds like a house rule that's too complicated to describe but it's not even that. It's just you making it up as you go along.

Eh? I thought I did give you a concrete answer.

 

Rest assured there was no "making it up as you go along."

That's usually not fair to players IMHO.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

SFX are important' date=' but they bend to the will of Mechanics. If you value SFX over the basic Mechanics that build the power, then I would fear playing in your game.[/quote']

IMHO the relationship is more complex.

 

Any game mechanic is a -tool- to help create a -simulation- of what would happen if something occurred IRL.

 

Those mechanics are basically analogies based on assumptions.

When those assumptions are violated, the analogies break down.

 

IRL, there is no attack that does only STUN or only BODY. IRL, STUN and BODY don't exist either.

 

The whole thing is a model that we're using to simulate a "what if?" scenario.

 

As long as the simulation works out such that people have fun and everyone is treated fairly, we are doing the right thing.

If the RAW don't achieve those goals in a specific circumstance, it is the job of the GM to fix things so those goals will be achieved.

 

In short, rules and game systems are GM and player aids. Not the other way around.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Many of the worst GM Power abuses I've seen are caused by the GM imposing his view of how the player's character's abilities should work, rather than allowing the player to achieve his own vision of how his character's ability works.

100% Agree.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

IMHO the relationship is more complex.

 

Any game mechanic is a -tool- to help create a -simulation- of what would happen if something occurred IRL.

 

Those mechanics are basically analogies based on assumptions.

When those assumptions are violated, the analogies break down.

 

IRL, there is no attack that does only STUN or only BODY. IRL, STUN and BODY don't exist either.

 

Neither do people who can fly, fire bursts of energy from their hands, bounce bullets off their chests, turn invisible or desolid, or any of the myriad of abilities we purchase in game. I assume you accept these in your games. But an attack which can reliably KO without killing is too unrealistic for you...

[Hyper-Man]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Eh? I thought I did give you a concrete answer.

 

Not yet (I have yet to see an answer involving an actual number of dice).

 

Maybe the following will help you out some.

 

from 5er, page 399:

 

CHOKE HOLD

This maneuver allows the character to Grab an opponent’s head and neck and inflict NND damage. A Choke Hold works just like a normal Grab for purposes of determining whether the victim escapes (for example, he gets an immediate Casual STR roll to break free and take no damage). However, it only immobilizes one “limb” — the head. Besides being Grabbed, the victim of a Choke Hold takes the listed NND damage and cannot speak or shout. (The character using Choke Hold cannot also Squeeze or Throw the victim; applying the NND hold takes the place of that.) The defense against this NND is having rigid armor on the neck, a PD Force Field, or Life Support: Self-Contained Breathing. If the victim doesn’t have one of these defenses, he takes all the damage rolled.

 

A character rendered unconscious by a Choke Hold can be killed by continued application of the Maneuver. After the Choke Hold has rendered the target unconscious, it does 1 BODY per Phase to the target if it’s maintained. (See Holding Breath and Drowning, page 424.)

 

Extra Damage Classes applied to a Choke Hold only increase the NND damage done; they cannot increase the STR of the hold.

from the official rules forum:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73395&highlight=choke+hold

 

I've been away a long while, and I've checked the boards and FAQ's and this question is driving me crazy.

 

Do you add DC's from STR to Choke and Nerve Strike?

 

The FAQ seems to alude to a rule in UMA.. a book I don't have, but it seems the logical thing is that you get your STR - 10 in additional damage classes to these MA moves. What's the official word on this?

No; NND-based Martial Maneuvers are built with the "STR doesn't add damage" Restrictive Element.

from UMA (The Ultimate Martial Artist), page 95:

 

NND DMG

This stands for No Normal Defense Damage (see page 265 of the HERO System 5th Edition, Revised). Each +1 point spent gives the maneuver +½d6 NND, up to 1d6; each +½d6 thereafter costs +2 points, up to its maximum of 2d6 NND. The character’s STR does not add damage to this maneuver, so NND DMG maneuvers must take the STR - Element at the No STR level (for -2 points).

 

As with any separately-purchased No Normal Defense attack, this maneuver must have a reasonably common defense, such as Life Support (Self-Contained Breathing) for a choking attack or Armor for nerve strikes. See page 148 of this book for a list of suggested defenses.

 

Important Note: You may not mix damage types in a single maneuver. A maneuver may have only one of the following three types of damage bonus: K-Damage, N-Damage, or NND DMG. A maneuver may have both NND DMG and v/5, where each 5” of relative movement translates into +½d6 NND DMG. Th e added damage cannot more than double the base damage; if the maneuver normally does 2d6 NND, then extra damage from a +v/5 Element cannot boost the maneuver up to more than 4d6 NND, no matter how fast the characters are going.

from UMA (sidebar), pages 101-102:

 

MANEUVERS AND HIT LOCATIONS

In the style write-ups earlier in this chapter, you saw that many maneuvers utilize Hit Location rolls other than the standard 3d6 roll. Your GM may or may not adopt this optional rule. If the campaign does not use Hit Location rolls, this rule automatically does not apply. Even if the campaign uses Hit Location rolls, the GM does not have to permit its use. If the campaign uses Hit Locations, and the GM permits its use, you should assign each maneuver one of the following location rolls: 2d6+1, 2d6+7, 3d6, No Roll, and No Location. If you’re using this rule, maneuvers suffer no OCV penalty based on the targeted location (even though, for example, 2d6+1 and 2d6+7 ordinarily suffer a -2 OCV [see page 277 of the HERO System 5th Edition]).

 

2d6+1: This is a High Shot. Most fist strikes (punches), elbow strikes, and head-butts should be assigned this location.

 

2d6+7: This is a Low Shot. It’s best suited to kicks which normally center around the stomach, groin, and legs.

 

3d6: Th is is the normal, all-around location roll. It’s suitable for kicks which can range from head to foot (which are common in martial arts styles) and for attacks from long weapons (such as swords, whips, and staves).

 

No Roll: The maneuver automatically hits a specific location — usually the head or vitals. However, the damage is not modified by the location, either. If the attack automatically hits the head (as a Choke Hold and some head butts will), you do not multiply the maneuver’s damage because of the location. If the attack automatically goes to a hand (as some nerve pinches could), do not halve the maneuver’s damage because of the location.

 

No Location: The maneuver hits no location at all — it doesn’t need one. Either it does no damage, so that no location roll is needed (for example, a Dodge or Block), or it does damage in such a generalized fashion there’s no chance of the damage being aff ected by the locations hit (as is the case with many throws and takedowns). Generally, ranged martial arts maneuvers use a standard 3d6 roll to determine Hit Location. A few of them, such as maneuvers with the Disarm or Throw Elements, may “target” a specifi c location. As usual, such maneuvers do not suffer Hit Location OCV or damage penalties or bonuses.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Neither do people who can fly' date=' fire bursts of energy from their hands, bounce bullets off their chests, turn invisible or desolid, or any of the myriad of abilities we purchase in game. I assume you accept these in your games.[/quote']

Of course. But logical consistency matters for those too.

 

If you can fire bursts of energy from your hands, that has SFX implications that depend on what kind of energy it is, how you actually emit it, what fuels/powers said emission, and what the reasonable interpretation of that energy's affect on the environment is.

 

If you can bounce bullets of your chest, how that effect was obtained matters since there are multiple ways to achieve that effect.

 

Ditto turning invisible (Are you actually Invisible? To what senses? Or do you put a "Somebody Elses's Problem" AKA "ignore me" field?)

 

etc. SFX -matter-.

 

But an attack which can reliably KO without killing is too unrealistic for you...

WTF did I -ever- say that? Never.

[prestidigitator]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Not yet (I have yet to see an answer involving an actual number of dice).

 

Maybe the following will help you out some.

 

from 5er, page 399:

 

from the official rules forum:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73395&highlight=choke+hold

 

from UMA (The Ultimate Martial Artist), page 95:

 

from UMA (sidebar), pages 101-102:

 

Also, as it may have been missed, this is still true in 6E. 6E NND Maneuvers

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

WTF did I -ever- say that? Never.

 

You have repeatedly stated that you will not allow NND's that can never do BOD, and feel obligated to create a House Rule under which they will do BOD under some circumstances. By the rules NND's never risk killing the target (unless specifically bouight to do BOD). You find that rule so unrealistic you feel you must house rule it away, but you can accept far less realistic constructs.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

You have repeatedly stated that you will not allow NND's that can never do BOD' date=' and feel obligated to create a House Rule under which they will do BOD under some circumstances. By the rules NND's never risk killing the target (unless specifically bouight to do BOD). You find that rule so unrealistic you feel you must house rule it away, but you can accept far less realistic constructs.[/quote']

Nope.

 

And again I must quote myself...

 

(in my campaigns) NNDs don't do BODY unless

a= their SFX is such that the attack could have that consequence.

b= they do enough NND damage in one shot.

 

As someone said earlier, ITRW there are no NND attacks. It's an abstraction that makes sense under certain circumstances. Violate the premises of those circumstances, and it no longer makes sense.

 

Note also that if I'm honoring the logical implications of SFX to this degree, I'm doing it as much as I can in other ways as well.

 

Bottom line is that ITRW there is no such thing as STUN or BODY or CON. Nor ND, KD, and NND.

 

The game system, any game system, is a set of abstractions and mechanics to help us simulate an alternate reality for gaming purposes.

No rule system is complete accurate. No rule system is 100% logically consistent.

 

AND HAVING THE SIMULATION WORK WELL FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PEOPLE USING IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN BLIND SLAVISH DEVOTION TO =ANY= RULE SYSTEM.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

AND HAVING THE SIMULATION WORK WELL FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PEOPLE USING IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN BLIND SLAVISH DEVOTION TO =ANY= RULE SYSTEM.

 

I consider fairness and playabililty both more important concepts than simulated realism. "Pick the right SFX and get a package of free bonuses" supports neither fairness nor playability. If the SFX suggest the attack shold be capable of doing BOD, a power capable of doing BOD should be selected. If a power incapable of doing BOD is selected, then it is incapable of doing BOD.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

I consider fairness and playabililty both more important concepts than simulated realism.

On that we agree.

 

"Pick the right SFX and get a package of free bonuses" supports neither fairness nor playability.

If you think I am advocating "Pick the right SFX and get a package of free bonuses", you and I are having a serious misunderstanding.

 

If anything I'm =more= draconian than the RAW.

 

If the SFX suggest the attack shold be capable of doing BOD, a power capable of doing BOD should be selected. If a power incapable of doing BOD is selected, then it is incapable of doing BOD.

100% agree with first sentence.

 

However, sometimes the world is not that simple. Sometimes things happen that invalidate the model we are working from. When that happens, the situation needs to be cleaned up somehow.

 

My choice is to use the RAW as far as I can until the results drift too far from what would be logically consistent given what we know ITRW. Then I patch things as best as I can to keep the game world logically consistent.