Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

[dsatow]

I've been tossing around an idea for a replacement to find weakness and given so far as I have read, find weakness is gone from 6th ed. I might introduce my version into my 6e games.

 

Lack of Weakness is 1 pt per point and is valid versus all find powers.

 

Find Weakness still costs 10 pts for an 11-, +10 for group, and +10 for all.

 

A new find power, Find Vulnerability, costs the same as find weakness.

 

Find Weakness, when found, adds +2 DC. Each successful find weakness adds another +2 DC. A failed find weakness roll prevents all further find weakness attempts in that combat. Each successive find weakness roll is at a -2 cumulative.

 

Find Vulnerability, when found, add +1 to OCV vs that target. Each successful find vulnerability adds another +1 OCV. A failed find vulnerability roll prevents all further find vulnerability attempts in that combat. Each successive find vulnerability roll is at a -2 cumulative.

 

In heroic games, the finds should be capped at 2 successful rolls.

 

I am looking at comments of on play balance, cost, and effect in combat.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

Have you costed it out in terms of +2DC with all the limitations and such Find Weakness carries with it?

 

There are a number of ways you could build it: Aid is the obvious place to start but you could just do it like this:

 

24 Active Points 60 point MP, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (60 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Each 2DC requires a seperate roll taking 1/2 phase and at a cumulative -2 penalty, a failed roll meaning you can not roll again FOR THAT TARGET; -1), Requires A Roll (PER roll; -1/2)

 

Then +2 points for each attack you can use (additional slots)

 

SO for 26 points you can add up to 8DC damage to an attack. You need to make skill rolls, seperate ones for each +2DC, with a cumulative -2 for each roll past the first, each taking 1/2 phase. Once you fail a roll you can not make any more for that target.

 

You could replace a slot with +2 OCV, or make the slots variable, or whatever they are called now, if you want to mix and match hit rolls and damage (which would be 5 points per slot).

 

You can make it cheaper by buying a lower maximum add for damage: make it +6DC maximum and the cost goes down to 18 points, or 12 points for +4DC - which is probably enough for a heroic level game.

 

So...12+6 points (3 slots) allows you to accumulate normal, killing or OCV and mix and match them as needed, up to +4.

 

I didn't really like the old Find Weakness because I never felt it was properly costed or balanced. Your version sounds better, but this is how I'd build it.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

Rep to both of you! I like this idea a lot! :D

 

Though I'm reminded of a time many years ago when a particularly munchkiny player tried to slide "Detect: vulnerability; Detect: Susceptibility; Detect: Weakest Defense" past me...

 

It didn't work, but it was a really funny moment for me.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

Assuming it works similarly in 6th as 5th, why not just Armor Piercing, requires a skill roll? Same end result, half defenses.

[Phil]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

Assuming it works similarly in 6th as 5th' date=' why not just Armor Piercing, requires a skill roll? Same end result, half defenses.[/quote']

 

Gotta love the simplicity here. I'm another one of the "didn't like Find Weakness" camp, as it just stuck out like a sore thumb in the effects-based world. This aint exactly the same, but it gives you broadly what you want and it's so quick and elegant. It definitely gets an honorable mention in the annals of the Brotherhood of Effect-Based Facism!

[Marcus Impudite]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

Not to be snarky or anything, but the FW issue is yet another reason why I'm sticking with 5th.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

Most certainly it does just that, unless they're double-hardened or whatever it is these days.

 

But I think I prefer the build that just adds a couple of DCs as opposed to cutting DEF in half. It still allows for a tank to be a tank.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

Assuming it works similarly in 6th as 5th' date=' why not just Armor Piercing, requires a skill roll? Same end result, half defenses.[/quote']

 

I agree, and I'd have allows multiple uses of AP to halve defences if I'd had a hand in it: the numbers actually work out really well in terms of cost/benefit. That can be a very dramatic change in damage potential though for superhero games, but not much effect for heroic games - where defences are much lower, so I think there is a place for the dsatow approach too - it depends what effect you want.

[mayapuppies]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

This is how I'm doing find Weakness now

Precision: Armor Piercing (x2; +1/2) for up to 60 Active Points of With [single Attack] (30 Active Points); Requires A Roll (Skill roll; Must be made each Phase/use; Combat Tricks; -1), Extra Time (Extra Phase, -3/4)

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

From an old thread:

 

It's probably easier to start at the other extreme with the following:

 

Naked Advantage: NND, Does Body

Limitations on the Naked Advantage: Requires Skill Roll, Gradual Effect.

[lemming]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

I'm not sorry about FW going away either. Generally used a skill based extra damage power to simulate it.

[dsatow]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

The big problem with FW originally wasn't the cutting a defense in half, but rather cutting the defense by more than half. Allow AP to cut defenses in half more than once would just generate the same problem FW had.

 

Using AP to simulate FW was also problematic in that in a martial arts/spy campaign, in order to stop a FW karate chop, one would have to hardened their PD which in turn would make them not take body from AP stilletos or AP bullets unless you begin limiting the advantage or give them hardened resistant defense only vs HTH killing attacks, not versus weapons, etc.

 

To me this is a more simple and elegant solution, though I don't know if its game balanced well. In my mind, it should be, but I may be too close to the idea.

 

BTW: I'm probably gonna change the term Find Vulnerability to Find Opening.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

you begin limiting the advantage or give them hardened resistant defense only vs HTH killing attacks' date=' not versus weapons, etc.[/quote']

 

Why is that a problem?

[dsatow]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

When you are familiar with the game and how to create the powers you want, that isn't a problem. But when you try to teach people how to play the game, complex power creation can be a big turn off. There are people who eyes glaze over when you talk math. Sad but true.

 

Another issue; there are players who make very complex powers, almost needlessly so, such that they can 'game' the system. You can always ban such players but HERO players aren't in the abundant numbers that D&D or Magic players are. Going over every bit of mathematical mumbo jumbo and explaining why yes or no, for me at least, gets to be a pain.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

.................

 

BTW: I'm probably gonna change the term Find Vulnerability to Find Opening.

 

Is it just me, or is that a bad idea?

 

The Violator: OK, I'm going to Find Opening on Orgone Lass.

 

GM: Perhaps you two would like to get a room?

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

Is it just me, or is that a bad idea?

 

 

 

at +4DC, it's a _horrifying_ idea!

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

Find Weakness still costs 10 pts for an 11-, +10 for group, and +10 for all.

 

Find Weakness, when found, adds +2 DC. Each successful find weakness adds another +2 DC. A failed find weakness roll prevents all further find weakness attempts in that combat. Each successive find weakness roll is at a -2 cumulative.

+2DC if you take a half-phase and roll 11- = 10 points

+2DC, no roll or extra time needed = 10 points

 

+4DC if you take two half-phases and roll 11- and then 9- (23.4% chance of success) = 10 points

+4DC, 11- Activation (62.5% chance of success), no extra time needed = 10 points. (Granted, you need to make the roll each time. OTOH, you can try again even after a failure.)

 

Find Vulnerability, when found, add +1 to OCV vs that target. Each successful find vulnerability adds another +1 OCV. A failed find vulnerability roll prevents all further find vulnerability attempts in that combat. Each successive find vulnerability roll is at a -2 cumulative.

+1 OCV if you take a half-phase and roll 11- and applies to only one attack = 10 points

+1 OCV, no roll or extra time needed and applies to all attacks = 5 points

 

+2 OCV if you take two half-phases and roll 11- and then 9- (23.4% chance of success) for one attack form = 10 points

+2 OCV, no roll or extra time needed for all attack forms = 10 points

 

+3 OCV if you take three half-phases and roll 11-, 9- and then 7- (3.8% chance of success) for one attack form = 10 points

+3 OCV, for one attack form only, no roll or extra time needed = 6 points

 

And Re: multiple halvings of defenses (whether done with 5E-style FW or with house-ruled Armor Piercing allowing it to apply multiple times) really isn't that much of a problem, since each additional halving gives about half as much utility, assuming you can get some damage through with just the first level. Compare it to NND - reduces defenses to ZERO, not just half, for only +1.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

And Re: multiple halvings of defenses (whether done with 5E-style FW or with house-ruled Armor Piercing allowing it to apply multiple times) really isn't that much of a problem' date=' since each additional halving gives about half as much utility, assuming you can get some damage through with just the first level. Compare it to NND - reduces defenses to ZERO, not just half, for only +1.[/quote']

 

Also eliminates the ability to do Bod. Elimination of all defenses for a normal attack is a +2 advantage (NND Does BOD). Under 5e (6e reduced the cost of AP), a +2 advantage if we allow AP to stack reduces defenses to 1/16 of their normal value, which will be pretty close to an NND Does BOD defense is hardened defenses, except that completely eliminating the AP effect requires 4 iterations of Hardened. I suppose it would be easy enough to rule that stacking AP for multiple halvings means all AP is blocked by a single iteration of Hardened defenses.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

Multiple halvings for AP worked out just fine IMO wehn AP was +1/2. I have not worked it out for +1/4 yet...

 

Assuming 60 AP attack v 24 defence:

 

AP0: 12d6 v 24 = 18/0 (+0)

AP1: 9 1/2 d6 v 12 = 12/0 (+1/4)

AP2: 8d6 v 6 = 22/2 (+1/2)

AP3: 6 1/2 d6 v 3 =20/3 (+3/4)

AP4: 6d6 v 2 = 19/4 (+1)

 

See: messy. Another reason not to have messed with perfection

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

Also eliminates the ability to do Bod. Elimination of all defenses for a normal attack is a +2 advantage (NND Does BOD). Under 5e (6e reduced the cost of AP)' date=' a +2 advantage if we allow AP to stack reduces defenses to 1/16 of their normal value, which will be pretty close to an NND Does BOD defense is hardened defenses, except that completely eliminating the AP effect requires 4 iterations of Hardened. I suppose it would be easy enough to rule that stacking AP for multiple halvings means all AP is blocked by a single iteration of Hardened defenses.[/quote']

Yes. Sounds pretty comparable to me. Assuming you want BODY damage done (which isn't always the case), in a 60-AP game, you could have:

 

a) 12d6 EB - 42 STUN, 12 BODY

4d6 RKA - 28 STUN, 14 BODY

c) 4d6 EB, NND, Does Body - 14 STUN, 4 BODY (conditional defense)

d) 1d6+1 RKA, NND, Does Body - 9 STUN, 4.5 BODY (conditional defense)

e) 4d6 EB, APx4 - 14 STUN, 4 BODY (1/16 defenses)

f) 1d6+1 RKA, APx4 - 9 STUN, 4.5 BODY (1/16 defenses)

 

What are the typical Defenses in a game with 60-AP attacks typical? 20/10? 24/12? 30/15?

 

And while we're at it:

 

g) 8d6 EB, AP - 28 STUN, 8 BODY (1/2 Defenses)

h) 2.5d6 RKA, AP - 18 STUN, 9 BODY (1/2 Defenses)

 

In my experience, one level of AP is a fine buy. Multiple levels, even if you allow them to "stack," further halving defenses, has rapidly diminishing returns.

 

Oh, and you can also compare these:

 

i) 6d6 EB, APx2 - 21 STUN, 6 BODY (1/4 defenses)

j) 2d6 RKA, APx2 - 14 STUN, 7 BODY (1/4 defenses)

k) 6d6 EB, NND - 21 STUN, 0 BODY (conditional defense)

l) 2d6 RKA, NND - 14 STUN, 0 BODY (conditional defense) - This one really isn't worth considering, but I mention it just for completeness.

[Vulcan]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

My solution to replacing Find Weakness in 6E was to simply grandfather it (and Lack of Weakness) in from 5E. Although I'm looking at a slight cost increase to reflect the increase in overall points in 6E.

 

In my opinion, they were balanced just fine in 5E, so they should balance just fine in 6E too. Obviously YMMV.

[JmOz]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

My solution to replacing Find Weakness in 6E was to simply grandfather it (and Lack of Weakness) in from 5E. Although I'm looking at a slight cost increase to reflect the increase in overall points in 6E.

 

In my opinion, they were balanced just fine in 5E, so they should balance just fine in 6E too. Obviously YMMV.

 

I do like the idea of making the cost based on the number of DC's (Instead of the type of attack)

[Vulcan]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

I do like the idea of making the cost based on the number of DC's (Instead of the type of attack)

 

Not an unreasonable idea, perhaps something like 1 point per DC on the attack power it would affect for an 11- base roll, +1 to the roll for 2 points. +1 Advantage for 'related group of powers', +2 for 'any attack'. Perhaps an additional +1 for attacks that apply to exotic defenses. That way for a single 12 DC attack it would cost 12 points for 11- (a bit more than the 10 for 5E), and 14- would cost 18 points (a bit less than the 25 for the 5E version. 11- for all attacks would be 36 points, and 14- would be 54 points (vs. 30 and 45 for 5E).

[JmOz]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

Not an unreasonable idea' date=' perhaps something like 1 point per DC on the attack power it would affect for an 11- base roll, +1 to the roll for 2 points. +1 Advantage for 'related group of powers', +2 for 'any attack'. Perhaps an additional +1 for attacks that apply to exotic defenses. That way for a single 12 DC attack it would cost 12 points for 11- (a bit more than the 10 for 5E), and 14- would cost 18 points (a bit less than the 25 for the 5E version. 11- for all attacks would be 36 points, and 14- would be 54 points (vs. 30 and 45 for 5E).[/quote']

 

something like that, but maybe lessen the advantages

[Vulcan]

Re: Request for comments: Replacement for Find Weakness

 

something like that' date=' but maybe lessen the advantages[/quote']

 

Eh, it was just an idle thought. How would you break it down?