Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

[Christougher]

I'm half considering the idea of changing the KA scale to make d6-1 a different value than 1/2d6 is, at least for weapons. And realigning STR minima (/3) to counter for some of the lost DCs.

 

5 AP 1pip STR 2

10 AP .5d6 STR 3 Dagger

15 AP d6-1 STR 5 Throwing Axe

20 AP 1d6 STR 7 Short Sword

25 AP 1d6+1 STR 8 Small Axe

30 AP 1.5d6 STR 10 Long Sword

35 AP 2d6-1 STR 12 Large Axe

40 AP 2d6 STR 13 Great Sword

45 AP 2d6+1 STR 15 Great Axe

50 AP 2.5d6 STR 17 Glaive

55 AP 3d6-1 STR 18 Voulge

 

I know this would play havoc with magic spells, so I'm not considering changing that right now.

 

Any thoughts or opinions on how this would work out?

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

I have never liked the "d6 -1" mechanic. At any cost. It makes it so that, yes, on average you do more damage than 1.5d6, but that you can get 0 body on a die - with a 1 and a 2 on the half-die, that is 1 BODY.

 

That also plays havoc with the scale of Damage Classes.

 

My advice would be to simply change anything that is Xd6 -1 into X.5d6.

[dmjalund]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

or

1 pip = 5

1/2d6 = 10

1d6 -1 = 12

1d6 = 15

[Old Man]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

I have never liked the "d6 -1" mechanic. At any cost. It makes it so that, yes, on average you do more damage than 1.5d6, but that you can get 0 body on a die - with a 1 and a 2 on the half-die, that is 1 BODY.

 

That also plays havoc with the scale of Damage Classes.

 

My advice would be to simply change anything that is Xd6 -1 into X.5d6.

 

If you plot out the average and maximum damage for each DC it quickly becomes apparent that Xd6-1 is always better than Y.5d6.* In fact, the d6-1 DCs belong in between the .5d6 DCs and the full d6 DCs, thus:

 

1 pip

0.5d6

1d6-1

1d6

1d6+1

1.5d6

2d6-1

2d6

etc.

 

You can actually get pretty close to current point values if you use this "expanded" DC chart and give each DC a cost of 4 points. I think it'd work really well, and would help some with FH's granularity issues, but I've never actually tried it.

 

 

* Where Y = X-1.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

I've toyed with 1 point = 0-1 (50% chance of either), 2 = +1, 3 = 1/2d6, 4 = 1d6-1, 5 = 1d6 to make every STR point count. Triple the costs for a killing attack and 1d6-1 is worth a bit more than 1/2d6.

[Christougher]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

I guess I didn't ask a reasonable question.

 

As players or GMs, how would you react to using such a scale and STR minima? Are players going to feel content with damage capacity? Am I going to need to boost(or lower) damage or armor? Obviously, I have to convert monsters and magic items to this scale, but that's almost a no-brainer.

 

Of course converting RKAs and spells to this might be a bigger issue. I think I'll leave actual 'spells' RAW, and just adopt the new scale to RKA weapons, and leave any normal damage weapons alone save the STR Minima = AP/3.

[Old Man]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

Well, IME active points for melee weapons generally don't matter nearly as much as the STR mins, which don't look very out of line. I certainly prefer this chart, or something like it, to the FH5 table which seems to have been randomly generated.

[Christougher]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

Well' date=' IME active points for melee weapons generally don't matter nearly as much as the STR mins, which don't look very out of line. I certainly prefer this chart, or something like it, to the FH5 table which seems to have been randomly generated.[/quote']

 

The 4E STR Mins were based on AP/2, while 5E was pulled outta Steve's head.

[Old Man]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

Pulled out of Steve's what? For a second there I thought you said "head".

[Ice9]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

1 pip = 5

1/2d6 = 10

1d6 -1 = 12

1d6 = 15

Actually, if we assume a basis of 1d6 KA = 3.5 average = 15 points, then the others should technically cost:

1d6-1 = 2.5 average = 10.7 points

1/2d6 = 2 average = 8.6 points

1 = 1 average = 4.3 points

 

So really, 1d6-1 is closer to actually being 10 points in value than 1/2d6 is. Maybe we should get rid of 1/2d6?

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

+1, +2, 1d6-1, 1d6

 

Standard would be (In this format): +1, +2, 1d6

[Tasha]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

I'm half considering the idea of changing the KA scale to make d6-1 a different value than 1/2d6 is, at least for weapons. And realigning STR minima (/3) to counter for some of the lost DCs.

 

5 AP 1pip STR 2

10 AP .5d6 STR 3 Dagger

15 AP d6-1 STR 5 Throwing Axe

20 AP 1d6 STR 7 Short Sword

25 AP 1d6+1 STR 8 Small Axe

30 AP 1.5d6 STR 10 Long Sword

35 AP 2d6-1 STR 12 Large Axe

40 AP 2d6 STR 13 Great Sword

45 AP 2d6+1 STR 15 Great Axe

50 AP 2.5d6 STR 17 Glaive

55 AP 3d6-1 STR 18 Voulge

 

I know this would play havoc with magic spells, so I'm not considering changing that right now.

 

Any thoughts or opinions on how this would work out?

 

Sorry, KA's have a real lack of granularity. Nerfing the body damage of KA's is defiantly the wrong way to go. You will find that with your scale that KA's become less desirable compared to Normal Attacks (ie Blast and Hand attack). Basically you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Tasha]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

Well' date=' IME active points for melee weapons generally don't matter nearly as much as the STR mins, which don't look very out of line. I certainly prefer this chart, or something like it, to the FH5 table which seems to have been randomly generated.[/quote']

 

The big problem isn't StrMins it's using this to create Spells.

 

The only way to fix it is to lower rDef (armor) values. Again this decreases an already narrow Granularity to next to nothing.

 

It's too major a change to something that's really minor. If you don't like 1/2D6 to be the same price as 1d6-1, then make the d6-1 values 3 points more than the 1/2 d6 values. Then the person is spending a bit more for having that extra body on average, and you aren't hosing the whole system.

[Tasha]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

Actually, if we assume a basis of 1d6 KA = 3.5 average = 15 points, then the others should technically cost:

1d6-1 = 2.5 average = 10.7 points

1/2d6 = 2 average = 8.6 points

1 = 1 average = 4.3 points

 

So really, 1d6-1 is closer to actually being 10 points in value than 1/2d6 is. Maybe we should get rid of 1/2d6?

 

look at it like this

1d6= 3.5 average 15 pts

1d6-1 =2.5 average

1/2d6 = 1.75 average 10 pts

1 = 1 average 5 pts.

 

perhaps making the d6-1 value 12 or 13 could make sense. It just adds something minor to the rules and increases complexity of an already complex damage type. It's hard enough getting noobs to understand how DC's work with KA's. adding this just makes that worse. What do you call it DC 2.5? and how do you deal with explaining that only DC 2,5,8 etc can have half a Killing DC? It adds inconsistency to the damage type. I can understand wanting people to "pay" for every bonus one gets in the system, but quibbling over what turns out to be less than a single body on average just seems petty.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

Actually, if we assume a basis of 1d6 KA = 3.5 average = 15 points, then the others should technically cost:

1d6-1 = 2.5 average = 10.7 points

1/2d6 = 2 average = 8.6 points

1 = 1 average = 4.3 points

 

So really, 1d6-1 is closer to actually being 10 points in value than 1/2d6 is. Maybe we should get rid of 1/2d6?

 

1d6 standard effect = 3 BOD = 15 points

1/2d6 average = 2 BOD = 10 points

1 pip average = 1 BOD = 5 points

 

I'd rather the incremental steps cost a bit too much rather than a bit too little, although the total impact is minor at the end of the day.

 

look at it like this

1d6= 3.5 average 15 pts

1d6-1 =2.5 average

1/2d6 = 1.75 average 10 pts

1 = 1 average 5 pts.

 

1d6-1 is not, IIRC, considered to result in 0 on a roll of 1, so the average is [1 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5]/6 = 2 2/3

1/2d6 is not interpreted with halves, but as 1,1,2,2,3,3 - so it does average 2

 

2 2/3/3.5 x 15 = 11.43 points, so we could call 1d6-1 12 points.

 

2/3.5 x 15 = 8.57, so we could call 1/2d6 9 points

 

1/3.5 x 15 = 4.29, so we could keep that at 5 points.

 

Toss in 1/2d6 +1 (average 3) at 3/3.5 x 15 = 12.85 so 13 points, and 1/2d6 -1 (1,1,1,1,2,2 so 1 1/3 average BOD) at 1 1/3/3.5 x 15 = 5.7 so 6 points, and maybe 1/2d6 -1 with no minimum (0,0,1,1,2,2 so average 1) and it costs the same as +1 but has more volatility, and we get a decent enough result.

 

Oh, and make Standard Effect the actual average. That's 3.5 x dice, not 3x dice.

 

There's no magic to every increment being evenly divisible by 5,so changing the system to cost out the various stages at closer to their incremental value based on average BOD doesn't really hurt.

[Tasha]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

There's no magic to every increment being evenly divisible by 5,so changing the system to cost out the various stages at closer to their incremental value based on average BOD doesn't really hurt.

 

The "Magic" of being divisible by 5 is the simplicity of figuring out Damage Class values. DC= Cost of Attack /5 (ignoring limits and usually taking advantages into account). So by changing the middle values to 9pts and 12pts you make figuring DCs a bit harder to explain to a new player.

 

I will also point out that all of the extra complication is being added because DC 2 (5,8 etc)attacks can be expressed in a way that allows for the attack to do on average 2/3 of a body more. Is this really worth all of the hassle? It just seems like a silly thing to change over such a minor thing.

 

I am all about changes that make the game more simple for beginners. I hate "simplification" that actually makes things harder.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

The "Magic" of being divisible by 5 is the simplicity of figuring out Damage Class values. DC= Cost of Attack /5 (ignoring limits and usually taking advantages into account). So by changing the middle values to 9pts and 12pts you make figuring DCs a bit harder to explain to a new player.

 

12 is "a bit higher than 2 and a bit less than 3". That doesn't seem all that hard.

 

Advantages frequently result in points that are not readily divisible by 5. The current guidelines for which advantages do, or do not, increase damage class complicate matters far more, in my opinion, and are exacerbated by the fact that many groups modify the list.

[Old Man]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

I am all about changes that make the game more simple for beginners. I hate "simplification" that actually makes things harder.

 

For newer players, yeah, I wouldn't bother changing it. For ancient hacks like me, after a few years the granularity in FH gets annoying, and there's a significant jump between the .5d6 DC and the next, full dice, DC up.

[Tasha]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

For newer players' date=' yeah, I wouldn't bother changing it. For ancient hacks like me, after a few years the granularity in FH gets annoying, and there's a significant jump between the .5d6 DC and the next, full dice, DC up.[/quote']

 

There was a point in my life where xd6-1 being the same cost as 1/2d6 would bug me. I am really at a point where, I just don't want to sweat small crud like that. I just want to get a good story and explore it with 4-6 characters run by my good friends. This stuff just isn't important.

 

I do agree that Killing attacks have an annoying lack of Granularity. the difference between 1/2d6 RKA up to 2.5d6 RKA is an incredibly small range. Though I am learning to live with it. It seems to work ok, and I have fun in all of the games that I used weapons in that range. Yeah it's hard to differentiate between guns sometimes, but the differences between guns and other weapons seems to be in many cases not entirely scientific. Also Hero is a cinematic game which does not stress "realism" so it all seems to work out.

[Markdoc]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

I do agree that Killing attacks have an annoying lack of Granularity. the difference between 1/2d6 RKA up to 2.5d6 RKA is an incredibly small range. Though I am learning to live with it. It seems to work ok' date=' and I have fun in all of the games that I used weapons in that range. Yeah it's hard to differentiate between guns sometimes, but the differences between guns and other weapons seems to be in many cases not entirely scientific. Also Hero is a cinematic game which does not stress "realism" so it all seems to work out.[/quote']

 

Actually, in real life, the difference between guns is much smaller than all the text wasted on it would have you believe. So in that instance, at least, it's realistic.

 

cheers, Mark

[Old Man]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

Actually' date=' in real life, the difference between guns is much smaller than all the text wasted on it would have you believe. So in that instance, at least, it's realistic.[/quote']

 

Exactly. Unless you're the one on the wrong end of the gun...

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

I do agree that Killing attacks have an annoying lack of Granularity. the difference between 1/2d6 RKA up to 2.5d6 RKA is an incredibly small range. Though I am learning to live with it. It seems to work ok' date=' and I have fun in all of the games that I used weapons in that range. Yeah it's hard to differentiate between guns sometimes, but the differences between guns and other weapons seems to be in many cases not entirely scientific. Also Hero is a cinematic game which does not stress "realism" so it all seems to work out.[/quote']

1/2d6K deals 1-3 Body while 2.5d6K deals 3-15 Body. That seems like a decent range to me, especially when you add in the uncertain aspect of the Stun Multiplier...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

1/2d6K deals 1-3 Body while 2.5d6K deals 3-15 Body. That seems like a decent range to me' date=' especially when you add in the uncertain aspect of the Stun Multiplier...[/quote']

 

The only reason it may not seem like a huge range is that the range of BOD is not extreme either, particularly when compared against games where hit points reach the hundreds. If we want more granularity in guns, we could multply BOD and STUN by 10, say. 1/2d6 then becomes 5d6, while 1d6 becomes 10d6. Lots of room for weapons doing a little less than 5d6, or a little more in the range up to 10d6. But that incremental damage obviously won't mean veryt much, since it's going up against much higher BOD scores. And we'd have to revise defenses and large parts of the rest of the game to compensate for the increase - maybe just multiply everything by 10.

 

A lot of work to basically get the same results with more dice.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

I dropped the D6-1 concept from my games a very long time ago. Just didn't jell with me as being equal to 1/2D6 so it went away and my Damage Classes have been nice and stable ever since.

[Christougher]

Re: Considering: Sliding the KA scale for Weapons

 

Wow, step away from the thread for a while and see what happens...

 

There are a bunch of interesting arguments here, but I don't see the one I really posed being discussed: To do this, I would change the scale so that 1d6K = 20 AP, keeping the "magic" 1 DC = 5 AP and inserting the d6-1 in the empty space.

 

Admittedly, this would be a nerf on damage inflicted, but I think I have a solution to that (STR Min = AP/3) but I don't want to derail the thread with that yet.