6E What happened to HKA?

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

So' date=' I assume if we change the price of STR, we also change the price of Telekinesis. It's probably underpriced already, as it is costed as ranged STR, but also has the Indirect advantage built in.[/quote']

 

It also functions as an Extra Limb.

[prestidigitator]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

I've never been quite clear on how multiplicative modifiers would work. How would you calculate the cost for a 3d6 Blast, Penetrating +½, Reduced Endurance(No END) +½; OIAID -¼, Unified Power -¼? I'm thinking that it would be 15 * 3 / 2 * 3 /2 = 33.75 rounded to 34 Active Points. Costing 34 * 4 / 5 * 4 / 5 = 21.76 rounded to 22 Real Points. Is that right?

 

EDIT: No, wait. Maybe it's like this 3 / 2 * 3 / 2 * 4 / 5 * 4 / 5 = 9 / 4 * 3 / 5 = 27 / 20, so the point cost is 15 * 27 / 20 ≈ 20 Real Points. No, wait. 4 / 5 * 4 / 5 isn't 3 / 5; it's 16 / 25. So that's 9 / 4 * 16 / 25 = 144 / 100. So, thats 144% of 15, so 22 points again. It's probably simpler to do 15 * 9 / 4 * 16 / 25 ≈ 22 Real Points.

You've got the basic idea, I think. Instead of Advantages having values like +1/4 or +1/2, they'd have values like 5/4 or 3/2 (always values greater than one). Instead of Limitations having values like -1/4 or -1/2, they'd have values like 4/5 or 2/3 (always values less than one). Then you'd keep track of Active Points and Real Cost. Applying an Advantage (multiplier greater than one) would always increase both, whereas applying a Limitation (multiplier less than one) would only affect Real Cost. It might not always make sense to ALWAYS do a straight conversion of every Modifer ( M = 1+A or M = 1/(1+L) ); there might well have to be some re-balancing. And not all values would have to be those currently achievable from Advantages and Limitations that are multiples of 1/4, either (not that it makes all that big of a difference). So you could easily have Advantages worth 6/5 or Limitations worth 3/4.

 

Taking existing powers and applying additional Modifiers would be a lot easier, and there wouldn't really be a difference, say, between applying Modifiers to a Talent vs. re-creating that Talent using Powers and then applying Modifiers to that to re-build a tweaked version. Inverse Modifiers (e.g. Costs End vs. 0 End Cost) would always be reciprocals of each other (and would always undo the other's effect on the Real Cost, though not on Active Points).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

I'd say yes to using different characteristics' date=' though I'd require an advantage similar to "Alternative combat value" (ie: +1/4) since STR is primarily a damage-adding Stat. Being able to use EGO for example to boost damage would allow you to double dip on EGO as a mentalist, to a small extent, since it does other things as well. I'd say no to allowing powers to enhance one another - powers and characteristics operate in fundamentally different ways, and it's too open to abuse.[/quote']

 

STR is a damage causing stat. Buying more STR that only adds to damage seems reasonable. Buying a Drain, a Flash and a KA and then getting them all bumped up by STR when other characters can't augment their attacks with other damage-causing abilities strikes me as unreasonable.

 

The issue I always have with "attack is augmented by characteristic" at any advantage value is that it basically sets a mechanical breakpoint. Why would I make a 4d6 HKA that gets augmented to 5d6 by my 15 STR, and pay 60 points, when that same 60 points can buy me a 6d6 RKA with no range? Making "augmented by a characteristic" a +1/2 advantage serves only to indicate you should always augment your attack with a characteristic that is more than half the AP of your attack. If you have a 30 stat, you will gain 3DC's by "30 base point attack modified by a characteristics" for 45 points rather than spending the same 45 points on 9 DC's that are not augmented by a characteristic.

 

My preference for any point-based system is that the same mechanics carry the same cost, regardless of the build. An advantage to "augment attack with characteristic" fails to achieve that goal.

 

Moving to use of other characteristics, given that Ego now only assists with Ego rolls and resisting mental effects, I'm not sure that Ego has a lot more double dip potential than STR, which assists in carrying gear (very valuable in Fantasy), as well as lifting heavy objects, etc. It doesn't seem like a +1/2 advantage to add STR or to add EGO seems a lot different. CON might be more valuable since it serves a defensive purpose as well. DEX costs more, which evens things out. Some of the primaries make little sense as adders (BOD and CON come to mind), but I'm not sure that STR is any more a damage adder stat if we're establishing that "adds to this Characteristic" is a +1/2 advantage in any case. Perhaps the assertion STR is underpriced would be mitigated by allowing other stats to also enhance attack powers, at the same implicit advantage cost.

 

If we're using the AVAD model, are there some characteristics where the AVAD should step down the chart, rather than up? What is the advantage/limitation for my Precise Attack, which is augmented by OCV, remembering that OCV costs a lot more than STR? On the one hand, not augmented at all is a +0, so any limitation is clearly inappropriate. If I charge +1/4 for "augmented by OCV, then a 13 OCV adds 1.5 DC's and costs the same 60 points that a 60 STR cost. A +1/2 advantage to add 12 DC's compares pretty poorly to a +1/4 advantage that adds 1.5 DC's. Maybe we need to use the implicit cost of the characteristic when we augment attacks with it. Then it would seem more reasonable for "Augmented by OCV" to carry a premium over "Augmented by STR". But how much of a premium?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

Moving to use of other characteristics' date=' given that Ego now only assists with Ego rolls and resisting mental effects, I'm not sure that Ego has a lot more double dip potential than STR, which assists in carrying gear (very valuable in Fantasy), as well as lifting heavy objects, etc. It doesn't seem like a +1/2 advantage to add STR or to add EGO seems a lot different. CON might be more valuable since it serves a defensive purpose as well. DEX costs more, which evens things out. Some of the primaries make little sense as adders (BOD and CON come to mind), but I'm not sure that STR is any more a damage adder stat if we're establishing that "adds to this Characteristic" is a +1/2 advantage in any case. Perhaps the assertion STR is underpriced would be mitigated by allowing other stats to also enhance attack powers, at the same implicit advantage cost.[/quote']

 

Why not something like +STR, Only For HKA. For a character with, say, 10 STR and 25 EGO, who wants an EGO-based HKA, +15 STR, Only For HKA (-1). Note that I wouldn't allow it as a general build for just anyone to increase their HKA this way; only for a character where special effects call for such a thing.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

Why not something like +STR' date=' Only For HKA. For a character with, say, 10 STR and 25 EGO, who wants an EGO-based HKA, +15 STR, Only For HKA (-1). Note that I wouldn't allow it as a general build for just anyone to increase their HKA this way; only for a character where special effects call for such a thing.[/quote']

 

Why should only HKA be able to be enhanced with a characteristic? Killing attacks are the only attack power that is structured in a ranged and non-ranged version, and the non-ranged version is the only attack power augmented by a characteristic (note that my view is that Hand Attack is extra STR for attacks). If we eliminated HKA, we would have RKA only, with such powers as claws being Killing Attacks, No Range.

 

You want to do more claw damage because you are strong? Buy more KA dice. Your character's high strength is a special effect for higher claw damage, just like bigger claws, sharper claws or claws made of Unobtainium is a SFX of an increased KA. You might even Limit your KA to be affected as your STR by negative adjustment powers, if you want your KA damage to decline if your STR is reduced.

 

Why is it more likely a character's SFX call for Ego to augment his Killing Attack than for STR to augment a Drain, or Ego to augment Mind Control? All of these SFX seem equally valid to me, but only in the case of KA's do we allow something other than more points in the attack to enhance it. And only STR can enhance attacks. Why? Just because it's always been that way? Every positive change to the rules since 1e has changed the was things had been.

 

Because we want SR to enhance weapon damage in equipment-based games? That's a property of the equipment, so how it's build and what it costs is irrelevant. It also eliminates the dichotomy that bows and similar weapons get a special limitation for not being augmented by STR over the STR minimum when RKA's aren't enhanced by STR in the first place.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

...

 

You want to do more claw damage because you are strong? Buy more KA dice. Your character's high strength is a special effect for higher claw damage, just like bigger claws, sharper claws or claws made of Unobtainium is a SFX of an increased KA. You might even Limit your KA to be affected as your STR by negative adjustment powers, if you want your KA damage to decline if your STR is reduced.

 

...

 

To expand upon this idea further to weapons you could build a sword with enough KA to equal it's maximum damage and then Limit effectiveness (damage) according to how much STR is used to wield it. This is essentially the same meta-concept I used when building Green Lantern and his Power Ring (replacing STR with EGO). Real Cost can end up being about the same as current rules but Active Cost will certainly increase.

[Markdoc]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

STR is a damage causing stat. Buying more STR that only adds to damage seems reasonable. Buying a Drain' date=' a Flash and a KA and then getting them all bumped up by STR when other characters can't augment their attacks with other damage-causing abilities strikes me as unreasonable.[/quote']

 

Why? You wrote yourself that Strength is a damage-causing stat. Adding to KA (a construct to do damage) seem perfectly reasonable to me (also logical). Adding it to Drain or Flash is currently not rules legal nor terribly sensible as those attacks do not do damage (in the sense of Stun/Bod)

 

The issue I always have with "attack is augmented by characteristic" at any advantage value is that it basically sets a mechanical breakpoint. Why would I make a 4d6 HKA that gets augmented to 5d6 by my 15 STR' date=' and pay 60 points, when that same 60 points can buy me a 6d6 RKA with no range? Making "augmented by a characteristic" a +1/2 advantage serves only to indicate you should always augment your attack with a characteristic that is more than half the AP of your attack. If you have a 30 stat, you will gain 3DC's by "30 base point attack modified by a characteristics" for 45 points rather than spending the same 45 points on 9 DC's that are not augmented by a characteristic.[/quote']

 

Good heavens! Breakpoints in Hero! What a concept! I think what you mean is that it would add one more to the many breakpoints that already exist in Hero - which given their current existence, seems to me to be a good thing - the more, different breakpoints there are, the less they matter.

 

So yes, if you have a 30 Stat, you'd gain 3 DCs - if you bought the attack with "Stat adds". Since this would be more expensive than buying the DCs straight, I'm not seeing the problem here. You yourself state that you could buy 3 DCs via a stat rather than 9 DCs by buying it straight. That's not a problem, of course since if you didn't want the high stat., you wouldn't have bought it. So the fact that "Stat-augmented" DCs cost more than DCs bought straight I see as a Feature, not a Bug.

 

My preference for any point-based system is that the same mechanics carry the same cost' date=' regardless of the build. An advantage to "augment attack with characteristic" fails to achieve that goal.[/quote']

 

So you say, but you still haven't explained how.

 

Moving to use of other characteristics' date=' given that Ego now only assists with Ego rolls and resisting mental effects, I'm not sure that Ego has a lot more double dip potential than STR, which assists in carrying gear (very valuable in Fantasy), as well as lifting heavy objects, etc. It doesn't seem like a +1/2 advantage to add STR or to add EGO seems a lot different. CON might be more valuable since it serves a defensive purpose as well. DEX costs more, which evens things out. Some of the primaries make little sense as adders (BOD and CON come to mind), but I'm not sure that STR is any more a damage adder stat if we're establishing that "adds to this Characteristic" is a +1/2 advantage in any case. Perhaps the assertion STR is underpriced would be mitigated by allowing other stats to also enhance attack powers, at the same implicit advantage cost[/quote']

 

No, I'd stick with the suggestion of "alternate adder" for the simple reason that adding o damage is in fact STR's primary reason for existing. Carrying. lifting, breaking grabs are all nice, but definitely secondary (and in the case of the latter, a function of doing damage anyway). Other stats have other primary functions so adding the ability to add damage is definitely an extension of their function.

 

If we're using the AVAD model' date=' are there some characteristics where the AVAD should step down the chart, rather than up? What is the advantage/limitation for my Precise Attack, which is augmented by OCV, remembering that OCV costs a lot more than STR? On the one hand, not augmented at all is a +0, so any limitation is clearly inappropriate. If I charge +1/4 for "augmented by OCV, then a 13 OCV adds 1.5 DC's and costs the same 60 points that a 60 STR cost. A +1/2 advantage to add 12 DC's compares pretty poorly to a +1/4 advantage that adds 1.5 DC's. Maybe we need to use the implicit cost of the characteristic when we augment attacks with it. Then it would seem more reasonable for "Augmented by OCV" to carry a premium over "Augmented by STR". But how much of a premium?[/quote']

 

Step down the chart? I considered that. but no, I would't add that complication. I doubt it's particularly abusable - as you say, the things that you might consider doing this for are pretty much all significantly more expensive than STR, so you'd have to buy a lot of DCs to make a -1/4 step down efficient. The reason I'd say no is simply that adds complexity to the rules for no benefit that I can see. You'd almost always be better off just buying your precision-based DC straight. If some wanted to add OCV to their attack, instead of STR, they could do so: it'd be pretty inefficient at +1/4 or +1/2, so it's not like anyone really would.

 

The thing is, as I noted before you can already do almost everything that I am discussing now, but the rules are full of kludges or odd costings made necessary by trying to accommodate attacks built on different rules. If you want a precision based attack to which STR did not add you can buy unranged EB at a real cost of 3 points/DC. Unfortunately, you can also buy HTH attack with "STR does not add" at a lower real cost. To my mind, these should cost the same. You can already simulate KA by buying AVAD - but we have an extra "gotcha" in the rules to say that if you do this, then the attack no longer works like a regular AVAD attack, to make it more KA like. Why is this necessary? The whole debate we have just had about Grond armed with a thumbtack, would be unnecessary is we simply used the same damage-dealing structure I outlined: a 1 pt HKA would indeed convert his STR in KA - but at the cost of prorating, so that he'd do fewer DC overall.

 

Such a change allows more options, without throwing balance out the window and sticks to the concept that extra flexibility is gained at the cost of raw power.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

Why should only HKA be able to be enhanced with a characteristic? Killing attacks are the only attack power that is structured in a ranged and non-ranged version' date=' and the non-ranged version is the only attack power augmented by a characteristic (note that my view is that Hand Attack is extra STR for attacks). If we eliminated HKA, we would have RKA only, with such powers as claws being Killing Attacks, No Range. [/quote']

 

You're forgetting HTH attack again, which works the same way as HKA.

 

You want to do more claw damage because you are strong? Buy more KA dice. Your character's high strength is a special effect for higher claw damage' date=' just like bigger claws, sharper claws or claws made of Unobtainium is a SFX of an increased KA. You might even Limit your KA to be affected as your STR by negative adjustment powers, if you want your KA damage to decline if your STR is reduced.[/quote']

 

This fails the logic test. We could ignore that (though I can't see why we'd want to) if the only KAs ever used were bought with points, but even in a world of sentient beings made entirely out of flame and people who can deflect bullets with their mind, it breaks my suspension of disbelief when old aunty May and The Hulk do the same damage in HTH, when wielding a jagged club, or when picking up a weapon suddenly renders an immensely strong person feeble.

 

Why is it more likely a character's SFX call for Ego to augment his Killing Attack than for STR to augment a Drain, or Ego to augment Mind Control? All of these SFX seem equally valid to me, but only in the case of KA's do we allow something other than more points in the attack to enhance it. And only STR can enhance attacks. Why? Just because it's always been that way? Every positive change to the rules since 1e has changed the was things had been.

 

Because we want SR to enhance weapon damage in equipment-based games? That's a property of the equipment, so how it's build and what it costs is irrelevant. It also eliminates the dichotomy that bows and similar weapons get a special limitation for not being augmented by STR over the STR minimum when RKA's aren't enhanced by STR in the first place.

 

First, there's the very strong appeal of logic, and secondarily because adding to damage is what STR does - it's the primary reason the stat exists. Your argument could just as easily be applied to removing damage from STR entirely and saying all damage should be bought as EB or RKA. It's true - it could be. But why on earth would we want to?

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

To expand upon this idea further to weapons you could build a sword with enough KA to equal it's maximum damage and then Limit effectiveness (damage) according to how much STR is used to wield it. This is essentially the same meta-concept I used when building Green Lantern and his Power Ring (replacing STR with EGO). Real Cost can end up being about the same as current rules but Active Cost will certainly increase.

 

That is more or less the build I would see as reasonable. We can take the current Sword, 1 1/2d6 HKA, 10 STR min (example stats - IDHTBIFOM) and extrapolate that it is a 3d6+1 Killing Attack, No range,, with 2d6+1 Linked to STR. Cost = 15/1.5 + 35/2 = 10 + 17 = 27 points (yes, I am ignoring the Focus limitation, real weapon and anything else - this character can do the damage of a sword). If you don't have enough STR, or choose not to use it to augment the damage of the sword, then you simply have a smaller HKA.

 

My muscle powered Bruising PD drain, similarly, could be a 3d6 PD Drain (30 base points) augmented by STR for +1/2 = 45, and no range drops it back down to 30. With 30 STR, I have a 6d6 no range PD drain for 30 points. Or we could rule that this is a 3d6 PD Drain, no range (20 points) + 3d6 PD Drain, no range, linked to STR (15 points). Now it costs 35 points. If you can get the Ka at a discount because STR is a damage adding stat, why can't you get the drain for a similar discount because STR is a damage causing stat. Sure, a Drain doesn't do STUN or BOD (unless I make it a STUN or BOD drain) like STR does, but STR also does normal damage, not killing damage, so I consider that to be hair splitting.

 

Why? You wrote yourself that Strength is a damage-causing stat. Adding to KA (a construct to do damage) seem perfectly reasonable to me (also logical). Adding it to Drain or Flash is currently not rules legal nor terribly sensible as those attacks do not do damage (in the sense of Stun/Bod)

 

STR is a stat that causes normal damage. KA is a power that causes killing damage. Drain causes stat/power damage. Flash causes sensory damage. Four different types of damage. Why should some have the option of stacking while others do not? Why less tools in the toolbox rather than more? Of course, if we ditch HKA being augmented by STR, we can get a much purer structure where any characteristic can be Linked in.

 

Good heavens! Breakpoints in Hero! What a concept! I think what you mean is that it would add one more to the many breakpoints that already exist in Hero - which given their current existence' date=' seems to me to be a good thing - the more, different breakpoints there are, the less they matter.[/quote']

 

Will you allow each character to choose between HKA and RKA, no range, based exclusively on which one costs the least points?

 

Assuming you will, would you also allow them to Link some of the KA to STR? Let's say my 15 STR character is going to be a Wolverine clone, so he could buy a 4d6 HKA, 5d6 with STR for 60 points. Or he could buy a 5d6 RKA, no Range for 50 points. Now, let's buy 4d6 RKA, No Range (40 points) + 1d6 RKA, No Range, Linked to 15 STR (7 points) for a total of 47 points. Actually, why not 1d6 RKA, No Range, Augmented by STR (15 points) + 3d6 RKA, No Range (30 points) for 45 points - I get 4d6 from the power plus 1d6 from STR = 5d6. I think that;s as cheap as I can make it.

 

As long as everyone is OK with the breakpoints being acceptable, no one should have a problem with the character choosing the least expensive path to the desired mechanical result, right?

 

Of course, I could buy a 30 STR (15 more points), a 2d6 RKA, No Range, Augmented by STR (30 points) + 1d6 RKA, No Range (10 points). That costs an extra 10 points, but I got an extra 15 STR out of the deal, so now I actually have to pay more to get more.

 

So yes' date=' if you have a 30 Stat, you'd gain 3 DCs - if you bought the attack with "Stat adds". Since this would be more expensive than buying the DCs straight, I'm not seeing the problem here. You yourself state that you could buy 3 DCs via a stat rather than 9 DCs by buying it straight. That's not a problem, of course since if you didn't want the high stat., you wouldn't have bought it. So the fact that "Stat-augmented" DCs cost more than DCs bought straight I see as a Feature, not a Bug.[/quote']

 

Under the old model, 4d6 KA augmented by STR costs 60, and 36d KA augmented by STR costs 45 with +15 STR costing another 15 for the same total of 60, so I can get the extra STR for free. Getting something for nothing is, in my view, clearly a bug, and not a feature. I may want it to be a feature in a specific genre or setting, but I can build that into equipment, or vary pricing to encourage some constructs over others.

 

Maybe I'm running Bob the Boy Scout Brick. He has a very strict Code vs killing. What limitation will you give me on his STR for "cannot add to killing attacks"? One argument would be that he will never use it, so it's no limitation. But he's clearly not getting the same benefit from his enhanced STR as Slaughter Sam, who gets to reduce the price of his killing attack by augmenting it with his STR, so clearly he is more limited.

 

So you say' date=' but you still haven't explained how.[/quote']

 

Simple. No more freebies. If you want more KA, you pay for more KA. If you want to link it to a characteristic (ANY characteristic), you do so with a Linked limitation.

 

No' date=' I'd stick with the suggestion of "alternate adder" for the simple reason that adding o damage is in fact STR's primary reason for existing. Carrying. lifting, breaking grabs are all nice, but definitely secondary (and in the case of the latter, a function of doing damage anyway). Other stats have other primary functions so adding the ability to add damage is definitely an extension of their function.[/quote']

 

I would say STR's primary purpose is inflicting normal damage. So is Blast's - why can't Blast augment other attacks since its primary reason for existence is adding or inflicting normal damage, exactly the same as STR? Range, spreading, bouncing are all nice, but definitely secondary.

 

Step down the chart? I considered that. but no' date=' I would't add that complication. I doubt it's particularly abusable - as you say, the things that you might consider doing this for are pretty much all significantly more expensive than STR, so you'd have to buy a lot of DCs to make a -1/4 step down efficient. The reason I'd say no is simply that adds complexity to the rules for no benefit that I can see. You'd almost always be better off just buying your precision-based DC straight. If some wanted to add OCV to their attack, instead of STR, they could do so: it'd be pretty inefficient at +1/4 or +1/2, so it's not like anyone really would. [/quote']

 

Why should it be any more (or less) expensive to have precision-based damage than strength-based damage? Why is the latter concept to be rewarded with a point break (or, viewed from the other angle,why should the former concept be penalized with an added point cost)? If we have two characters, each with a 12 OCV and a 60 STR, why should it be less expensive for the second character to add in a 4d6 HKA than it is for the first character?

 

The thing is' date=' as I noted before you can already do almost everything that I am discussing now, but the rules are full of kludges or odd costings made necessary by trying to accommodate attacks built on different rules. If you want a precision based attack to which STR did not add you can buy unranged EB at a real cost of 3 points/DC. Unfortunately, you can also buy HTH attack with "STR does not add" at a lower real cost. To my mind, these should cost the same. You can already simulate KA by buying AVAD - but we have an extra "gotcha" in the rules to say that if you do this, then the attack no longer works like a regular AVAD attack, to make it more KA like. Why is this necessary? The whole debate we have just had about Grond armed with a thumbtack, would be unnecessary is we simply used the same damage-dealing structure I outlined: a 1 pt HKA would indeed convert his STR in KA - but at the cost of prorating, so that he'd do fewer DC overall.[/quote']

 

This may or may not make KA work better. As others have pointed out, it seems to greatly encourage armor piercing 0 END killing attacks since additional advantages are now much less expensive.

 

What we presently have, by the way, could easily be viewed as a Killing Attack being an advantage which can be applied to normal damage. It cuts your dice to 1/3, which is the BOD, STUN is 1-3 times that BOD, and only resistant defenses reduce the BOD damage. This is a +0 advantage.

 

As to AVAD, my opinion is that the rules should provide for two levels of "AVAD - Resistant Defenses". The lower cost would be only for purposes of BOD damage, and the higher cost would be for purposes of both BOD and STUN damage, so one could buy an AVAD - resistant defenses for, say, +1/2 and have an attack whose STUN and BOD are both reduced only by resistant PD (or resistant ED). Is +1/2 the appropriate number? I don't know - figure out what you would charge for an NND vs Resistant Defenses and work backwards through the 6e AVAD rules. I note I have not factored in "does BODY".

 

Of course, the real answer is that its value depends on how common, and how high, resistant defenses tend to be. Just like I would suggest we determine the utility of a killing attack in 6e.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

You're forgetting HTH attack again' date=' which works the same way as HKA.[/quote']

 

As far as I am concerned, a hand attack is simply extra strength, only to do damage, and should be a -1/2 limitation. If you want extra STR that only augments combat maneuvers (pick either Martial or Non-Martial) that should be a -1/4 limitation - equating to 4 point martial arts DC's.

 

This fails the logic test. We could ignore that (though I can't see why we'd want to) if the only KAs ever used were bought with points' date=' but even in a world of sentient beings made entirely out of flame and people who can deflect bullets with their mind, it breaks my suspension of disbelief when old aunty May and The Hulk do the same damage in HTH, when wielding a jagged club, or when picking up a weapon suddenly renders an immensely strong person feeble.[/quote']

 

So Grond SHOULD do more damage with a thumb tack, then. HM and I have your solution - you build objects with additional KA damage when wielded to a specific STR level.

 

I am also curious how far you're willing to go with that suspension of disbelief issue. Presumably, not so far as "Grond gets a 6d6+1 KA with a thumbtack". Do we stop at doubling the KA damage (the old rule), so Grond goes from 90 STR to 1d6+1 KA with a knife? Maybe the better answer is that Grond picks up that large thumbtack and can now do 1 pip HKA + 18d6 STR as a multiple power attack. The KA isn't any bigger, but the force Grond puts behind it has not been reduced.

 

How much more damage should Grond do if he swings a baton instead of his fist and, given that, why don't all Supers carry a billy club or something similar?

[randian]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

How much more damage should Grond do if he swings a baton instead of his fist and' date=' given that, why don't all Supers carry a billy club or something similar?[/quote']

Because as far as damage is concerned, Grond is generally indifferent to spending 50 points on a 60 STR or spending 50 points on a 50 STR and 2 DC baton. Besides, why waste a line on your character sheet? Buy 60 STR and be done with it. If you're taking limitations on that baton, that's an entirely different arrangement. Most people like the extra lifting capacity and grab insurance of STR over HA (or moral equivalent), even if HA is cheaper.

 

You're also ignoring opportunity costs. By buying that 1 PIP KA or 1 DC billy club, when compared to having more STR I (a) lift less, ( reduce my ability to escape grabs and certain entangles, and © my choice isn't "X Normal or X Killing", it's "X Normal or X+1 Killing". The latter is especially important, because players almost never voluntarily use a lower DC attack when they have a higher DC one available. They won't occasionally use that X+1 KA, they'll always use it in preference to X Normal, because otherwise they wasted 5 points. If what they really wanted was a choice between X Normal and X Killing, now we're talking extra points for a Framework. You might say "but that's only 2 points at the margin", to which I say "opportunity costs haven't disappeared". Unless you're playing in a "build to concept" game, you are always constrained by total character points. That 2 points is a skill I don't have, an enhanced sense I didn't buy, or any number of other things my character now doesn't have and must wait for.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

Because as far as damage is concerned' date=' Grond is generally indifferent to spending 50 points on a 60 STR or spending 50 points on a 50 STR and 2 DC baton. Besides, why waste a line on your character sheet? Buy 60 STR and be done with it. If you're taking [i']limitations[/i] on that baton, that's an entirely different arrangement. Most people like the extra lifting capacity and grab insurance of STR over HA (or moral equivalent), even if HA is cheaper.

 

You're also ignoring opportunity costs. By buying that 1 PIP KA or 1 DC billy club, when compared to having more STR I (a) lift less, ( reduce my ability to escape grabs and certain entangles, and © my choice isn't "X Normal or X Killing", it's "X Normal or X+1 Killing". The latter is especially important, because players almost never voluntarily use a lower DC attack when they have a higher DC one available. They won't occasionally use that X+1 KA, they'll always use it in preference to X Normal, because otherwise they wasted 5 points. If what they really wanted was a choice between X Normal and X Killing, now we're talking extra points for a Framework. You might say "but that's only 2 points at the margin", to which I say "opportunity costs haven't disappeared". Unless you're playing in a "build to concept" game, you are always constrained by total character points. That 2 points is a skill I don't have, an enhanced sense I didn't buy, or any number of other things my character now doesn't have and must wait for.

 

I think you misinterpret my question. I am not asking why the player does not add a baton to the character sheet. The player knows he must find those points somewhere, and makes a choice between the items to spend finite points on. I am asking why, in the source material the game wishes to emulate, characters similar to Grond do not carry simple, easily accessible weapons to augment their strength damage. Players see points and character sheets, and can choose how to spend and gain character points. Characters have no such choices. Ben Grimm would happily spend a few xp to buy off his Distinctive Features, or make his base characters a normal, human (or not so normal, optimized human) Ben Grimm with a Multiform into his orange alter ego. But as players, we would not do so because his "man or monster" aspect is part of the enjoyment we derive from the character.

 

So why does the Hulk or the Thing not swing a baseball bat to add some damage when faced with a powerful opponent? I suggest the reason is that, with their existing strength, there is no real benefit to using such a small item - it would not, in fact, enhance the damage they do. It would not be capable of delivering the same level of force they can already deliver bare-handed. The alternative is that all of these powerful characters (and most are brighter than the Hulk) are too stupid to take very simple steps to make themselves more effective in the numerous combat situations they commonly find themselves in. Why would they fail to do so? It isn't because they perceive some opportunity cost, and believe that carrying a weapon to enhance the power of their punches would mean having to take another 10 points of complications, or drop their movement speeds.

 

Oh, and choosing between a 12d6 normal Punch attack and a 4d6+1 KA, as a player, I would very often select the normal attack, which averages 42 STUN and 10 meters of knockback, over the 4d6+1 KA which averages 30 Stun and 9 meters of knockback. Getting some BOD through is much less important than contributing to the KO of my opponent. That said, I might well choose a 4d6 KA (averaging 14 BOD) over a 13d6 Punch (averaging 13 BOD with much less volatility) if I am trying to defeat an automaton, or break through a barrier. And even a 2d6 Accruate Flash may be more effective than either of those two if I am trying to make a hurried escape or lower my opponent's DCV.

[dsatow]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

Just my $0.02

 

I didn't like it for HKA for a lot of the reasons stated here. For 5 points, bricks got a free large killing attack usually up to the game limit on damage.

 

However, thinking on it, I see the following points.

1) In 5th Ed, HA worked just like HKA but people hated that and would constantly buy HA to just stack onto strength damage.

2) Now it makes sense to buy that Killing attack martial manuever. In Champions, it would be why bother as you got more efficiency out of the normal attacks.

3) In 6th Ed, Bricks really got shafted when you determined the cost of points. This one little thing isn't going to be a deal breaker and gives really strong people a break.

4) You can just add a -1/4 limitation can't do more than double base killing damage and it works the same way and makes the killing attack that much cheaper.

[randian]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

So why does the Hulk or the Thing not swing a baseball bat to add some damage when faced with a powerful opponent? I suggest the reason is that, with their existing strength, there is no real benefit to using such a small item - it would not, in fact, enhance the damage they do. It would not be capable of delivering the same level of force they can already deliver bare-handed.

You can't apply that reasoning to superheroes. Size and power are no more related in a comic than they are in Hero. Comic logic no more limits what a baseball bat does than it limits what a small handheld box (Mother Box) does.

 

Again, you ignore opportunity costs. Time spent training to use a bat or sword is time not spent improving accuracy with your punch, lifting massive weights to improve your strength, learning a combat maneuver, divining the secrets of the Negative Zone, or convincing a Hunted to go away. While we as players model opportunity costs with character points, characters model them with time.

 

Ben Grimm might not be using a bat because

a) it really won't work to improve the damage he can inflict

it will work, but he erroneously believes otherwise

c) it will work, but only if constructed from certain substances which are not now available

d) he's spending time in therapy (buying down a Complication) rather than weapons training

e) he's spending time in the hyper-gravity chamber (improving STR) rather than weapons training.

f) he thinks bats are for sissies

g) he's out testing his improved Seduction skill on blind chicks

 

Any, all, or none of these might apply to Ben Grimm.

[Greywind]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

Isn't Wolverine just a RKA for Colossus?

[Markdoc]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

I think you misinterpret my question. I am not asking why the player does not add a baton to the character sheet. The player knows he must find those points somewhere' date=' and makes a choice between the items to spend finite points on. I am asking why, in the source material the game wishes to emulate, characters similar to Grond do not carry simple, easily accessible weapons to augment their strength damage. .[/quote']

 

Because it will likely shatter the first time they use it - the last phases spent hunting for a new baseball bat would be more productively spent punching someone. Not everyone has access to indestructibalium baseball bats. It's far easier for them to use found objects (buses, telephone poles, etc) which in fact they do all the freakin' time.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

As far as I am concerned' date=' a hand attack is simply extra strength, only to do damage, and should be a -1/2 limitation. If you want extra STR that only augments combat maneuvers (pick either Martial or Non-Martial) that should be a -1/4 limitation - equating to 4 point martial arts DC's.[/quote']

 

Whereas I see it as a seperate power, which works conceptually differently from STR. One could define EB as STR, usable at range only for attack .... but honestly, I don't want to.

 

So Grond SHOULD do more damage with a thumb tack' date=' then. HM and I have your solution - you build objects with additional KA damage when wielded to a specific STR level.[/quote']

 

Way, way waaaaaay too much extra complexity and trouble to go to, to solve a problem that virtually nobody else sees as as problem. Conceptually, you don't like STR adding to HTH attacks, I get that. That's fine. I don't have a problem with it, so, no offence, but I really am not interested in solutions to a problem I don't have. We've had this discussion before.

 

I am also curious how far you're willing to go with that suspension of disbelief issue. Presumably' date=' not so far as "Grond gets a 6d6+1 KA with a thumbtack". Do we stop at doubling the KA damage (the old rule), so Grond goes from 90 STR to 1d6+1 KA with a knife? Maybe the better answer is that Grond picks up that large thumbtack and can now do 1 pip HKA + 18d6 STR as a multiple power attack. The KA isn't any bigger, but the force Grond puts behind it has not been reduced.[/quote']

 

Wait, using a thumbtack costs Grond a full phase and lovers his DCV by half? What are thumbtacks made out of in your world? Brown dwarf cores? No, multiple power attack is most definitely not the answer.

 

So no, I don't like the "nuclear-tipped" approach where a 1 pt HKA converts full STR. Nor do I like the "feebleworld" approach where Grond and Aunt May do the same damage. I want somewhere in the middle where STR helps, but does not dominate. Actually, looking back that is exactly what I suggested. Pro-rating STR allows a logical effect, but - mechanically - prevents exploiting very small HKAs and very large STR. At the same time, it gives the advantage when STR is what you want to guy with high STR and when HKA is what you want to the guy who bought HKA.

 

I'm not seeing a problem here.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

STR is a stat that causes normal damage.

 

No other Stat causes Damage. OTOH, STR does not affect your ability to resist Mind Control. Different Stat.s have different purposes. That's why we have them. So no, I don't accept the idea that all stats should add to damage just as if they were STR.

 

KA is a power that causes killing damage. Drain causes stat/power damage. Flash causes sensory damage. Four different types of damage. Why should some have the option of stacking while others do not?

 

Because one is tightly logically linked by real life experience and was designed from the get-go as a damage-adding stat. The others were not.

 

Why less tools in the toolbox rather than more? Of course' date=' if we ditch HKA being augmented by STR, we can get a much purer structure where any characteristic can be Linked in.[/quote']

 

Purer ... well, no, not really. As noted above the stat.s serve different purposes: if we wan to start adding willy-nilly, it would make as much sense as allowing people to use STR instead of EGO to resist mental powers. More tools are good, but we'd need to add a new section on the costing of such adding. I think the benefit of allowing alternate CVs was worth it because many people came up with examples where they would like to do this. I have yet to see such clamor for what you are suggesting. It seems like adding a lot of potential confusion, extra rules and possible problems for no clear benefit.

 

Will you allow each character to choose between HKA and RKA' date=' no range, based exclusively on which one costs the least points?[/quote']

 

Obviously not. I want a structure where equivalent utility costs about the same amount. I think if the effect is more or less equivalent, then the cost should be too ... and right now it isn't.

 

Assuming you will, would you also allow them to Link some of the KA to STR? Let's say my 15 STR character is going to be a Wolverine clone, so he could buy a 4d6 HKA, 5d6 with STR for 60 points. Or he could buy a 5d6 RKA, no Range for 50 points. Now, let's buy 4d6 RKA, No Range (40 points) + 1d6 RKA, No Range, Linked to 15 STR (7 points) for a total of 47 points. Actually, why not 1d6 RKA, No Range, Augmented by STR (15 points) + 3d6 RKA, No Range (30 points) for 45 points - I get 4d6 from the power plus 1d6 from STR = 5d6. I think that;s as cheap as I can make it.

 

As long as everyone is OK with the breakpoints being acceptable, no one should have a problem with the character choosing the least expensive path to the desired mechanical result, right?

 

No - obviously. Which is why I proposed a unified cost structure, precisely to avoid this. Right now you are making exactly the argument that I did: that the current costs structure gives weird results.

 

Under the old model' date=' 4d6 KA augmented by STR costs 60, and 36d KA augmented by STR costs 45 with +15 STR costing another 15 for the same total of 60, so I can get the extra STR for free. Getting something for nothing is, in my view, clearly a bug, and not a feature. I may want it to be a feature in a specific genre or setting, but I can build that into equipment, or vary pricing to encourage some constructs over others.[/quote']

 

And I agree. But instead of taking STR out of the equation as you want, I'd rather price the cost of DCs so that they explicitly address this.

 

Simple. No more freebies. If you want more KA' date=' you pay for more KA. If you want to link it to a characteristic (ANY characteristic), you do so with a Linked limitation.[/quote']

 

Linked would not work for this. Linked attacks go off side by side: they don't add. All this suggestion would do is give you two weak, probably ineffective attacks.

 

I would say STR's primary purpose is inflicting normal damage. So is Blast's - why can't Blast augment other attacks since its primary reason for existence is adding or inflicting normal damage' date=' exactly the same as STR? Range, spreading, bouncing are all nice, but definitely secondary.[/quote']

 

So you think "ranged" should be free? STR adds to normal damage: that's included in the base pricing. EB doesn't - but then ranged is included in the base pricing. Both get some extras (spreading, lifting, etc) as secondary benefits.

 

Why should it be any more (or less) expensive to have precision-based damage than strength-based damage?

 

It shouldn't be. That was what I was suggesting. Seriously, you are so fixated on this STR thing, that I get the feeling you didn't take on board my post at all

 

Why is the latter concept to be rewarded with a point break (or' date=' viewed from the other angle,why should the former concept be penalized with an added point cost)? If we have two characters, each with a 12 OCV and a 60 STR, why should it be less expensive for the second character to add in a 4d6 HKA than it is for the first character?[/quote']

 

Because OCV adds to your chance of hitting. Letting it add to damage as well is clearly double dipping and should be more expensive. STR OTOH gives you no combat advantage apart from the ability to add damage ... that's what it's for. God, how many times does that need to be written?

 

This may or may not make KA work better. As others have pointed out' date=' it seems to greatly encourage armor piercing 0 END killing attacks since additional advantages are now much less expensive.[/quote']

 

To a very small amount yes - but going from AVAD (+1/4) does BOD (+1) (6.75 pts per DC) to AVAD (+1/4) does BOD (+1) AP (+1/2) 0 END (+1/2) (9.75 pts per DC) is going to make your attack significantly weaker. A fairly generic 60 point attack would get you:

20 DC or 9d6 killing (at 61 points) or 6d6 AP killing 0 END (at 58 points). In most cases, the basic attack would be best, with the other two being better at hurting soft targets or heavily armoured targets respectively.

 

Of course that's not ranged or adding to STR. If you add that refinement you get to:

12 DC normal attack or 7d6 killing (at 58 points) or 5d6 Killing, AP, 0 END (at 56 points)

 

I'm not seeing anything unbalancing here. Now it would change how we think about killing attacks - that much I am clear about - and to some extent, I intended that. It means that generically, unadvantaged attacks will do the most damage: right now, we tend to think that if you want to do the most BOD possible you buy killing attacks. That never made much sense to me - killing attacks should (IMO) be for breaking soft things. Against a harder target, that need not be true - if you had to break down a door what you you rather have: A sword or a heavy club? OTOH if you had to cut a rope, I'm guessing the sword would be better.

 

Under my suggested system, if you just want raw power, buy raw power. If you want a specialised attack, you trade that off for raw power. In game, it would make resistant DEF slightly less of a must-have. The problem isn't advantage stacking until you get to huge numbers of dice, since the difference is not great compared to DCs priced at 5 points but with ranged or STR-adds built-in. The biggest weakness of my proposal is that you can buy a lot of unadvantaged DCs relatively cheaply. I don't see that as a significant problem since you could buy the exact same number of dice for the exact same price under the current rules, but the active points cost is different. How significant that would be in play, I don't know: it would have a lesser effect than HA did in 4th Ed. since that was also 3 points per DC, but you got to add STR for free. But then that was pretty clearly broken, which is why we have ended up with the kludge we have today.

 

What we presently have' date=' by the way, could easily be viewed as a Killing Attack being an advantage which can be applied to normal damage. It cuts your dice to 1/3, which is the BOD, STUN is 1-3 times that BOD, and only resistant defenses reduce the BOD damage. This is a +0 advantage.[/quote']

 

Unfortunately the rules don't work that way. Not only do you get a boost in BOD (from 3 to 3.5) but you also get a boost in volatility, which changes the dynamics of the power entirely. We've seen the spreadsheets over and over, so I don't think that point needs to be belaboured. Some people see that volatility as a bonus - it makes killing attacks much more dangerous - some see it as a minus (Superguy can take punches that shatter concrete, but is still vulnerable to firearms). I can see both sides, but I lean to rachetting down volatility.

 

As to AVAD, my opinion is that the rules should provide for two levels of "AVAD - Resistant Defenses". The lower cost would be only for purposes of BOD damage, and the higher cost would be for purposes of both BOD and STUN damage, so one could buy an AVAD - resistant defenses for, say, +1/2 and have an attack whose STUN and BOD are both reduced only by resistant PD (or resistant ED). Is +1/2 the appropriate number? I don't know - figure out what you would charge for an NND vs Resistant Defenses and work backwards through the 6e AVAD rules. I note I have not factored in "does BODY".

 

Of course, the real answer is that its value depends on how common, and how high, resistant defenses tend to be. Just like I would suggest we determine the utility of a killing attack in 6e.

 

The penalty you take (in numbers of dice) is severe enough that I am not sure that an even higher penalty for Stun would be warranted. I was suggesting simply applying AVAD as written to the entire attack (STUN and BOD). That means that they would be devastating to soft targets, but actually kind of ineffectual against armoured targets - which I would see as an improvement. They would - for sure - no longer be the preferred method for breaking stuff, but since DEF has now been split into PD/ED, again I see that as a plus.

 

If you recall, I actually suggested going one step further - and allowing increased stun and increased bod to be bought (I'd have to dig out the spreadsheet, but IIRC, I suggested +1/4 for each - it might have been +1/2). That combination worked very well to allow you to tune the lethality of attacks and didn't start to produce odd effects until you got up above a total of +4 advantage or more spent on Extra BOD/STUN.

 

That would have been a departure from current rules, but no bigger (probably smaller) than removing figured characteristics - and would have been more balanced, simpler and more flexible than what we have now.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

Because it will likely shatter the first time they use it - the last phases spent hunting for a new baseball bat would be more productively spent punching someone. Not everyone has access to indestructibalium baseball bats. It's far easier for them to use found objects (buses' date=' telephone poles, etc) which in fact they do all the freakin' time.[/quote']

 

Yup. They don't carry baseball bats that will shatter on impact, thus preventing delivery of all the kinetic energy their raw STR is capable of delivering. Instead, they use larger, heavier objects which are capable of delivering all that kinetic energy (at least once or twice - most such objects don't survive the experience), but not conducive to being carried along for regular use. And, if we look to their use in the comics, they tend to be used against targets who are big, strong, tough and easy to hit. This suggests they enhance damage, not CV.

 

Wait' date=' using a thumbtack costs Grond a full phase and lovers his DCV by half? What are thumbtacks made out of in your world? Brown dwarf cores? No, multiple power attack is most definitely not the answer.[/quote']

 

Where do people get the impression an MPA requires a full phase and halves DCV. A Sweep does this. A Rapid Attack does this. An MPA does not. If Grond wants to Punch Defender and Thumbtack Ironclad, that will require a full phase and halve his DCV. if he wants to Thumbtack Defender with the full force of his fist behind that thumbtack so he does a 1 pip HKA and an 18d6 Normal attack, then...

 

Using two or more powers or similar abilities (but not Combat/Martial Maneuvers or the like) once against a single target isn’t a Multiple Attack. It’s a Combined Attack, and counts as type of Strike. Therefore it has no OCV penalty, doesn’t halve the attacker’s DCV, and doesn’t take a Full Phase to perform. (Using two such powers multiple times against a single target, or against multiple targets, is a Multiple Attack and subject to all Multiple Attack rules.) However, the GM can apply appropriate Multiple Attack rules to a Combined Attack, such as the rule that the overall attack is considered to be made with the character’s “good hand.”

 

For example, suppose a military robot in a Science Fiction campaign has a pulson blaster (Blast 8d6) built into its right hand and a laser (RKA 2d6, Armor Piercing) built into its left. If

it fires each of them once against a single target, that’s a Combined Attack, performed as a standard Attack Action with +0 OCV, +0 DCV modifiers.

 

So no' date=' I don't like the "nuclear-tipped" approach where a 1 pt HKA converts full STR. Nor do I like the "feebleworld" approach where Grond and Aunt May do the same damage. I want somewhere in the middle where STR helps, but does not dominate. Actually, looking back [b']that is exactly what I suggested[/b]. Pro-rating STR allows a logical effect, but - mechanically - prevents exploiting very small HKAs and very large STR. At the same time, it gives the advantage when STR is what you want to guy with high STR and when HKA is what you want to the guy who bought HKA.

 

Pro rating SR based on what advantage? Regardless, Grond still gets 75 AP more KA than a guy with 15 STR and powerful claws.

 

No other Stat causes Damage. OTOH' date=' STR does not affect your ability to resist Mind Control. Different Stat.s have different purposes. That's why we have them. So no, I don't accept the idea that all stats should add to damage just as if they were STR.[/quote']

 

No stat causes killing damage, drains or flash effects. That's why we have powers. I don't accept the idea that STR should add to one, and only one, mechanic as a freebie. Where is my limitation for "STR does not enhance killing attacks"?

 

Because one is tightly logically linked by real life experience and was designed from the get-go as a damage-adding stat. The others were not.

 

Real life logic would suggest that someone who can stand unharmed in the depths of space will not be affected by a blast of frigid air, but Life Support: Intense Cold provides no protection whatsoever against a 3d6 Frigid Air Blast. Logically, a character capable of teleporting a 1 pound mass could remove a target's heart, and a character capable of transofrming air to water anywhere withing a 3 meter range could fill a target's lungs with water. Hero is not designed based on defining your special effects and obtaining whatever abilities those special effects would logically permit. It is designed based on reasoning from effect. If the effect of your ability to create water in someone's lungs is to incapacitate targets that can't breathe water, you buy that as an attack. It doesn't come free with your ability to transform air into water. Similarly, if the effect of high STR combined with claws is a massive killing attack, buy a massive killing attack. Is it a logical disconnect? I suppose. It is, however, a logical disconnect which is consistent with the entirety of the remaining rules.

 

 

Purer ... well' date=' no, not really. As noted above the stat.s serve different purposes: if we wan to start adding willy-nilly, it would make as much sense as allowing people to use STR instead of EGO to resist mental powers. More tools are good, but we'd need to add a new section on the costing of such adding. I think the benefit of allowing alternate CVs was worth it because many people came up with examples where they would like to do this. I have yet to see such clamor for what you are suggesting. It seems like adding a lot of potential confusion, extra rules and possible problems for no clear benefit.[/quote']

 

Which is why my preference would be to simply acknowledge Hand Attack and STR as both providing DC's of normal damage, making HA a form of limited STR, and eliminate any other link between characteristics and damage. Just like 6e finally got rid of high Ego granting extra mental defenses, and mental powers granting mental awareness. If you want high STR, that comes with normal damage. If you want normal damage without high STR, buy limited STR which we will call "hand attack". But if you want a killing attack, then buy a killing attack.

 

Obviously not. I want a structure where equivalent utility costs about the same amount. I think if the effect is more or less equivalent' date=' then the cost should be too ... and [b']right now it isn't.[/b]

 

No - obviously. Which is why I proposed a unified cost structure, precisely to avoid this. Right now you are making exactly the argument that I did: that the current costs structure gives weird results.

 

Any cost structure which allows one attack power (and STR is effectively a characteristic whose primary purpose is an attack power, although having some ancillary effects) to enhance another attack power causes weird results and an inability for equivalent utility to carry an equal cost. If you want to point me to the post where you provide the ability for a character with 15 STR and a character with 60 STR to both have a 5d6 HKA, with the 15 STR character having the 45 points the 60 STR character benefits from left over, that would be great.

 

And I agree. But instead of taking STR out of the equation as you want' date=' I'd rather price the cost of DCs so that they explicitly address this.[/quote']

 

Any pricing of killing attack (or any attack) DC's that applies a cost which does not vary with STR to enhance the attack based on STR will not solve the issue.

 

Linked would not work for this. Linked attacks go off side by side: they don't add. All this suggestion would do is give you two weak' date=' probably ineffective attacks.[/quote']

 

Yes, I am varying Linked to mean "you must apply the other ability in order to gain the benefits of this ability". So you buy, for example, a 3d6 KA, No Range (30 points) plus a 1d6 KA, No Range (-1/2), Must Apply 15 STR with no other benefit from that 15 STR and no extra END Cost (-1/2) with the added -1/2 limitation being analogous to Linked, with the added advantage that the other power costs no END, and the added drawback that the other power has no effect, to get exactly the same 4d6 KA. You comment above that I am not reading your posts in sufficient detail to understand your point. When you suggest my approach does not achieve the goal of the same 12 DC's of killing damage, that seems to make it clear you aren't reading my posts very carefully either.

 

So you think "ranged" should be free? STR adds to normal damage: that's included in the base pricing. EB doesn't - but then ranged is included in the base pricing. Both get some extras (spreading' date=' lifting, etc) as secondary benefits.[/quote']

 

STR provides normal damage and extras including lifting, carrying capacity, Grabbing and Holding, throwing, etc. Blast provides normal damage and extras including range and spreading. I don't find these unbalanced. I don't find that Bricks need the added advantage of a Killing Attack adder to balance them against blasters. If the ability to augment other attacks is a key component of the value of STR, needed to balance it against the cost of Blast, then I once again ask for the limitation you would apply to STR which cannot enhance damage from other powers.

 

It shouldn't be. That was what I was suggesting. Seriously' date=' you are so fixated on this STR thing, that I get the feeling you didn't take on board my post at all[/quote']

 

Irony is just so ironic

 

Because OCV adds to your chance of hitting. Letting it add to damage as well is clearly double dipping and should be more expensive. STR OTOH gives you no combat advantage apart from the ability to add damage ... that's what it's for. God' date=' how many times does that need to be written?[/quote']

 

Since you did not read it the first time, let's try again:

 

If we have two characters, each with a 12 OCV and a 60 STR, why should it be less expensive for the second character to add in a 4d6 HKA than it is for the first character?

 

The two characters are completely identical. Both PAID FOR 60 STR. Both PAID FOR 12 OCV. Why should the one who wants his KA damage enhanced by accuracy, rather than brute force, pay more for the ability? If the character with 60 STR sells back 3 OCV, he clearly saves 15 points. If the other sells back 15 STR, but keeps his KA damage the same, I suggest he should save more than 0 points.

 

To a very small amount yes - but going from AVAD (+1/4) does BOD (+1) (6.75 pts per DC) to AVAD (+1/4) does BOD (+1) AP (+1/2) 0 END (+1/2) (9.75 pts per DC) is going to make your attack significantly weaker. A fairly generic 60 point attack would get you:

20 DC or 9d6 killing (at 61 points) or 6d6 AP killing 0 END (at 58 points). In most cases, the basic attack would be best, with the other two being better at hurting soft targets or heavily armoured targets respectively.

 

Ok, back to your hypothetical solution of 3 x 2.25 = 6.75 points per KA DC. If I want that KA to be 0 END and AP, that's another 3/4 advantage = 9 points per DC (I'm using 6e advantage costs, and you're using 5e, hence the 1/4 difference). So, assuming 12 DC's will be the norm, I can either spend 36 points on 12d6 Normal Attack, or on 5 1/3 DC's of killing attack. Let's be generous and let the KA bump up to 6 DC's (cost of 40 points - normal damage should be a bit over 13d6). Is a 2d6 killing attack going to be even remotely competitive with a 12d6 normal attack? Now, if I allow it to stack with 30 STR, then I guess we get a 4d6 (12 DC) KA.

 

But what if the KA user doesn't want a high STR? Maybe he plans on being a Blaster with a RKA and a Blast? So that would be a 12d6 Damage w/ Range costing 54 points (36 x 1.5). For the same 54 points, he could have a KA with Range (so +1 3/4 in aggregate) of about 6 1/2 DC's, so a 2d6+1 RKA for 58 points (and, again, I should be bumping the normal attack to 13d6 to equate). May as well make that a 2d6 RKA, AP to match the 12d6 normal attack. I'm not seeing the two as competitive. But maybe I'm missing something.

 

Of course that's not ranged or adding to STR. If you add that refinement you get to:

12 DC normal attack or 7d6 killing (at 58 points) or 5d6 Killing, AP, 0 END (at 56 points)

 

Actually, if I add Ranged or Adds to STR at +1/2 each, I spend 54 to get 12 DC's (so these DC's are a bit cheaper than all the other powers, like Entangle, Drain, mental powers and Flash already). So for 6 more points, I can instead have +60 STR rather than +12 STR DC's. Why would I not spend those 6 point? Mind you, a Multipower with a 13d6 Blast (58 points) and a 7d6 Killing Attack (average roll 24.5 BOD) is looking pretty good for automatons, barriers and entangles, even if I never use the KA on a living target. May as well toss in a non-ranged normal attack - at 57, that's 19d6 - STR does not need to add since my extra 2d6 from STR isn't good for much.

 

Though I am uncertain how you got a 7d6 KA - I see a 7 DC KA, which should be 2d6+1. Hmmm...perhaps your KA counts STUN and BOD normally, in which case I suggest an 18d6 normal attack (57 points) compares pretty poorly to an 8d6 KA (neither with an extra +1/2 advantage) and a 13d6 Blast (39 x 1.5 = 58) compares pretty poorly against a 7d6 KA (21 x 2.75 = 58).

 

I'm not seeing anything unbalancing here. Now it would change how we think about killing attacks - that much I am clear about - and to some extent' date=' I intended that. It means that generically, unadvantaged attacks will do the most damage: right now, we tend to think that if you want to do the most BOD possible you buy killing attacks. That never made much sense to me - killing attacks should (IMO) be for breaking soft things. Against a harder target, that need not be true - if you had to break down a door what you you rather have: A sword or a heavy club? OTOH if you had to cut a rope, I'm guessing the sword would be better[/quote']

 

I'd rather get a normal fire attack and burn through both the rope and the door. And I'd rather have an axe than a sword or a heavy club, as axes were first designed to cut through wood, and take a tree down much faster than a heavy club.

 

Under my suggested system' date=' if you just want raw power, buy raw power. If you want a specialised attack, you trade that off for raw power. In game, it would make resistant DEF [i']slightly[/i] less of a must-have. The problem isn't advantage stacking until you get to huge numbers of dice, since the difference is not great compared to DCs priced at 5 points but with ranged or STR-adds built-in. The biggest weakness of my proposal is that you can buy a lot of unadvantaged DCs relatively cheaply. I don't see that as a significant problem since you could buy the exact same number of dice for the exact same price under the current rules, but the active points cost is different. How significant that would be in play, I don't know: it would have a lesser effect than HA did in 4th Ed. since that was also 3 points per DC, but you got to add STR for free. But then that was pretty clearly broken, which is why we have ended up with the kludge we have today.

 

Actually, the problem with HA in 4th Ed was envisioning it as a power separate and apart from STR. Once you view it as limited STR, you're back to 5 AP per damage class, and things balance out a lot better. But the bigger problem overall was trying to equate 5 AP to 1 damage class. If you accept that 20d6 Hand Attack is equal to a 12d6 Blast, then of course there will be problems. On the other hand, if you restrict DC's rather than AP, things tend to work out much better.

 

 

 

Unfortunately the rules don't work that way. Not only do you get a boost in BOD (from 3 to 3.5) but you also get a boost in volatility, which changes the dynamics of the power entirely. We've seen the spreadsheets over and over, so I don't think that point needs to be belaboured. Some people see that volatility as a bonus - it makes killing attacks much more dangerous - some see it as a minus (Superguy can take punches that shatter concrete, but is still vulnerable to firearms). I can see both sides, but I lean to rachetting down volatility.

 

 

 

The penalty you take (in numbers of dice) is severe enough that I am not sure that an even higher penalty for Stun would be warranted. I was suggesting simply applying AVAD as written to the entire attack (STUN and BOD). That means that they would be devastating to soft targets, but actually kind of ineffectual against armoured targets - which I would see as an improvement. They would - for sure - no longer be the preferred method for breaking stuff, but since DEF has now been split into PD/ED, again I see that as a plus.

 

If you recall, I actually suggested going one step further - and allowing increased stun and increased bod to be bought (I'd have to dig out the spreadsheet, but IIRC, I suggested +1/4 for each - it might have been +1/2). That combination worked very well to allow you to tune the lethality of attacks and didn't start to produce odd effects until you got up above a total of +4 advantage or more spent on Extra BOD/STUN.

 

That would have been a departure from current rules, but no bigger (probably smaller) than removing figured characteristics - and would have been more balanced, simpler and more flexible than what we have now.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

Yup. They don't carry baseball bats that will shatter on impact' date=' thus preventing delivery of all the kinetic energy their raw STR is capable of delivering. Instead, they use larger, heavier objects which are capable of delivering all that kinetic energy (at least once or twice - most such objects don't survive the experience), but not conducive to being carried along for regular use. And, if we look to their use in the comics, they tend to be used against targets who are big, strong, tough and easy to hit. This suggests they enhance damage, not CV.[/quote']

 

Unfortunately, when I wrote that I was thinking of the scene in the last big fight of Civil War where the thing is using a bus to enable him to hit many smaller, more nimble foes, suggesting he is using it to boost CV, not damage. The classic "smash spidey with car!" attack indicates the same.

 

So, no.

 

Where do people get the impression an MPA requires a full phase and halves DCV.

 

Umm .... from reading the rules? Page 73 6E2 "Multiple Attack requires a Full Phase to use (the Rapid Attack Skill, 6E1*87, reduces this to a Half Phase). Using it reduces the character to ½ DCV." The half DCV point is reiterated on page 77.

 

Pro rating SR based on what advantage? Regardless' date=' Grond still gets 75 AP more KA than a guy with 15 STR and powerful claws.[/quote']

 

Prorating them by the advantages added to the attack being added, of course. And yes, Grond gets 75 more AP. Which he paid for. He gets more flexibility (an HKA and more normal damage from STR) but then he gets less raw power with his HKA than the guy who just bought HKA. More flexibility, less raw power for the same points. Still not seeing a problem here.

 

No stat causes killing damage' date=' drains or flash effects. That's why we have powers. I don't accept the idea that STR should add to one, and only one, mechanic as a freebie. Where is my limitation for "STR does not enhance killing attacks"?[/quote']

 

You don't accept it. I get that. I do accept it. Can we stop this now? The strength does not enhance limitation is in the same place as other limitations that don't really limit the character. It's not a limitation on your STR, since it only affects your damage with an HKA. If you want to buy an HKA with "STR does not add" I think that's perfectly reasonable ... and oddly enough it is exactly what I have been suggesting.

 

Real life logic would suggest that someone who can stand unharmed in the depths of space will not be affected by a blast of frigid air' date=' but Life Support: Intense Cold provides no protection whatsoever against a 3d6 Frigid Air Blast. Logically, a character capable of teleporting a 1 pound mass could remove a target's heart, and a character capable of transofrming air to water anywhere withing a 3 meter range could fill a target's lungs with water. Hero is not designed based on defining your special effects and obtaining whatever abilities those special effects would logically permit. It is designed based on reasoning from effect. If the effect of your ability to create water in someone's lungs is to incapacitate targets that can't breathe water, you buy that as an attack. It doesn't come free with your ability to transform air into water. Similarly, if the effect of high STR combined with claws is a massive killing attack, buy a massive killing attack. Is it a logical disconnect? I suppose. It is, however, a logical disconnect which is consistent with the entirety of the remaining rules.[/quote']

 

And sometimes we have to accept logical disconnects for good game mechanics reasons. I'm just not seeing any such reason here.

 

Which is why my preference would be to simply acknowledge Hand Attack and STR as both providing DC's of normal damage' date=' making HA a form of limited STR, and eliminate any other link between characteristics and damage. Just like 6e finally got rid of high Ego granting extra mental defenses, and mental powers granting mental awareness. If you want high STR, that comes with normal damage. If you want normal damage without high STR, buy limited STR which we will call "hand attack". But if you want a killing attack, then buy a killing attack[/quote'].

 

And as long as you can add STR to your HKA, I'm good with that.

 

Any cost structure which allows one attack power (and STR is effectively a characteristic whose primary purpose is an attack power' date=' although having some ancillary effects) to enhance another attack power causes weird results and an inability for equivalent utility to carry an equal cost. If you want to point me to the post where you provide the ability for a character with 15 STR and a character with 60 STR to both have a 5d6 HKA, with the 15 STR character having the 45 points the 60 STR character benefits from left over, that would be great.[/quote']

 

I don't make any such claim. Indeed I am arguing precisely against such imbalances, which are what the current rules give us - for example, Thumbtack Grond.

 

Any pricing of killing attack (or any attack) DC's that applies a cost which does not vary with STR to enhance the attack based on STR will not solve the issue.

 

Sure it can - by prorating STR and costing DCs accurately it means you get extra DCs for high STR, but fewer DCs than if you simply bought the attack straight. Since you get the advantage of STR as well, that's exactly the effect I'd like to see.

 

Yes' date=' I am varying Linked to mean "you must apply the other ability in order to gain the benefits of this ability". So you buy, for example, a 3d6 KA, No Range (30 points) plus a 1d6 KA, No Range (-1/2), Must Apply 15 STR with no other benefit from that 15 STR and no extra END Cost (-1/2) with the added -1/2 limitation being analogous to Linked, with the added advantage that the other power costs no END, and the added drawback that the other power has no effect, to get exactly the same 4d6 KA. You comment above that I am not reading your posts in sufficient detail to understand your point. When you suggest my approach does not achieve the goal of the same 12 DC's of killing damage, that seems to make it clear you aren't reading my posts very carefully either.[/quote']

 

Oh I read it. You suggested using linked. I pointed out Linked doesn't work that way. I'm not sure the response above, essentially saying "Yeah, linked doesn't work that way, but if it worked differently we could get that effect." Why not make it clear from the outset that you are suggesting a new advantage?

 

STR provides normal damage and extras including lifting' date=' carrying capacity, Grabbing and Holding, throwing, etc. Blast [u']provides[/u] normal damage and extras including range and spreading. I don't find these unbalanced. I don't find that Bricks need the added advantage of a Killing Attack adder to balance them against blasters. If the ability to augment other attacks is a key component of the value of STR, needed to balance it against the cost of Blast, then I once again ask for the limitation you would apply to STR which cannot enhance damage from other powers.

 

Nothing. Just as I pointed out that doesn't limit STR, only the other powers. The implicit disadvantage for that (on the other powers would be -1/2 in the current system)

 

 

Since you did not read it the first time, let's try again:

 

The two characters are completely identical. Both PAID FOR 60 STR. Both PAID FOR 12 OCV. Why should the one who wants his KA damage enhanced by accuracy, rather than brute force, pay more for the ability? If the character with 60 STR sells back 3 OCV, he clearly saves 15 points. If the other sells back 15 STR, but keeps his KA damage the same, I suggest he should save more than 0 points.

 

Oh I read it. I even understood. Now I have read it again, and my conclusion is the same (I'm assuming we are still talking about why one should be able to add STR and the other add OCV). As I noted, OCV gives you a bonus to hit while STR gives you the ability to add damage. If you want your OCV to both add damage and give you a bonus to hit, then clearly that's an advantage. The fact that both have 60 STR is utterly irrelevant. He could have spent those 60 points on EB. Essentially you're asking "If I deliberately try to make the character inefficiently, how are you going to prevent me?" We could produce a more or less infinite number of characters who have spent the same amount of points but do different overall damage - none of which would be enlightening.

 

Ok, back to your hypothetical solution of 3 x 2.25 = 6.75 points per KA DC. If I want that KA to be 0 END and AP, that's another 3/4 advantage = 9 points per DC (I'm using 6e advantage costs, and you're using 5e, hence the 1/4 difference). So, assuming 12 DC's will be the norm, I can either spend 36 points on 12d6 Normal Attack, or on 5 1/3 DC's of killing attack. Let's be generous and let the KA bump up to 6 DC's (cost of 40 points - normal damage should be a bit over 13d6). Is a 2d6 killing attack going to be even remotely competitive with a 12d6 normal attack? Now, if I allow it to stack with 30 STR, then I guess we get a 4d6 (12 DC) KA.

 

But what if the KA user doesn't want a high STR? Maybe he plans on being a Blaster with a RKA and a Blast? So that would be a 12d6 Damage w/ Range costing 54 points (36 x 1.5). For the same 54 points, he could have a KA with Range (so +1 3/4 in aggregate) of about 6 1/2 DC's, so a 2d6+1 RKA for 58 points (and, again, I should be bumping the normal attack to 13d6 to equate). May as well make that a 2d6 RKA, AP to match the 12d6 normal attack. I'm not seeing the two as competitive. But maybe I'm missing something.

 

Yes, you are.

 

As I pointed out, the system I was suggesting is that the KA would be much more dangerous to targets without resistant defence, since killing attacks (both STUN and BOD) would ignore nonresistant defences. Against a target with a decent amount of resistant defence, the normal attack would be preferred. There is a tendency for Hero gamers to look at killing attacks not as attacks for killing soft targets but as a way to generate Max BOD (the same way they used to be used for generating Max Stun, using the Stun Lottery). I'm suggesting a change in perspective - use killing attacks for soft targets (ie: those with rDEF) not simply as the preferred means for doing damage to any kind of target. More to the point you seem to be still talking about killing attacks as a d6, doing 1-6 BOD. My point was to eliminate that dichotomy - a "killing attack" is just a normal dice of attack (does 1-6 stun, 0-2 BOD) that ignores non-resistant defences. It's a specialist attack, not a substitute for raw damage. If you buy an NND, you'll get fewer dice too - or an area affect attack or ..... etc, etc, etc. That's who it should be, IMHO.

 

As for the other questions, they are self explanatory. If a player doesn't want to buy high STR, he doesn't buy high STR. If he wants an EB, he buys a DC usable at range.

 

Actually' date=' the problem with HA in 4th Ed was envisioning it as a power separate and apart from STR. Once you view it as limited STR, you're back to 5 AP per damage class, and things balance out a lot better[/quote']

 

Except it didn't. STR has never been 5 points a DC - 5 points of STR is a DC plus a bunch of other stuff (more than 5 points of other stuff in 5E, less now).

 

But the bigger problem overall was trying to equate 5 AP to 1 damage class. If you accept that 20d6 Hand Attack is equal to a 12d6 Blast, then of course there will be problems. On the other hand, if you restrict DC's rather than AP, things tend to work out much better.

 

Ah, but here I agree, which is why I looked at the actual cost of a DC (3 points) and then noted the ways it can be augmented - with STR or by being usable at range. If it can do nether of these things, then logically, it should be cheaper.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

OOPS- accidentally backed up and my reply went away. So, hopefully a bit quicker:

 

Unfortunately' date=' when I wrote that I was thinking of the scene in the last big fight of Civil War where the thing is using a bus to enable him to hit many smaller, more nimble foes, suggesting he is using it to boost CV, not damage. The classic "smash spidey with car!" attack indicates the same.[/quote']

 

None of which explains why Ben doesn’t carry a baseball bat if it would make him more effective against the Hulk. Training? Everyone has WF: Club, and you can’t tell me Ben Grimm didn’t play some baseball. I think “ineffectiveness” is the real answer here. A baseball bat would significantly augment Joe Normal’s damage, but it’s a toothpick to Ben.

 

Umm .... from reading the rules? Page 73 6E2 "Multiple Attack requires a Full Phase to use (the Rapid Attack Skill' date=' 6E1*87, reduces this to a Half Phase). Using it reduces the character to ½ DCV[/i']." The half DCV point is reiterated on page 77.

 

Read the quote I pulled. I’ll take some blame for the confusion, as I use “MPA” when 6e changed it to Combined Attack when it merged Sweep and Rapid Attack into Multiple Attack. But when Grond swings his mighty fist with a thumbtack, he can do a 1 pip HKA + 186d Punch as a single strike with no halved DCV in a half phase as a combined attack.

 

Here’s the quote, from page 73 (which you obviously didn’t read in full), again:

 

Using two or more powers or similar abilities (but not Combat/Martial Maneuvers or the like) once against a single target isn’t a Multiple Attack. It’s a Combined Attack, and counts as type of Strike. Therefore it has no OCV penalty, doesn’t halve the attacker’s DCV, and doesn’t take a Full Phase to perform. (Using two such powers multiple times against a single target, or against multiple targets, is a Multiple Attack and subject to all Multiple Attack rules.) However, the GM can apply appropriate Multiple Attack rules to a Combined Attack, such as the rule that the overall attack is considered to be made with the character’s “good hand.”

 

For example, suppose a military robot in a Science Fiction campaign has a pulson blaster (Blast 8d6) built into its right hand and a laser (RKA 2d6, Armor Piercing) built into its left. If

it fires each of them once against a single target, that’s a Combined Attack, performed as a standard Attack Action with +0 OCV, +0 DCV modifiers.

 

Prorating them by the advantages added to the attack being added' date=' of course. And yes, Grond gets 75 more AP. [b']Which he paid for[/b]. He gets more flexibility (an HKA and more normal damage from STR) but then he gets less raw power with his HKA than the guy who just bought HKA. More flexibility, less raw power for the same points. Still not seeing a problem here.

 

Reducing the problem, while better than leaving it unchanged, is inferior to eliminating the problem. Of course, we disagree on what the problem is, so agreeing on a solution is unlikely.

 

 

 

The strength does not enhance limitation is in the same place as other limitations that don't really limit the character. It's not a limitation on your STR' date=' since it only affects your damage with an HKA. If you want to buy an HKA with "STR does not add" I think that's perfectly reasonable ... and oddly enough it is exactly what I have been suggesting.[/quote']

 

How is it any more reasonable than being able to buy a 4d6 HKA, STR does not add, for 40 points rather than buying a 3d6+1 HKA, and adding your 10 STR to get to 4d6, for 50 points?

 

You have consistently argued that adding damage to KA’s is a function of STR. If that function is removed, how is that not a limitation on STR?

 

And as long as you can add STR to your HKA' date=' I'm good with that.[/quote']

 

If 1e had simply had a single power, Killing Attack, which was the present RKA, and presented some characters with claws built as “Killing Attack, no range”, this wouldn’t even be an issue. Much of 6e’s changes were about decoupling so you get what you pay for. Decoupling HKA from STR would be just one more decoupling. And would be consistent, IMO, with Hero’s “you get what you pay for” philosophy.

 

I don't make any such claim. Indeed I am arguing precisely against such imbalances' date=' which are what the current rules give us - for example, Thumbtack Grond. [/quote']

 

Buying 1 DC of each possible pro rated attack to add 90 AP to seems like a good deal to me, even with pro rating. I can’t do that with any other ability in the game.

 

Oh I read it. You suggested using linked. I pointed out Linked doesn't work that way. I'm not sure the response above' date=' essentially saying "[i']Yeah, linked doesn't work that way, but if it worked differently we could get that effect." Why not make it clear from the outset that you are suggesting a new advantage?

 

I’d call it a variant limitation. If you want to call it a new limitation, fine. I have difficulty seeing it as an advantage, new or otherwise.

 

Essentially you're asking "If I deliberately try to make the character inefficiently' date=' how are you going to prevent me?" [/quote']

 

The game system determines what are, and are not, inefficient builds. The current model makes an HKA less efficient if you don’t have enough STR to double it. It makes a 2d6 HKA more efficient than a 4d6 HKA, no STR adds if you have 30 STR, and less efficient if you have 10 STR. Prior editions made it way more efficient to have a 30 DEX than a 15 DEX if you wanted a high OCV and DCV. The mechanics define what is, and is not, efficient character design.

 

As I pointed out' date=' the system I was suggesting is that the KA would be much more dangerous to targets without resistant defence, since killing attacks (both STUN and BOD) would ignore nonresistant defences. Against a target with a decent amount of resistant defence, the normal attack would be preferred. There is a tendency for Hero gamers to look at killing attacks not as attacks for killing soft targets but as a way to generate Max BOD (the same way they used to be used for generating Max Stun, using the Stun Lottery). I'm suggesting a change in perspective - use killing attacks for soft targets (ie: those with rDEF) not simply as the preferred means for doing damage to any kind of target. More to the point you seem to be still talking about killing attacks as a d6, doing 1-6 BOD. My point was to eliminate that dichotomy - a "killing attack" is just a normal dice of attack (does 1-6 stun, 0-2 BOD) that ignores non-resistant defences. It's a specialist attack, not a substitute for raw damage. If you buy an NND, you'll get fewer dice too - or an area affect attack or ..... etc, etc, etc. That's who it should be, IMHO.[/quote']

 

Your model costs a 13d6 normal attack with range equal to a 2d6+1 killing attack with range. I suppose if the target has no rdef at all, the KA will eliminate him pretty quickly, so it will be efficient. But in that model, who will build characters with no rDEF at all?

 

Heroic games often see 2d6+1 killing attacks. Are you really going to tell me a typical Fantasy hero character will stand up against a 2d6+1 killing attack more or less the same as if you hit him with a 13d6 normal attack?

 

Except it didn't. STR has never been 5 points a DC - 5 points of STR is a DC plus a bunch of other stuff (more than 5 points of other stuff in 5E' date=' less now).[/quote']

 

And Blast is damage coupled with range and the ability to spread, mechanically, and access a wider array of special effects for small advantages in play non-mechanically. No DC has ever been a pure DC. Blast no Range, and hand attack, both limited versions of the base ability (Blast and STR) get a limitation for that reason and are, as you wish, cheaper. But they are not lower from an AP perspective.

[RexMundi]

Re: 6E What happened to HKA?

 

My current 6e campaign players finally ran into a Real HKA attack....("Hey he's just a guy with a sword, Get Him!")......they were as happy with that result as they were with running into their first RKA. And Sir Robin, bravely ran away.....

 

~Rex.....Sword Guys are Sword Guys, Claw Guys are Claw Guys, Giving Ben Grimm Wolverines Claws turning him into SHARP THING!, is just dumb by Comic Book standards.....which is saying a lot, heh.