Find Weakness

[KnightShade]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

I dislike Find Weakness.

 

It is an orphan mechanic that exists nowhere else in the game system.

 

If just one PC starts to abuse FW, then every other PC, NPC and villain must either be retrofitted with LoW or be potential dogfood.

 

This is one case where the game system would be improved with the delete key. There are fairer ways of achieving this effect. FW is structurally flawed. LoW is nerfed. (what's up with that?)

 

$0.02

 

FW just always seemed to me like the way I would enter a fight. Study the opponent and learn what you can before attacking rather than just running in with guns blazing. It seems to be the only thing that accurately describes that type of strategy.

 

The character I had that was using it, wasn't abusing it as far as I was concerned. It was 6 against 15, and the enemies were based on close to 300 points, while we were still around 270. I wasn't even doing any damage with my RKA until I started using that.

 

I can see the potential for abuse (like taking PD/ED down to 1 all the time), but I can't see a good substitute for taking the time to study the opponent.

[zornwil]

I always thought of FW as based on Batman and his successors, FWIW. Sure, CVs and Penetrating and Piercing all go just as far. It just "feels" Batman.

[McCoy]

Originally posted by zornwil

Are you saying no range is an unfair advantage?

 

Or did your post just screw up?

No, I was saying that he had sucessfully self-identified the unbalancing factor.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by McCoy

No, I was saying that he had sucessfully self-identified the unbalancing factor.

 

I'm a bit skeptical. That calls into question the whole balance of the no-range modifier. Then should it have a different value for FW, or is it impermissible for such?

 

Anyway, I seriously doubt the villain tactics, and also tend to think that it's just a bit of luck which should be happening (the <14 (easy), <12 (on the whole expected), <10 (less so, and in a row no less).

 

If this isn't a trend and if villains don't know what to do about it, it's a GM issue. Now, I am sympathetic, don't get me wrong, but I'm not ready to lay this on "abusive construct" yet.

[Agent X]

I have no problem with find weakness and think you guys who have problems with strength being too cheap, or multipowers, or elemental controls, or find weakness need to find a new system or calm down and realize it's all in the total construction of the character. The devastating potential of find weakness is quite limited by the pace of most combat sessions. If it occasionally is overwhelming then cool! The game shouldn't be reduced to a constant diet of 1-3 turns of combat. Sometimes the fights should be short and sweet and sometimes they should be epic battles.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Agent X

I have no problem with find weakness and think you guys who have problems with strength being too cheap, or multipowers, or elemental controls, or find weakness need to find a new system or calm down and realize it's all in the total construction of the character. The devastating potential of find weakness is quite limited by the pace of most combat sessions. If it occasionally is overwhelming then cool! The game shouldn't be reduced to a constant diet of 1-3 turns of combat. Sometimes the fights should be short and sweet and sometimes they should be epic battles.

 

Well said.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil

Well said.

Zank you, Zornwil

[BoloOfEarth]

I ran a game with a PC (Jade) who had Find Weakness, and it did have moments where it was unbalancing. His wasn't a range thing, it was an "All Attacks" thing with a slightly higher-than-average SPD, combined with a "not paying enough attention" thing on my part at times. (For instance, IMO Find Weakness shouldn't do diddly for AOE or Explosions, but I didn't catch on to that quick enough.)

 

Really, Lack of Weakness is a very cheap defense (5 points is enough to kill that 13- roll), though perhaps harder to justify in character conception. However, as word gets around about KnightShade's uncanny ability to find weaknesses, it's not unreasonable a gadgeteer physicist might develop something to mess with his ability, and perhaps sell it to interested parties.

 

Yes, in my game a slightly higher number of villains began getting Lack of Weakness (my favorite was the one whose LOW had Invisible Power Effects on it, something fairly justifiable for the above physicist). But overall, it wasn't too bad. As I said, at moments it was unbalancing, but other times it wasn't.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by BoloOfEarth

I ran a game with a PC (Jade) who had Find Weakness, and it did have moments where it was unbalancing. His wasn't a range thing, it was an "All Attacks" thing with a slightly higher-than-average SPD, combined with a "not paying enough attention" thing on my part at times. (For instance, IMO Find Weakness shouldn't do diddly for AOE or Explosions, but I didn't catch on to that quick enough.)

 

Really, Lack of Weakness is a very cheap defense (5 points is enough to kill that 13- roll), though perhaps harder to justify in character conception. However, as word gets around about KnightShade's uncanny ability to find weaknesses, it's not unreasonable a gadgeteer physicist might develop something to mess with his ability, and perhaps sell it to interested parties.

 

Yes, in my game a slightly higher number of villains began getting Lack of Weakness (my favorite was the one whose LOW had Invisible Power Effects on it, something fairly justifiable for the above physicist). But overall, it wasn't too bad. As I said, at moments it was unbalancing, but other times it wasn't.

 

Yeah, the kryptonite syndrome, where the villains all start getting what becomes a well-known but bizarrely unnatural defense to an unusually effective character, relates WELL beyond FW, it's a troubling thing. The weird thing is it's genre-correct but still super-cheesy (or at least I always thought so).

 

And of course Superman ended up ret-conned in some large part because of it. So I guess that's a good cue to take sometimes.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Agent X

I have no problem with find weakness and think you guys who have problems with strength being too cheap, etc...

 

I don't disagree with you, I just find it better without.

[CrosshairCollie]

As a GM, I've never had a problem with Find Weakness, nor have my players ... mostly because whenever any villain's action is described as a detailed study of a hero (or whatever), that villain rarely remains conscious long enough to make use of what he learned, as everybody and their French Poodle turns around and beats him senseless.

[Lightray]

Originally posted by zornwil

Yeah, the kryptonite syndrome, where the villains all start getting what becomes a well-known but bizarrely unnatural defense to an unusually effective character, relates WELL beyond FW, it's a troubling thing. The weird thing is it's genre-correct but still super-cheesy (or at least I always thought so).

 

And of course Superman ended up ret-conned in some large part because of it. So I guess that's a good cue to take sometimes.

I've lately been making characters with Lack of Weakness focused as the game mechanics for their trenchcoat, duster, cape, cloak, or what have you. I rather like it, as it gives a reason why someone would wear a cape - other than wanting to be hung up on a revolving door, say.

 

I've also been using low Flash Defense focused through sunglasses.

 

Ironically, our one FW character and our Flash-attack characters have yet to face off with the LoW & FD equipped.

[ChuckB]

The FW may have seemed more effective than it normally is if the Constructs were built using the robot rules.

 

Robots in Hero tend to have lower defenses due to the no stun advantage. A robot with 10 body and a 10 defense is going to have problems with any FW attack.

[Tech]

Find Weakness is an almost rare ability in the campaign I'm in. As for F.W. with all attacks, forget it - not allowed. Someone wants F.W. with more than one attack, too bad - not allowed either. Find Weakness is for one attack and only allowed once per character. It takes the edge off of it.

 

Still... I haven't created a villain with F.W. in awhile. Thanks for reminding me.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Tech

Find Weakness is an almost rare ability in the campaign I'm in. As for F.W. with all attacks, forget it - not allowed. Someone wants F.W. with more than one attack, too bad - not allowed either. Find Weakness is for one attack and only allowed once per character. It takes the edge off of it.

 

Still... I haven't created a villain with F.W. in awhile. Thanks for reminding me.

These sorts of absolute comments are very welcome to hear. When I meet someone at the game store talking like this I mark them as someone I will not bother to game with. I don't like a mechanic centered approach and I don't like a paranoiac approach to powers.

[Killer Shrike]

I havent read thru the posts above so ignore overlap:

 

Ive never found FW to be unduly effective or unbalancing, although it is destablizing.

 

The main problem with FW based characaters is that if you as the GM present them with foes that they MUST make their FW roll against to hurt, they will invariably fail it and be in big trouble. Vice versa, if you dont account for it a solid FW character will drop most any villain before a turn is out. So you end up having to proliferate Lack of Weakness and/or Damage Reduction. Then the FW based character feels persecuted unfairly.

 

 

So, its more of a destablizing element than an unbalancing element, and it forces your hand during villain design.

 

On the other hand, its expensive, difficult to set up, and easy to stop.

 

FW w/ Ranged Attacks is more efficient that FW w/ HtH Attacks obviously.

 

FW combined with a Speedster and/or highly mobile character has a lot of synergy and can edge into unbalanced.

 

FW is particularly effective vs Constructs, because they paid 3 times as much for their DEF, thus each halving via FW is 3 times more devastating in real points. A FW character will shred Constructs more often than not.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Lightray

I've lately been making characters with Lack of Weakness focused as the game mechanics for their trenchcoat, duster, cape, cloak, or what have you. I rather like it, as it gives a reason why someone would wear a cape - other than wanting to be hung up on a revolving door, say.

 

I've also been using low Flash Defense focused through sunglasses.

 

Ironically, our one FW character and our Flash-attack characters have yet to face off with the LoW & FD equipped.

 

That's a clever idea, I like it.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Agent X

These sorts of absolute comments are very welcome to hear. When I meet someone at the game store talking like this I mark them as someone I will not bother to game with. I don't like a mechanic centered approach and I don't like a paranoiac approach to powers.

 

Seriously? The guy just said he doesn't allow FW for all powers - that's not so odd - nor extreme at all, even if it's not the kind of house rule I'd have.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Lightray

I've lately been making characters with Lack of Weakness focused as the game mechanics for their trenchcoat, duster, cape, cloak, or what have you. I rather like it, as it gives a reason why someone would wear a cape - other than wanting to be hung up on a revolving door, say.

 

The original Dark Champions suggested Lack of Weakness provided by trenchcoats as a reason so many characters wear them (or did at that time).

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil

Seriously? The guy just said he doesn't allow FW for all powers - that's not so odd - nor extreme at all, even if it's not the kind of house rule I'd have.

That's all it takes. I remember discussing how to build Green Lantern in a game store once. This guy bristled when I told him that my conversion included a summoning power in order to summon big green men and so on which, if you have read enough Hal Jordan era GL, has been demonstrated as a capability of the ring. This guy said under no circumstances would he allow that. In his game the one true proper way to build GL's ring was force walls and telekinesis. My response is that it didn't matter because I wasn't playing in his game and would never play in his game because he thought he had all the answers.

 

GMs who have strong opinions that they need to foist on everyone else or GMs who have irrational fears about certain mechanics in a game are a dead giveaway for me to find something else to do. It just smacks too much of insecurity issues and a me vs. the players way of thinking.

 

More specifically. A character's design could full well justify Find Weakness with all attacks. This isn't some odd character concept by any stretch and can easily be balanced in a game so, yeah, I wouldn't play with this guy.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X

That's all it takes. I remember discussing how to build Green Lantern in a game store once. This guy bristled when I told him that my conversion included a summoning power in order to summon big green men and so on which, if you have read enough Hal Jordan era GL, has been demonstrated as a capability of the ring. This guy said under no circumstances would he allow that. In his game the one true proper way to build GL's ring was force walls and telekinesis. My response is that it didn't matter because I wasn't playing in his game and would never play in his game because he thought he had all the answers.

 

GMs who have strong opinions that they need to foist on everyone else or GMs who have irrational fears about certain mechanics in a game are a dead giveaway for me to find something else to do. It just smacks too much of insecurity issues and a me vs. the players way of thinking.

 

More specifically. A character's design could full well justify Find Weakness with all attacks. This isn't some odd character concept by any stretch and can easily be balanced in a game so, yeah, I wouldn't play with this guy.

 

Are there things that you wouldn't allow in your campaigns?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary

Are there things that you wouldn't allow in your campaigns?

I like players to follow the rules. Other than that, we talk it out as to how many points the characters are going to be built on, approximate power level, and then I look over the characters and tell them what needs to be fixed.

 

I do not have bans on anything in particular that follows the rules straight out of the books. I take the construction in the context of the character, the other characters, and the campaign.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X

I like players to follow the rules. Other than that, we talk it out as to how many points the characters are going to be built on, approximate power level, and then I look over the characters and tell them what needs to be fixed.

 

I do not have bans on anything in particular that follows the rules straight out of the books. I take the construction in the context of the character, the other characters, and the campaign.

 

How about the rocket punch, 1" superleap usable as attack, 6 levels of megascale. 3 active points. Sends targets into orbit with one blow.

 

Would you have a blanket ban on megascale movements usable as attack?

 

How about extradimensional movement usable as attack. Send target to Hell. Would you have a blanket ban on XDM usable as attack?

 

Or a more realistic example. A mentallist with tunnelling and n-ray vision. That's pretty abusive and something I wouldn't allow a PC. Would you ban this construct?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary

How about the rocket punch, 1" superleap usable as attack, 6 levels of megascale. 3 active points. Sends targets into orbit with one blow.

 

Would you have a blanket ban on megascale movements usable as attack?

 

How about extradimensional movement usable as attack. Send target to Hell. Would you have a blanket ban on XDM usable as attack?

 

Or a more realistic example. A mentallist with tunnelling and n-ray vision. That's pretty abusive and something I wouldn't allow a PC. Would you ban this construct?

rocket punch: Depends on the villains the guy is gonna face.

 

No blanket bans.

 

I could accept XDM usable as attack in a certain context, for example - XDM usable against others, transdimensional, only to draw out someone to character's current dimension who is observing/attacking character from other dimensions. I don't see that as gamebreaking. That's why I don't like blanket bans.

 

XDM usable as attack with no limitations - If the guy is supposed to be up there with Dr. Strange or Dr. Fate

 

Mentalist with tunneling and N-Ray vision? If it fits the character concept I wouldn't ban it. It's hard to make that work into a character concept that entertains me and others though.

 

I would also let someone buy desolid and density increase in a multipower with n-ray vision and flight. Buy that character stealth and (s)he will be mighty. But there are plenty of ways to justify this character construction.

[Gary]

The funny thing is that something like the rocket punch is the only thing that explains some of the knockback you see in comics. I remember when Binary literally knocked Rogue into orbit. And of course DC is infamous for huge knockback.

 

Still, I personally can't see anyone allowing a 3 pt power to be able to wipe out 95+% of all foes. Or if you pay 5 pts, you can get area effect with 16" radius.

 

Can you understand why some people would have blanket bans against some stuff like this?