Find Weakness

[Agent X]

Originally posted by 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?

I can understand why they would have a presumption that they would never find a reason to allow the power. An outright ban, no. I would probably find a way for it to cost the character more points at the very least.

 

I certainly can't understand the paranoia about Find Weakness. It takes a 1/2 phase action to use, is not 100%, and should be considered when looking at the dice the player is throwing. This business about armor piercing with a roll misses one important point - Find Weakness can be used multiple times. I think that's neato for some character concepts.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X

I can understand why they would have a presumption that they would never find a reason to allow the power. An outright ban, no. I would probably find a way for it to cost the character more points at the very least.

 

I certainly can't understand the paranoia about Find Weakness. It takes a 1/2 phase action to use, is not 100%, and should be considered when looking at the dice the player is throwing. This business about armor piercing with a roll misses one important point - Find Weakness can be used multiple times. I think that's neato for some character concepts.

 

Would you play in a world where someone outright bans megascale movement usable as attack?

 

If it's a campaign with unlimited attacks, then find weakness is no big deal. If there is a damage cap, then it is a big deal. A 60 pt attack with find weakness is far more devastating than a 60 pt attack without. Therefore find weakness needs to be accounted for when determining whether an attack busts damage limits.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary

Would you play in a world where someone outright bans megascale movement usable as attack?

 

If it's a campaign with unlimited attacks, then find weakness is no big deal. If there is a damage cap, then it is a big deal. A 60 pt attack with find weakness is far more devastating than a 60 pt attack without. Therefore find weakness needs to be accounted for when determining whether an attack busts damage limits.

I might play. This isn't quite the same extreme as "find weakness only with one attack." It would probably depend on the tone of the person when they informed me of their ban.

 

I don't like damage caps. I like average damage for the team. If someone goes way over that needs to be taken into account through team dynamics. We do things in a sort of communal fashion.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X

I might play. This isn't quite the same extreme as "find weakness only with one attack." It would probably depend on the tone of the person when they informed me of their ban.

 

I don't like damage caps. I like average damage for the team. If someone goes way over that needs to be taken into account through team dynamics. We do things in a sort of communal fashion.

 

If someone with an average attack purchases FW, would you require someone else to reduce their attack? IOW do you count FW toward average damage for the team?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary

If someone with an average attack purchases FW, would you require someone else to reduce their attack? IOW do you count FW toward average damage for the team?

Depends on how Find Weakness is bought as far as average damage. I don't require someone else to reduce their attack. I have the players talk through what they think of what each other is doing and I say what I think. We come to an agreement.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X

Depends on how Find Weakness is bought as far as average damage. I don't require someone else to reduce their attack. I have the players talk through what they think of what each other is doing and I say what I think. We come to an agreement.

 

It's a simple yes/no answer. Do you consider someone with FW to have a higher average damage than someone without assuming they have the same number of dice?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary

It's a simple yes/no answer. Do you consider someone with FW to have a higher average damage than someone without assuming they have the same number of dice?

There's nothing I resent quite like someone producing an either/or/false dilemma sort of question. I have been nice enough to answer your questions. Now, you pose a question as if I was a witness in a courtroom. This interrogation ends here, Gary.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X

There's nothing I resent quite like someone producing an either/or/false dilemma sort of question. I have been nice enough to answer your questions. Now, you pose a question as if I was a witness in a courtroom. This interrogation ends here, Gary.

 

How is it a false dilemma? Either (12d6 + FW) > 12d6, or it isn't. There isn't a 3rd choice. You throw out "false dilemma" far too often.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary

How is it a false dilemma? Either (12d6 + FW) > 12d6, or it isn't. There isn't a 3rd choice. You throw out "false dilemma" far too often.

Gary, just stop. This is petty.

[zornwil]

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.

 

I've played with people who don't allow certain powers into their game, or variations on those powers (such as FW not for all, although not that, sorry I can't recall a good example), and they're not at all inflexible, other than finding certain constructs abusive. Obviously, mileage varies.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil

I've played with people who don't allow certain powers into their game, or variations on those powers (such as FW not for all, although not that, sorry I can't recall a good example), and they're not at all inflexible, other than finding certain constructs abusive. Obviously, mileage varies.

It's a red flag to me.

[Tech]

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.

 

(shrugs) We have differences of campaigns, that's all. It's not paranoid -it's merely what the GM and players feel comfortable with. It's unusual to have such a strong reaction from someone by me stating a campaign difference. Having read some of the other posts, I add the campaign is balanced and actually doesn't have a cap on points. However, every power, skill, etc., is carefully reviewed and by more than one GM. Yes, it can be done and it works great.

 

The F.W. rule is a house rule. Others have stated in other posts things they've added or changed in certain powers and I added mine. I see no problem with stating a house rule. There's already been other posts about this so I don't need to say the biting comment was unnecessary. So this ends on a positive note, I'm glad your campaign works well and that the players all like the openness of F.W.

[Zan the Gamer]

I'm the guy GMing the game where KnightShade is getting flack for his desire to have WF. We haven't even started yet and already there's lots of bickering and arguments... very unsettling. Anyways, I'd like to explain myself and get feedback from those of you who all have very good points about FW and the game itself.

 

The world I am designing is not used to Super Powered folk. No Super "teams" have even been formed. To represent the fact that the players' characters are beginners, I imposed the 50 Active Point starting limit. My issue with FW is this: I feel that in this particular game setting it will be unbalancing to use more than once per enemy.

 

My high defense villains have at most 30 Normal Defense and 15 to 20 Resistant Defense. A 50 Active Point killing attack (Knightshade's personal favorite) with FW will slaughter any of the villains, or make them run away very quickly in order to avoid death. How often do they really kill a villain in X-Men as an example? Usually they fight multiple times over years. So I would like to throw the same villains in different situations at my players. Develop a rivalry. Batman to Joker. Daredevil to Kingpin. X-Men to Brotherhood of Mutants. Etc.

 

Now, in order to make villains that CAN stand up to the one character with FW, I need to give them LoW or Damage Reduction. Doing this will make the players without FW underpowered. Therein lies the problem. The rest of the team has to fight harder bad guys that they might not be able to take, so one guy can have his character concept.

 

What I've decided on for my game is that FW counts as an advantage when determining how much DC's your attack can do. I am letting him have it with all attacks. I am saying that it can't be used 3 times on one enemy (and not giving it a limitation for that). The thing I'm now worried about, is that he has bought it in a Multi-Power Pool. So it's really cheap to undo my starting limit, like it was never there to begin with.

 

Would it be better for this campaign to not have FW or should it be left alone? Please, tell me what you think.

 

Thanks for your time and patience.

 

~ Zan

 

"There are no perfect men in this world, only perfect intentions."

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Zan the Gamer

What I've decided on for my game is that FW counts as an advantage when determining how much DC's your attack can do. I am letting him have it with all attacks. I am saying that it can't be used 3 times on one enemy (and not giving it a limitation for that). The thing I'm now worried about, is that he has bought it in a Multi-Power Pool. So it's really cheap to undo my starting limit, like it was never there to begin with.

 

Would it be better for this campaign to not have FW or should it be left alone? Please, tell me what you think.

 

Thanks for your time and patience.

 

~ Zan

I think counting it against DC limits is just the thing to do.

[Hugh Neilson]

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.

 

Man this exchange looks familiar.

 

My take is that Gary likes absolutes. Either the power is allowed in any form the player wishes (subject to character conception) or the power must be banned outright (or changed in some fashion to change the point cost).

 

Agent X, on the other hand, is a "holistic character" type of guy. Look at the character as a whole, then look at the team as a whole, to assess whether there's a problem, or whether we can allow this particular character construct.

 

As an example, assume that we have a campaign where damage is expected to range from 12d6 to 15d6, Defenses will be in the 25/25 range, and a 12" movement rate is the norm. Player X presents us with his character, a Brick with 60 STR, average defenses, and +30 STR which costs 2x END. His STR doesn't contribute to Leaping - he jumps like a normal human and has 7" total running. Reactions?

 

GARY: I expect Gary will just say "NO. The campaign max is 15 DC, so bring your STR maximum down to 75. Oh, and you better buy up your movement or you'll never be able to attack anyone anyway."

 

AGENT X, like me, is probably going to look at the character and say "OK, he's way over on damage. Is it workable?" How much can he use it with that 2x END? Will that make it rare? We'll compare him to the Energy Projector with the 75 point attacks multipower and 6 different attacks and think "well, the Brick has sacrificed versatility for higher power on one attack. Plus, he has no range and a slow movement rate, which mitigates his potential somewhat." Then, we'll make a decision one way or the other whether to allow him as is or require some changes. Maybe the change is to tone him down to 80 STR max. Maybe it's to require a higher END multiple on that extra STR.

 

Either style can work. But I obviously agree with Agent X - I'd rather stick to a review of the character than impose blanket rules. Sometimes, those blanket rules veto a reasonable character. Sometimes, they let an overpowered character slip through, as he's within the hard and fast rules. I'd rather assess each character for reasonableness. Some GM's may not be comfortable with that approach.

 

If a GM imposes a host of restrictions, I may decide it's not worth it and he can find players who prefer the more mechanical approach. Or I may just build a character that works under his model. or maybe I negotiate with the GM to get the concept I'm looking for to work under his rules set.

[Hugh Neilson]

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.

 

Man this exchange looks familiar.

 

My take is that Gary likes absolutes. Either the power is allowed in any form the player wishes (subject to character conception) or the power must be banned outright (or changed in some fashion to change the point cost).

 

Agent X, on the other hand, is a "holistic character" type of guy. Look at the character as a whole, then look at the team as a whole, to assess whether there's a problem, or whether we can allow this particular character construct.

 

As an example, assume that we have a campaign where damage is expected to range from 12d6 to 15d6, Defenses will be in the 25/25 range, and a 12" movement rate is the norm. Player X presents us with his character, a Brick with 60 STR, average defenses, and +30 STR which costs 2x END. His STR doesn't contribute to Leaping - he jumps like a normal human and has 7" total running. Reactions?

 

GARY: I expect Gary will just say "NO. The campaign max is 15 DC, so bring your STR maximum down to 75. Oh, and you better buy up your movement or you'll never be able to attack anyone anyway."

 

AGENT X, like me, is probably going to look at the character and say "OK, he's way over on damage. Is it workable?" How much can he use it with that 2x END? Will that make it rare? We'll compare him to the Energy Projector with the 75 point attacks multipower and 6 different attacks and think "well, the Brick has sacrificed versatility for higher power on one attack. Plus, he has no range and a slow movement rate, which mitigates his potential somewhat." Then, we'll make a decision one way or the other whether to allow him as is or require some changes. Maybe the change is to tone him down to 80 STR max. Maybe it's to require a higher END multiple on that extra STR.

 

Either style can work. But I obviously agree with Agent X - I'd rather stick to a review of the character than impose blanket rules. Sometimes, those blanket rules veto a reasonable character. Sometimes, they let an overpowered character slip through, as he's within the hard and fast rules. I'd rather assess each character for reasonableness. Some GM's may not be comfortable with that approach.

 

If a GM imposes a host of restrictions, I may decide it's not worth it and he can find players who prefer the more mechanical approach. Or I may just build a character that works under his model. or maybe I negotiate with the GM to get the concept I'm looking for to work under his rules set.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Zan the Gamer

Would it be better for this campaign to not have FW or should it be left alone? Please, tell me what you think.

 

Say "No." Or, let him have a FW that works as per the rules on a 1 or 2d6 KA.

[Mentor]

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?

BTW our campaign has an Earth based PC with Tunnellng and N Ray vision. As the player is my 9 year old son and doesn't kow all of the nuances of the game or powers, we allow it. A mentalist with tunneling and N ray seems to be a problem in abusing the character concept rather than abuse of powers. Not very heroic to never come out of hiding. Sometimes balance requires trying something out before banning or allowing something. Given how differently players play the same Supers, these power levels are only meaningful if played a certain way.(ie arena battles vs chasing the bad guy through NYC streets and alleys)

[Mentor]

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?

BTW our campaign has an Earth based PC with Tunnellng and N Ray vision. As the player is my 9 year old son and doesn't kow all of the nuances of the game or powers, we allow it. A mentalist with tunneling and N ray seems to be a problem in abusing the character concept rather than abuse of powers. Not very heroic to never come out of hiding. Sometimes balance requires trying something out before banning or allowing something. Given how differently players play the same Supers, these power levels are only meaningful if played a certain way.(ie arena battles vs chasing the bad guy through NYC streets and alleys)

[Zed-F]

Originally posted by Zan the Gamer

What I've decided on for my game is that FW counts as an advantage when determining how much DC's your attack can do. I am letting him have it with all attacks. I am saying that it can't be used 3 times on one enemy (and not giving it a limitation for that). The thing I'm now worried about, is that he has bought it in a Multi-Power Pool. So it's really cheap to undo my starting limit, like it was never there to begin with.

 

Would it be better for this campaign to not have FW or should it be left alone? Please, tell me what you think.

 

Do you mean a variable power pool or a multipower?

 

If the FW is going to be a problem, then he should have limited effect with it. You may want to restrict the amount he can buy up his roll so that it's a bit unreliable for him. Limiting him to a 30 AP attack (when used against a weakened enemy) would be a possibility. Be careful regarding points balancing -- a player who buys a 50 AP attack multipower will spend more points and pay more END for his attacks than one who buys a 30 AP attack multipower which includes find weakness as a slot.

 

This thread is making me rethink one of my own characters with FW.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Zan the Gamer

I'm the guy GMing the game where KnightShade is getting flack for his desire to have WF. We haven't even started yet and already there's lots of bickering and arguments... very unsettling. Anyways, I'd like to explain myself and get feedback from those of you who all have very good points about FW and the game itself.

 

The world I am designing is not used to Super Powered folk. No Super "teams" have even been formed. To represent the fact that the players' characters are beginners, I imposed the 50 Active Point starting limit. My issue with FW is this: I feel that in this particular game setting it will be unbalancing to use more than once per enemy.

 

My high defense villains have at most 30 Normal Defense and 15 to 20 Resistant Defense. A 50 Active Point killing attack (Knightshade's personal favorite) with FW will slaughter any of the villains, or make them run away very quickly in order to avoid death. How often do they really kill a villain in X-Men as an example? Usually they fight multiple times over years. So I would like to throw the same villains in different situations at my players. Develop a rivalry. Batman to Joker. Daredevil to Kingpin. X-Men to Brotherhood of Mutants. Etc.

 

Now, in order to make villains that CAN stand up to the one character with FW, I need to give them LoW or Damage Reduction. Doing this will make the players without FW underpowered. Therein lies the problem. The rest of the team has to fight harder bad guys that they might not be able to take, so one guy can have his character concept.

 

What I've decided on for my game is that FW counts as an advantage when determining how much DC's your attack can do. I am letting him have it with all attacks. I am saying that it can't be used 3 times on one enemy (and not giving it a limitation for that). The thing I'm now worried about, is that he has bought it in a Multi-Power Pool. So it's really cheap to undo my starting limit, like it was never there to begin with.

 

Would it be better for this campaign to not have FW or should it be left alone? Please, tell me what you think.

 

Thanks for your time and patience.

 

~ Zan

 

If you don't like it being used more than once, another technique is to make the cumulative subtraction -4 instead of -2. So the first shot is normal, but the second is -4, the third is -8, the fourth is -12. That way the player gets something and so does the campaign. Just a thought.

 

Of course you can just forbid more than one shot, or double or triple the cost.

 

However, I think an as-big or bigger issue is this 50 AP KA. What's the story? Is this a lethal or "realistic" campaign and hence the hero having this? Are the other characters like this? I could certainly see banning the combo in your game, depending on its nature. And if they are "heroic", well, Batman wouldn't use Find Weakness with a lethal attack UNLESS he was aiming the attack to ensure it wouldn't do that much BOD (like taking out a hand).

[Killer Shrike]

Zan, a few points:

 

FW is of diminishing returns. When you halve a half value, you get less return obviously. So FW is most deadly in a campaign with HIGH defenses, because the FIRST halving is the most efficient, yielding the biggest return. Halving an opponent from 50 to 25 is much more devastating than halving them from 20 to 10 in a lower def game.

 

This limiting FW to the first roll isnt really all that effective, as the first roll is the most effective one. Also, your concern that in a lower point game it will have more impact is off-base, as FW has more impact in higher point games and less impact in lower point games.

 

FW in a Multipower must be kept on to retain its effect-- check the Rules FAQ.

 

Powers FAQ

Q: If a character has received the GM’s permission to buy Find Weakness in a Power Framework, and uses the Find Weakness to locate a weakness in an enemy’s defenses, and then switches the Framework to some other slot or power, does he “lose†the weakness he found?

 

A: Yes. However, the GM may, if appropriate, grant him a bonus (say, +1) to later attempts to Find Weakness on that same target in that same encounter, if the character switches the Framework back.

 

Q: Suppose a character has received the GM’s permission to buy Find Weakness in a Power Framework, and has bought Find Weakness at a high level (such as 30 points for “with all attacksâ€). If he succeeds with a roll and finds a weakness, can he then “scale down†the points devoted to the Find Weakness slot to whatever he made the roll by (say, if he rolls an 11, could he scale down to 10 points, representing an 11- roll with one attack), thus freeing some of the Framework’s reserve points?

 

A: No.

 

Looking at the original post, the poster comments that the PCs were up against CONSTRUCTS. If this was an accurate statement by the poster, ie you were using the Takes No STUN and other Automaton rules, then FW would have appeared unusually effective. FW is extremely efficient against Automatons due to the multiplied cost of their defenses, and if that was the circumstance you might want to collect more data before deciding to nerf the Power outright.

 

Frex, one of the PCs in our current group (John Wrath http://www.killershrike.com/MillennialMen ) is a FW based character. He routinely massacres any automaton based character so long as he can make that 1st FW roll. He has considerably more trouble vs non Automatons.

 

I've seen the same behavior with other characters in other campaigns. YMMV.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Tech

(shrugs) We have differences of campaigns, that's all. It's not paranoid -it's merely what the GM and players feel comfortable with. It's unusual to have such a strong reaction from someone by me stating a campaign difference. Having read some of the other posts, I add the campaign is balanced and actually doesn't have a cap on points. However, every power, skill, etc., is carefully reviewed and by more than one GM. Yes, it can be done and it works great.

 

The F.W. rule is a house rule. Others have stated in other posts things they've added or changed in certain powers and I added mine. I see no problem with stating a house rule. There's already been other posts about this so I don't need to say the biting comment was unnecessary. So this ends on a positive note, I'm glad your campaign works well and that the players all like the openness of F.W.

My response came off a little stronger than I would have liked after rereading it. I really do have issues with outright bans and wouldn't be interested in playing in a game with said bans. However, the word "bother" could be construed as condescending and could be taken to be more derisive than I intended. I apologize... although it didn't seem to have much effect on you.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil

If you don't like it being used more than once, another technique is to make the cumulative subtraction -4 instead of -2. So the first shot is normal, but the second is -4, the third is -8, the fourth is -12. That way the player gets something and so does the campaign. Just a thought.

 

Of course you can just forbid more than one shot, or double or triple the cost.

 

However, I think an as-big or bigger issue is this 50 AP KA. What's the story? Is this a lethal or "realistic" campaign and hence the hero having this? Are the other characters like this? I could certainly see banning the combo in your game, depending on its nature. And if they are "heroic", well, Batman wouldn't use Find Weakness with a lethal attack UNLESS he was aiming the attack to ensure it wouldn't do that much BOD (like taking out a hand).

That's the thing that I don't get. Killing attacks are pound for pound the most effective attack out there. I'm surprised that no one is ranting about how killing attacks make it impossible for them to tell the story they want to.

 

For the record: I am not advocating getting rid of killing attacks.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Agent X

That's the thing that I don't get. Killing attacks are pound for pound the most effective attack out there. I'm surprised that no one is ranting about how killing attacks make it impossible for them to tell the story they want to.

Actually, one of my rules is that the Stun Mod is a static x3.

 

And I think I pointed out earlier, that I came from a high powered campaign style. A 75 PD wasn't that uncommon and there were FW rolls in the high 20s.

 

Though I liked Sam Bell's construct for one of his villians. AVLD vs 1. I think it was over frustration that the villian had rolled 18 on FW against my Brick twice in a row. (two games...)

 

Note also it was one villian out of ~1000 that had this.

----

So some of that is where my non-use of FW comes from. I find other constructs less of a headache. I just have to remember these things when I run a game at a Con.