Weapon Costs (long)

[CorpCommander]

Has anyone else tried recreating the weapon Active/Real costs in the table on 5E pg. 332? It’s impossible in my experience.

 

You run into trouble immediately on the first weapon, the Derringer revolver. I checked the FAQ and errata and only found a correction for the .50 Cal. HMG.

 

Ok lets take a look at pricing a firearm in character points.

 

The two trickiest bits are OCV and RMod. On page 333 it says that these affect the Active cost (the implication I derive from the text is they are costed out and added or subtracted directly to active points. This is against the normal Hero System mechanics.) Each point of OCV is a 5-point CSL with OAF, requires hands and real weapon. RMod is not explained as clearly but I took it as a PSL. This means that OCV mods are + or - 2 points each and RMods are + or - 2 points for the first and 1 point for each point extra. Thus a +2 RMod is 3 points. I could be wrong on that but again, the text isn't 100% clear on how to derive the calculation.

 

Ok the .38 Derringer has -2 OCV and -2 RMod (-7 by my count.)

The power is RKA 1d6 (15 active points.) Ok the math is good so far! But wait; didn't page 333 say that OCV mods affect the active points? So, its obvious we have a problem but still, lets press forward.

 

OK the STR min of 4 (-1/4) and 2 shots (-1 1/2) when applied to the 15 active points yield a real cost of 5. It would appear that in order to get the 1-point listed in the equipment list you'd have to take the raw OCV and RMod values and add them directly to this number. That could also be coincidence. Applying the -7 to the 15 yields 8 and then applying the -1 3/4s in limitations yields 3 points. We can't get to the 1-point listed no matter how we slice this salami. What is worse is I didn't even apply a Focus limitation to the RKA, which it would normally get.

 

Culinary metaphors aside lets try something different.

 

First lets toss out the rubbery treatment of the modifiers here. The OCV and RMods should yield advantages (or limitations). That at least would be mechanically compatible to the rest of Hero. No?

 

I will propose some example values:

 

Level ____OCV______RMod

+3_______+1 1/2____+3/4

+2_______+1________+1/2

+1_______+1/2______+1/4

+0_______+0________+0

-1_______-1/4_______-/14

-2_______-1/2_______-1/2

-3_______-3/4_______-3/4

 

(please pardon the underlines, I have no idea how to create a formatted table where the spaces/tabs aren't collapsed.)

 

I made the OCV limitation weaker simply for game balance. a -1 1/2 limitation would require extraordinary justification. One may say, well at +1 1/2 points the +3 OCV would cost more than it's real life 5-point CSL. True and we aren't even considering the fact that its a CSL within a focus. However these aren't points in your character, these are points you just happen to find in the local armory rack. You only need a 2pt WF skill to pick them up and use them right away. Further, a +3 OCV accurate weapon is a kick ass weapon. Called shots at 8 meters by even beginning gunslingers with pitiful DCV are still pretty easy. Take a gunslinger at 8 meters (26 feet) with a +3 OCV weapon. RMods don't kick because we are within the 4 hex ranges. The head is -8 OCV. Even a Gunslinger with a DEX of 12 only has a -1 OCV at this point. This yields a still reasonable chance to hit the target's head. Now imagine a skilled person doing so! Further, consider that most weapons are OAF (-1), this offsets the mods significantly enough that perhaps we are actually being generous here!

 

Ok, now lets cost the derringer using our new and improved handling of OCV and RMod.

 

RKA 1d6 (15 active), -2 OCV (-1/2), -2 RMod (-1/2), STR min 4 (-1/4), 2 charges (-1 1/2), OAF (-1), Requires 1 hand (-0) (3 real)

 

If we add in Real Weapon (like anyone will take a Derringer seriously...) the Real Cost remains at 3 after rounding.

 

This seems much more realistic to me. it fits in the framework of the Hero system and, best yet, it works easily with Hero Designer (the most indispensable tool ever created for gaming - bar none.) Hopefully this wasn't too rambling and you've made it to the end.

 

Comments? Corrections? Flame? Praise?

[dugfromthearth]

I have done up my own weapons system for melee weapons, using the str min system from 4th edition.

 

for OCV penalties you should go with the requires skill roll modifiers worth half value (since you don't buy a skill, you are just using the mods for OCV).

 

so -1/4 is -1 OCV per 10 AP in the power

-1/2 is -1 OCV per 5 AP in the power

 

if -1/2 is a flat -2 OCV, then you would be crazy not to take it on a 60pt attack, save 15 points and buy two 2pt levels to get those OCV back.

 

with the RSR mods, the 60pt attack saves 15pts but gets a -6 OCV. With 2pt levels that takes 12pts to get it back, with 3pt levels it takes 18. So the numbers are pretty close to balanced.

 

for OCV bonuses I don't have a good system worked out (doing this off the top of my head). A +1/4 adder on a 60pt power costs 15 points. That is five 3 point levels, or 3 5 point levels. It would be silly to pay +1/4 for only +1 OCV. The basic problem is a sliding cost for a fixed bonus that you can get for a fixed cost.

 

Now you can go with some variant on spreading. Spreading turns 1dc into +1 OCV. So you could buy a dc for 5pts and then put on the limitation only for spreading (-1/2 probably, would make it 3pts the same as a 3pt level which seems right). Being a dc it would get all of the limitations applied to the attack.

 

for rmod you have to face up to +1/2 no range penalty. If I can negate all range penalties for +1/2, then all that leaves you with for a reduced range penalty is +1/4. You could do half range penalty -1/4. Not the same as doubling the range, which only reduces the penalty by -2.

[CorpCommander]

Originally posted by dugfromthearth

if -1/2 is a flat -2 OCV, then you would be crazy not to take it on a 60pt attack, save 15 points and buy two 2pt levels to get those OCV back.

 

The system I am looking at is building and costing firearms. So this isn't a generic system for players to min/max powers for their character.

 

Common sense, enforced by the game master, says that you chose the level your OCV mod is going to be on the weapon. Buying it off then buying it back just to get some cheap points doesn't fly.

 

My intent is to correct the problems with the unclearly defined system that is currently in place. I went back to 4th Edition (actually Hero System Rulebook) to see what they do there and, not surprisingly, they don't have Active/Real points listed. In 4E they do have advantages and limitations but they don't address OCV and Rmod. So it appears that in the transition to 5E the weakness of the system continues.

 

I do like the way you look at the same problem. I am going to compare results using your method vs. mine and see which I like better. Thanks for the response.

[zornwil]

You're forgetting the Beam (-1/4), Real Weapon (-1/4), and STR Minimum Doesn't Add to Damage (-1/2) limitations applied to each firearm, along with not having applied the OAF as you mentioned - see page 331, near top. Also, please note that on p. 333 it does NOT indicate that the limitation of negative skill levels includes Requried Hands or Real Weapon, just OAF (why, I don't know), so that's -3 points (remember, rounding favors the player, so 5/2 = -2.5, 3 is more favorable than 2).

 

However, that being said, I think Steve may have once said that some of the weapons were fudged to make their costing fit better, as was done with a few Talents. I'm not sure, and I may well be way off base, it's just something you may want to get his attention on in any case.

 

Regardless, I understand your concern regarding the way CVs/RMods are added/subtracted to the power, but I'm not so sure it's inconsistent. Any entity (base, vehicle) will have those values added the same as any character. The entity (in this case a weapon) has a single power called RKA and THAT receives the STR and other adjustments. That entity then also has its own intrinsic CV and RMod values, like a character. So personally I don't see the problem with the approach in 5th edition.

 

That being said, if you guys like your alternate system, I'm not objecting to what you're doing in your own games.

[CorpCommander]

Originally posted by zornwil

Regardless, I understand your concern regarding the way CVs/RMods are added/subtracted to the power, but I'm not so sure it's inconsistent.

 

Adding is not inconsistent but subtracting is which is where you run into trouble. Its not like a character where you can subtract points by reducing an ability stat like STR below the baseline and get points back. Weapons are more like powers than like vehicles. The fact that the points had to be fudged for some reason indicates what I said originally which is that the system is not well defined.

 

Thanks for the reminder on the other limitations I forgot. I have a feeling if I add those in I am possibly going to get closer to Steve's numbers but, perhaps, not in the same way.

 

Pete

[Simon]

I've worked through most of them (in the process of checking over HD) and they all work out (or are noted as errors in the Errata).

 

I'll use the .38 Special as an example, since it's simpler than the .38 Derringer in that it does not include negative skill levels:

 

Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6 + 1; STR Minimum 7 (STR Min. Cannot Add/Subtract Damage; -1), OAF (-1), 6 Charges (-3/4), Real Weapon (-1/4), Beam (-1/4)

 

Active Cost: 20

Real Cost: 5

 

Just like FREd states.

 

In working out the .38 Derringer, if memory serves, the Real Cost total will actually work out to a negative value, due to the OCV and RMod values. The minimum cost for anything, however, is 1 point, so the total Real Cost for the weapon is 1 point.

[Simon]

More notes:

 

As noted on page 333, OCV penalties are bought as 5-point "negative" Skill Levels on a Focus (OAF; -1). This changes the math you have posted above. -2 OCV (as in the example with the Derringer) is -10 Active and -5 Real Cost.

[CorpCommander]

Originally posted by Simon

As noted on page 333, OCV penalties are bought as 5-point "negative" Skill Levels on a Focus (OAF; -1). This changes the math you have posted above. -2 OCV (as in the example with the Derringer) is -10 Active and -5 Real Cost.

 

Is it possible to do this with Hero Designer 1.47?

[Simon]

Originally posted by CorpCommander

Is it possible to do this with Hero Designer 1.47?

Yes and no.

 

You can buy the negative Skill Levels and apply the Lims just fine. The only issue that you'll run into is if you place everything into a Compound Power -- HD will total the Active Costs of each component Power to come up with the total Active Cost. Because the negative Skill Levels have a negative Active Cost, the value that HD lists for the overall Active Cost of the ability will be less than the value listed in FREd.

 

There's some ambiguity in FREd as to which method is correct....

[Talon]

I'd also note that FH used a different method -- Side Effect -- to grant the OCV penalties. My guess is that if Steve could, he'd redo the FREd weapons using that method.

[CorpCommander]

Originally posted by Simon

In working out the .38 Derringer, if memory serves, the Real Cost total will actually work out to a negative value, due to the OCV and RMod values.

 

This is the problem I have with calculating any weapon's cost with this method. Clearly a Derringer is valuable. It clearly gives you the ability to really hurt someone in a way wouldn't be ablt to do otherwise. With this in mind it would appear that any methodology that allows for weapons to become negatively priced is clearly not correct.

 

It makes me think that, in the case of creating weapons, the use of limitations for the negative mods is a better route because you will never have a situation where the price of the weapon goes negative. Using full 5pt CSL for the positive mods is probably better than using an advantage.

 

I admit it could simply be just that this is an extreme case where the base power is so weak that all the additions and subtractions overwhelm the one bit that is giving you any actual value (the RKA in this case.) Though, at 15 points it shouldn't be this big a problem. Its not like we are trying to design a 1d6 EB with a -3 OCV.

 

The standard rule of all things cost at least 1 point is probably enough.

 

Pete

[zornwil]

Originally posted by CorpCommander

This is the problem I have with calculating any weapon's cost with this method. Clearly a Derringer is valuable. It clearly gives you the ability to really hurt someone in a way wouldn't be ablt to do otherwise. With this in mind it would appear that any methodology that allows for weapons to become negatively priced is clearly not correct.

 

It makes me think that, in the case of creating weapons, the use of limitations for the negative mods is a better route because you will never have a situation where the price of the weapon goes negative. Using full 5pt CSL for the positive mods is probably better than using an advantage.

 

I admit it could simply be just that this is an extreme case where the base power is so weak that all the additions and subtractions overwhelm the one bit that is giving you any actual value (the RKA in this case.) Though, at 15 points it shouldn't be this big a problem. Its not like we are trying to design a 1d6 EB with a -3 OCV.

 

The standard rule of all things cost at least 1 point is probably enough.

 

Pete

 

Of course to be fair a character can be designed with negative points but still would cost 1 point as a follower (though of course because of how game mechanics and metagaming nobody would buy a follower like that, they'd take them as a DNPC or let the GM freely follow them around).

 

I'm still not sure I like your method or Side Effects as it is contrary to "object" (base, vehicle, etc.) building in HERO, however, to be fair to your and Fantasy HERO's POV, a valid issue is that powers aren't exactly objects, and weapons are really powers.

 

So when does an object cease being a power and become a true buildable singular object with whatever limited characteristics and such? Certainly if our gun had sentience we'd probably call it mecha and build it like a vehicle. What if INSTEAD though it had the ability to allow movement as well as cause damage? Would it matter whether the relationship between movement and damage were exclusive?

 

Ah, HERO philosophy - I am interested in people's answers to these questions. I'm not sure where I'd draw this line, but drawing it does have design implications.

[CorpCommander]

Originally posted by zornwil

So when does an object cease being a power and become a true buildable singular object with whatever limited characteristics and such?

 

You've stated the issue much clearer than I have in nearly half a dozen posts. That is the heart of the issue here.

 

The spectrum lies between at the most basic level raw powers and naked advantages to powers with adv/lim. to compound powers to characters/vehicles/bases.

 

The concept of weapons falls upon the top three. I mean, even the Venn diagram of Weapon in hero covers everything from a splinter of wood to The Death Star. How you handle those extremes and all of the the stuff inbetween is where the fun is at.

 

For the game I am working on now I am dealing with small arms in the same way that they are in 5E. The larger support weapons are all being handled as powers. Basically if the weapon only does one simple thing like an RKA with very little fancy footwork going on then I use the simple system. If, however, it does something that would get a player to say "Groovy!" then it takes a bit more finess. Sure, its not an exacting science I've come up with, but it works for me.

 

[dugfromthearth]

in my opinion the divide is simple: characteristics

 

vehicles, bases, and followers have their own characteristics.

 

if you built weapons with their own speed, movement, strength, etc. then it would use the rules for vehicles/bases/followers. Otherwise it is a power.

[Wormhole]

As someone who has gone through and done the math, about the only real error I've found in the weapon's section was the cost of the M-16 rifle, which is easily correctable.