Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

[quozaxx]

The Hand-to-Hand (HTH) normal Attack has the mandatory Limitation of HTH Attack (-1/2), but the HTH Killing Attack does not.

 

Why is that?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

Basic answer - HA is just limited STR

 

HKA and RKA are something else.

*Arguably they are both derived from a base 10 point KA that has one of two mandatory Advantages (STR adds damage & Ranged).

[Christopher]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

The Hand-to-Hand (HTH) normal Attack has the mandatory Limitation of HTH Attack (-1/2), but the HTH Killing Attack does not.

 

Why is that?

Because Steve Long thought will all those limites (relative to strenght), it should cost less real points. But he also didn't thought that the Active point should go down (as that would change the DC calcualtion if you add DC).

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

I thought it was that Steve Long thought that HAa should cost 5 active points. Just like the guideline 5pts per 1 DC but since HA is limited (and HA previsously costed 3 pts) the limitation brings it back to (roughly) the original cost.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

KAs get one of two bits: Ranged and Strength Adds.

 

Since 5pts of Strength and 5pts of Hand Attack both add 1D6 but 5pts of Strength ALSO adds Lift, Throw Distance, and Strength Roll then Hand Attack is obviously more limited than just Strength.

 

At it does come back to an underlying premise: 5 Points = 1D6/1DC of Effect (6E2 p297). And then the comparison above comes into play and 1D6 Normal Strength Damage (aka Hand Attack) is more limited than 1D6 of Strength.

 

(there was talk in SETAC of not letting Strength add to HKA...)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

Because Steve Long thought will all those limites (relative to strenght)' date=' it should cost less real points. But he also didn't thought that the Active point should go down (as that would change the DC calcualtion if you add DC).[/quote']

 

Why do you always refer to "Steve Long" deciding without investigating the history of the rules? Steve wrote 5e under direction from the then owners of the Hero system, then became a part of the new ownership group (and line developer), and that group published 5e unamended. Steve has said a few times there were elements in 5e that he would have written differently had he been the line developer when it was written, rather than when it was published.

 

Changes from 5e to 6e are probably the best indicator of Steve Long decisions, and even there he commented there were some rules HE would have done differently, but was persuaded by others, or felt more bound by history and/or reverse compatability, to set a different rule. Or a different default rule with optional rules.

 

IIRC, Hand Attack started out as a 3 point power in 4e (was it officially around before 4e?), which caused AP problems. So it became a 5 point power with a -1/2 limitation in 5e, and a 5 point power with a -1/4 limitation in 6e. Every iteration has been subject to debate.

 

I thought it was that Steve Long thought that HAa should cost 5 active points. Just like the guideline 5pts per 1 DC but since HA is limited (and HA previsously costed 3 pts) the limitation brings it back to (roughly) the original cost.

 

Agreed - I think the 5e mandate was "fix the AP problem but leave the costing alone as much as possible". I think no one disagrees that 5 points is too expensive, given you could buy +5 STR, or have +1d6 of Spreadable, Ranged Blast for 5 points. I don't believe anyone would argue 3 points is overpriced. So where's the happy medium?

 

I think -1/2 for "STR that only does normal damage" is reasonable. We get +5 STR for the effects of all martial arts maneuvers for 4 points - a -1/4 limitation - so maybe that's better rephrased as +5 STR, only for effects of combat maneuvers. It's pretty rare to see a character with martial arts use non-martial maneuvers anyway, so any added benefit is pretty limited.

 

The alternative is to re-price STR, martial damage classes and all the limitations, but I still don't see +1d6 HTH damage as being as valuable as +1d6 Blast, and I don't see the ancillary effects of STR being worth 6+ points. Sorry, but the Hand Attack debate always morphs into a "STR is underpriced" argument anyway. To me, removal of Figured's (figured made far too many characteristics a bargain purchase compared to buying the component parts) resolved that issue, and reducing the HA limitation was not necessary.

[Christopher]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

Why do you always refer to "Steve Long" deciding without investigating the history of the rules?

Because he hasn't changed it in 6E. Except increasing the Limitaiton value from -1/4 to -1/2.

And his name is simply synonimous for "the person(s) that wrote the rules".

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

Because he hasn't changed it in 6E. Except increasing the Limitaiton value from -1/4 to -1/2.

And his name is simply synonimous for "the pony(s) that wrote the rules".

 

You've got that backwards, he lowered the limitation from -1/2 to -1/4 in 6e.

 

As to the previous reference to the Str argument, Str is more or less priced correctly now (or at least it's unfeasible to increase it's cost), but Dex is now underpriced overpriced.

 

Okay, I know there used to be a way to strikethrough text...

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

Dex is overpriced. Initiative is not that big a deal. Not in Hero.

Str is underpriced.

 

And there are no arguments and no math on the planet that can convince me otherwise.

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

Crap. I meant to say that Dex was overpriced, not underpriced. And while I agree that Str should probably cost more, trying to increase its cost snowballs horribly, so at the moment it's best to leave it alone.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

I'm convinced that DEX is overpriced compared to INT and PRE. I'm less convinced the problem is DEX, however.

 

All three provide bonuses to a broad set of skills, and all three provide a second benefit.

 

Looking at skill levels, what would be wrong with:

- 5 points grants +1 to all skill rolls based on the stat at the same time

- 4 points grants +1 to any one skill roll based on the stat at one time, or +1 to a smaller group of rolls based on the stat at the same time

- 3 points grants +1 to a smaller group of rolls based on the stat, one at a time

- 2 points grants +1 to any one skill roll based on the stat (this is just the +1 to skill roll we have now)

 

Having established the base price for skill rolls (and if we start lower than 5, I don't see how we make it work), that leaves 5 points for other effects, so:

 

DEX: +1 to initiative for all purposes costs 1 point; smaller groups provide limitations on that cost

INT: +1 to all PER rolls costs 5 points; +1 for one targeting sense group costs 3; +1 for a non-targeting sense group or a single targeting sense costs 2; +1 for a single non-targeting sense costs 1

PRE: +1d6 PRE attack costs 5 points and PRE defense moves to EGO (soory; can't see +1d6 PRE attack costing 3 points). Limit for limited PRE attacks

EGO: +2 for all EGO rolls costs 5 points; +10 PRE defense costs 5 points (and EGO stays 1 point since it's less commonly used)

 

I don't find the cost of STR unbalanced - it provides 1d6 of normal damage at no range with an array of ancillary abilities. A 1d6 Blast at range costs the same 5 points, and can be spread and bounced which STR cannot. I've never found the end result probelmatic in play. I would, however, ideally remove the link between STR and KA's (let the KA buy extra KA only if user has sufficient STR), and probably rework the "objects as weapons" rules to sharply curtail or eliminate AoE attacks (instead, OCV bonus based on size of object), and apply broader penalties for larger, more unweildy such weapons, likely starting with "if your casual STR can't lift it (and throw it that far), it takes a half phase to heft it and an attack action half phase to swing/throw it"

[Laundry Knight]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

DEX supports a number of skills that have combat potential or would otherwise be more universally handy while INT and PER support skills that are not likely to become useful in combat and tend to be more useful under specific situations. Breakfall is lot more likely save your bacon more than Mechanics or Charm, after all.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

If the issue is that DEX skills are more combat - useful, and that makes them just plain more useful overall, why are they the same price as INT and PRE skills? The price of the skills should be commensurate with their utility, should they not?

[Laundry Knight]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

Maybe, because DEX provides across the deck bonus but skills still have to be bought specifically.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

So why would the attribute that enhances those skills be more expensive, whether or not the skills are purchased, but the skills themselves be no more expensive? It seems reasonable that the more useful skills would be the more expensive skills.

 

Oh, and if Charm enables you to befriend the potential opponent, you don't need Breakfall to deal with the aftereffects of his attacks. That seems pretty powerful to me.

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

DEX on its own is certainly no more useful on average than the benefits of STR. Now that DEX no longer contributes to CV and SPEED, it should not cost more than STR.

[Laundry Knight]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

Actually, I was just playing Devil's advocate. I was questioning the value of DEX a week or two ago. I may have to institute a change for the game I am planning, but I wonder how changing the cost would affect the balance of the game.

[Christopher]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

Actually' date=' I was just playing Devil's advocate. I was questioning the value of DEX a week or two ago. I may have to institute a change for the game I am planning, but I wonder how changing the cost would affect the balance of the game.[/quote']

In effect when you lower it, every pre written Villain would have it's dex score adjusted (upwards, almost doubeled) or you have to rewrite them with a bunch of more points.

[Laundry Knight]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

I may have to re-write some of my NPC's with the cheaper DEX to see how I like it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

DEX supports a number of skills that have combat potential or would otherwise be more universally handy while INT and PER support skills that are not likely to become useful in combat and tend to be more useful under specific situations. Breakfall is lot more likely save your bacon more than Mechanics or Charm' date=' after all.[/quote']

 

oof, I can't even think of the number of times a well place KS or Social Skill Roll has moved the adventure forward where a good Breakfall Roll only really saves me a half phase.

 

I'd say in a balanced game any of the PRE Skills have as much impact as "combat" Skills.

 

Saying DEX is worth more, due to whatever reason, is a lot like saying "combat is a more important aspect of the game than non-combat."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

In effect when you lower it' date=' every pre written Villain would have it's dex score adjusted (upwards, almost doubeled) or you have to rewrite them with a bunch of more points.[/quote']

 

Or you could just subtract an amount equal to "dex -10" from the character's bonus. That will solve over 90% of published characters, I expect.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

Saying DEX is worth more, due to whatever reason, is a lot like saying "combat is a more important aspect of the game than non-combat."

 

Actually your right. I've seen this argument before and it does make sense. If you play in combat heavy games, then DEX being higher makes (some) sense. If it isn't, then its definitely overpriced.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

Actually your right. I've seen this argument before and it does make sense. If you play in combat heavy games' date=' then DEX being higher makes (some) sense. If it isn't, then its definitely overpriced.[/quote']

 

That's true for a lot of games, many I've played in. Not so true for other games I've played in. Maybe a 50/50 split in my personal experience.

 

The real problem I see is that the Toolkit as decided for us which is more important by pricing Dex (the "combat characteristic") higher than Int or Pre (the non-combat characteristics).

 

And I don't like that the "Toolkit" does that, it ceases to be a toolkit and has become a game delivering certain baseline expectations of play style. I have D&D for that.

[The Main Man]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

Sorry if I continue driving this thread off-topic, but I remember Steve Long wanting to "make every CHAR point count" as a design goal for 6e. INT is the only CHAR that fails at that. It is only a means to having good PER and Intellect Skill rolls and means nothing point for point. At least STR and DEX succeed on that level, price be damned.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hand-to-Hand Limitation Question

 

I'm not sure I get what you mean by that not counting point for point?

 

STR - Damage, Lift, Throw

DEX - Initiative, Dexterity Skills

CON - Stunned Threshold

INT - Perception, Intellect Skills

PRE - Social Skills, Presence Attack/Defense

EGO - Mental Powers Threshold

 

And all have a Characteristic Roll.

 

Of those, only 2 provide only a single function. Only 3 of them have any Skills based off of them by default - of which INT is one.

 

If a bonus to numerous Intellect Skills and Perception is not a good enough point-to-point bonus for INT, I might suggest it has more to do with your play style than what INT provides Mechanically. As far as I'm concerned, I see INT based skills come up at least as often, if not more often, than DEX based skills.