Jump to content

HKA and Strength -- pricing issue?


Alcibiades

Recommended Posts

Am I missing something here?

 

45 STR + 1d6 HKA. Cost is 60, end result is 4d6 HKA + 45 STR

 

15 STR + 3d6 HKA. Cost is 60, end result is 4d6 HKA + 15 STR

 

The first option is better in every way but costs the same. Am I missing something about HKAs that makes their cost being the same as Strength justifiable? It seems like there should be a -1/4 stuck on it, as with HTH Attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not only extremely complicated, often pointless. You had the bizarre state of affairs in which you had whole arrays of martial arts written up that were mechanically useless.

 

(Knife fighting for instance -- +2 DCs is meaningless if you already have a 10 STR and a 1/2d6 KA knife.)

 

So I'm not missing anything? There is no mechanical benefit to getting a 2d6 HKA rather than 25 STR and a 1 point HKA?

 

EDIT: I think it was made to bring the system for HKA + STR into line with that for HTH Attack + STR. because they are functionally identical now except that one does Killing Damage and doesn't have a -1/4 limitation (which I am thinking it should have).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never liked the mandatory -1/4 limitation for hand attack in the 5th edition on up. i feel that 5pts per D6/DC is a perfect base cost for most attack powers. it matches with the cost of STR, which is 5pts per DC.

 

Doing maximum of double the base damage class is a rule generally used for heroic level games. Many groups observed it for their superheroic games in an effort to prevent players from buying just a couple of DC of killing attack and simply applying lots of STR to get it into the 4D6k zone. it's a balancing aspect.

 

When playing a heroic level game where the characters weild weapons, the STR min of the weapons prevents characters from using all their strength to increase the damage, thus the additional bonuses from martial arts maneuvers are not wasted. in addition, if the bonus from the martial arts maneuver is enough to max out the weapon damage, the character can attack using only enough str to weild the weapon without needing to use extra str, thus extra END, especially in the context of games that use 1 END per 5 STR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never liked the mandatory -1/4 limitation for hand attack in the 5th edition on up. i feel that 5pts per D6/DC is a perfect base cost for most attack powers. it matches with the cost of STR, which is 5pts per DC.

 

 

Sure, but Strength isn't just an attack (Blast with No Range), It does more than that (lifting, throwing, grappling). So it should cost more, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but Strength isn't just an attack (Blast with No Range), It does more than that (lifting, throwing, grappling). So it should cost more, no?

Strength and hand attack having cost parity doesnt bother me in the slightest, however if they were going to change any pricing, it should be Strength, not hand attack. but personally i dont think it's necessary.

 

Also if you change the cost of basic STR, then that changes the cost of Telekinesis which is already expensive enough. if the cost of STR increases to 2pts per +1 STR, then logically TK changes to 3pts per +1 STR which means basic TK STR of 20 costs 60 points. too expensive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well. TK effectively is Strength + Full Indirect + Range, which is quite expensive.

 

If Strength and HTH attack have cost parity, there is no mechanical point in buying HTH attack.

 

Indirect is overcosted.

 

The problem when you look at changing one or two costs in the system is that you end up creating a bigger imbalance than you start with.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to hear someone other than myself say it. ;)

 

As for STR vs HKA vs HA: I've always thought you could eliminate a significant amount of Hero's complexity by making Killing Attack an Advantage, rather than it's own Power. But I know that's heresy...

I held that opinion before and I'm coming back around to it I think.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks Killing Attack looks a lot like Attack vs Limited Defense, obscured by a unique and advantageous dice rolling mechanic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is a problem, and it was discussed thoroughly in the 5e-6e transition.  The consensus was that there was no good solution that didn't require a lot of untenable changes.

 

Making Killing an Advantage is untenable?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says Hand to Hand Killing Attack is almost like an Adder on STR as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard this mentioned before, and I think I will try it in my next game. Killing attacks can go away and instead be replaced with a "Killing +1" advantage. I will change no other rules and see how it works. Basically it is an Attack Versus Alternate Defense. Most muscle powered weapons can then be modeled as a Naked Advantage for up to X character points of strength/HA were X is twice the current DC of the weapon. Ranged weapons can be left alone.

 

And the good news is if changing this rule causes the universe to collapse and we all fall into a black hole, we will never know, because it will effectively take us forever (thank you gravity). So there will effectively be no consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you will need to change the recommended  levels of def

a 12d6 eb will now do 6d6 or 6 body and 21 stun that is just under the average for a old 2d6ka of an M-16

I have heard this mentioned before, and I think I will try it in my next game. Killing attacks can go away and instead be replaced with a "Killing +1" advantage. I will change no other rules and see how it works. Basically it is an Attack Versus Alternate Defense. Most muscle powered weapons can then be modeled as a Naked Advantage for up to X character points of strength/HA were X is twice the current DC of the weapon. Ranged weapons can be left alone.

 

And the good news is if changing this rule causes the universe to collapse and we all fall into a black hole, we will never know, because it will effectively take us forever (thank you gravity). So there will effectively be no consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I want to see if it works as is.

I honestly think that the small minutia of a 14% loss is still not enough to make it let useful our crippled.

 

 

If I changed anything it would be to make it a 3/4 advantage instead of 1/2. After all I want to see how minimal the change can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The palindromedary thinks Killing Attack looks a lot like Attack vs Limited Defense, obscured by a unique and advantageous dice rolling mechanic.

Exactly. Added bonus: one less mechanic for calculating damage to new player. I for one wouldn't miss it.

 

Yes, it is a problem, and it was discussed thoroughly in the 5e-6e transition.  The consensus was that there was no good solution that didn't require a lot of untenable changes.  

I figured it had probably been discussed. I was largely offline during those discussions, so I missed most of them. Entirely possible there would be unintended consequences - there usually have been whenever I've tried to make changes to the core rules. ;)

 

Killing attacks can go away and instead be replaced with a "Killing +1" advantage.

+1 seems excessive to me personally. Sticking with the AVAD analogy, you're essentially changing from PD/ED (Very Common) to rPD/rED (Common), so that seem like +1/2 at most. And if full defense applies against STUN, maybe only +1/4? Heck, if you wanted to stay consistent with existing rules, you could make it a +0 Advantage, so you simplify the mechanics without changing any costs.

 

Either way, I look forward to the results of your playtest!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about (in the abstract) eliminating killing attacks entirely.  Treat things like guns and knives as simply a larger attack, or give them armor piercing.  So a 44 Magnum, instead of being a 2D6 RKA, would be something like a 7D6 Energy Blast Armor Piercing.  An M-16 would be a 7D6 AP Autofire x5.  Normal guys with 2 PD are still in a world of hurt, but Action Hero Man who has 10 PD is only getting flesh wounds.  And SuperBrick with his 28 Hardened PD just laughs it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indirect is overcosted.

 

The problem when you look at changing one or two costs in the system is that you end up creating a bigger imbalance than you start with.  

Indirect is not overcosted if one uses it correctly.

 

Indirect allows one to bypass cover.

 

Indirect allows one to attack opponents from the flank/rear consistently.

 

Indirect when coupled with Invisible Power Effects, allows one to attack with impunity and never be pegged as the source of the attack.

 

I have a few guidelines I use with Indirect that gives it actual utility in gameplay beyond requiring an imaginative player to take advantage of it.

 

1: Indirect at the +1/4 level or higher can bypass cover and thus negates the DCV bonus of said cover.  This includes the DCV bonus of shields.  Attacks with this level of Indirect bypass the Block maneuver and cannot be Missile Deflected.

 

2: Indirect at the +1/2 level can bypass full barriers and thus pass through the defense of Force Wall/Barrier (but not Force Field or Armor) at the GM's discretion can even bypass the defense of an Entangle.  The attack may be able to gain surprise move bonuses if used creatively.

 

3: Indirect at the +3/4 level has all the bonuses of the first two levels but can now attack from the flank/rear of the opponent even if the opponent is facing his/her attacker.  This means that Indirect attacks at this level can routinely gain the bonus for attacking from behind and/or by surprise. (1/2 DCV in most cases unless the defender has some way of perceiving the attack with a Targeting sense)

 

using guidelines like these gives Indirect a level of utility that justifies the point expenditure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you have to give it extra stuff to make it competitive indicates that it is, in fact, overcosted.  Even then, a +3/4 advantages manages to bypass certain fairly uncommon defenses and gets a bonus to hit.  Okay.

 

The basic problem with indirect is that we have a game system where combat involves rolling damage and then subtracting a set number due to defense.  Non-damage dealing advantages are hampered because they increase the cost of the attack and make it actually less effective against the standard defense they will be facing.

 

For instance, in a 12 DC campaign, a character will normally possess (say) a 12D6 energy blast.  Characters will average perhaps 25 defense.  This means the average attack will inflict about 17 Stun to an enemy.  Captain Indirect has a 9.5D6 EB at the +1/4 indirect level.  This means he will average about 34 Stun, or 9 past defenses.  An 8D6 at the +1/2 level means he's averaging 28 Stun, or 3 past defenses.  And at the +3/4 level, he's doing 7D6 (at 61 active points), or 24 average Stun, doing nothing past defenses.

 

I find indirect is only really useful when it is used at the 1/4 level, and then only if a character is built to take advantage of it (as in, they regularly use force walls and the like).  I'm sure there are combinations of powers that will make indirect more effective, but in and of itself, it's quite overpriced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you have to give it extra stuff to make it competitive indicates that it is, in fact, overcosted.  Even then, a +3/4 advantages manages to bypass certain fairly uncommon defenses and gets a bonus to hit.  Okay.

 

The basic problem with indirect is that we have a game system where combat involves rolling damage and then subtracting a set number due to defense.  Non-damage dealing advantages are hampered because they increase the cost of the attack and make it actually less effective against the standard defense they will be facing.

 

For instance, in a 12 DC campaign, a character will normally possess (say) a 12D6 energy blast.  Characters will average perhaps 25 defense.  This means the average attack will inflict about 17 Stun to an enemy.  Captain Indirect has a 9.5D6 EB at the +1/4 indirect level.  This means he will average about 34 Stun, or 9 past defenses.  An 8D6 at the +1/2 level means he's averaging 28 Stun, or 3 past defenses.  And at the +3/4 level, he's doing 7D6 (at 61 active points), or 24 average Stun, doing nothing past defenses.

 

I find indirect is only really useful when it is used at the 1/4 level, and then only if a character is built to take advantage of it (as in, they regularly use force walls and the like).  I'm sure there are combinations of powers that will make indirect more effective, but in and of itself, it's quite overpriced.

 

 

I disagree.

 

None of this is "extra" stuff.  This is stuff that Indirect is capable of doing, I just supplied more specific guidelines than the book did.  This is something that's sorely needed to be added to Indirect and I have been using this method for over 15 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Indirect at the +1/4 level, but I seldom find the higher levels worth the cost; I'll often handwave the source/path stuff and just say Indirect is Indirect at +1/4. Maybe it depends on how common Barriers and the like are in your games. Most of the advantages you're describing seem like they could be replaced with a +1 CSL for less expense and without lowering the effective damage of the attack (assuming MP, VPP or AP cap).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You handwave the primary thing that defines the difference between the levels and than say you don't find the higher levels worth the cost.  It sounds like you are giving the +3/4 version for +1/4, so of course the +3/4 version wouldn't be "worth it" if you are already getting the benefits from it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...