HKA and Strength -- pricing issue?

[massey]

Full Indirect is what allowed Darth Vader to Force Choke someone on a different ship via a video communication.

 

 

 

He also needed increased range times a bunch and no range penalty.  That power was heavily advantaged.  And he's using it on a 2 PD normal.  Still doesn't mean it's an efficient use of character points.  With as many points as he spent on it he probably could have vaporized half the Star Destroyer.

 

The question is, is it worth a +1 advantage?  Clearly it's not.

[Greywind]

Personally, I think Vader had a fairly large VPP and made stuff up as he went along and his GM just rolled with it. Force choke had a line of sight range, which Vader had.

 

You still aren't proving your allegation that it is over-priced. Just because you keep saying it is, is not going to convince anyone of it.

[bigdamnhero]

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.

No, I'm coming at it from the other direction: I find the highest level of Indirect is only worth +1/4 (maybe +1/2 in some campaigns) so there's no point in breaking it down to lower levels. YMMV of course.

[massey]

You still aren't proving your allegation that it is over-priced. Just because you keep saying it is, is not going to convince anyone of it.

What are you looking for man? A previously unrevealed chaper of Genesis, with an 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not price Indirect to be more than +1/2 Advantage?" What kind of proof do you need?

 

There are two benefits to indirect: bypassing obstacles and giving combat modifiers. Combat modifiers are the less beneficial -- they can be simulated much more consistently and more inexpensively with combat levels. Indirect is virtually always overpriced for that. It is generally much cheaper to buy +4 to hit for 8 points.

 

That leaves you with getting around obstacles. Again, combat levels allow you to bounce ranged attacks, giving you much of the ability that Indirect gives you for far fewer points. Limited stretching can also give you the same ability for a fixed cost, not a percentage of the total power. I can shoot around a wall very easily with stretching.

 

In 5ER, Indirect specifically does not obscure the source of the power. Everyone knows it's Darth Vader doing the force choke. You can see him doing that thing with his hand. It does not give Invisible for free.

 

The only occasions where Indirect cannot be simulated by combat levels are when someone is in a totally enclosed room, or when there is nothing to bounce an attack off of. Those are very specific circumstances that rarely seem to occur in my games. Perhaps my games are the oddity and most games involve using your n-ray vision to shoot someone in the next room without opening the door.

 

The downside to Indirect is not just in the fact that most of its abilities are easily reproduced elsewhere for far fewer points, there's also the fact that it is stopped by hardened defenses. You must buy indirect multiple times to get through hardened (unless hardened is also bought multiple times). You also have the fact that Indirect's high active point cost results in attacks that are significantly lower powered than they would be otherwise. A +1 (I completely do not understand why 6th raised points costs on something already too expensive) advantage that does not affect damage brings you into the range where the average roll will inflict significantly less damage through defenses, to the point of often doing none at all.

 

It's quite telling that virtually everyone in this thread has steadfastly refused to answer my question -- which do you pick, a 12D6 EB or a 6D6 fully indirect EB? That's because the answer is clearly apparent. People have suggested very unusual circumstances (trapped in a jail cell where i must shoot the inside of the lock out, etc) to try and create a situation in which the lower powered attack is somehow useful. Hyper-Man tried his hand at creating a "really powerful" construct using indirect that spent 150 points to get a small set of 10 damage class attacks.

 

Now I may not have a stone tablet carved by the fiery finger of God, but I think the "Indirect is fine" crowd needs to step up their game.

[Greywind]

Vader had Gestures and Invisible Power Effects on his VPP.

 

As to which you choose, that all depends on the concept of the character. Not whether or not it gives you the most bang for your buck.

[Greywind]

 

A character with a Ranged Attack and Combat

Skill Levels that apply to it can Bounce the attack

off the right surface. The GM must decide what

surfaces are appropriate for Bouncing a given type

of attack. For each bounce the character wants the

attack to perform, the character must use one CSL.

(For example, if the character wants to ricochet

his attack off of three walls to hit the target from

behind, he has to allocate 3 CSLs to Bouncing.)

 

For the same effect, Indirect does not need CSLs nor does it need the GM to decide what surfaces are appropriate.

[Hugh Neilson]

Vader had Gestures and Invisible Power Effects on his VPP.

 

As to which you choose, that all depends on the concept of the character. Not whether or not it gives you the most bang for your buck.

I dislike this line of reasoning. Should you build according to concept? Sure. But I don't think the game mechanics should reward some concepts and penalize others. If my concept involves Indirect attacks and I am consistently overshadowed by characters attacking directly, then the concept is penalized by being overpriced for its benefits. Why should my concept result in an underpowered character?

 

In other words, why should some concepts give more bang for your buck? BTW, that term actually weakens your argument - we want to buy things that give more bang for our buck. That's why the term is so often used in advertising!

[IndianaJoe3]

I think it's less a case of Indirect being overpriced than of cover being underutilized. If your opponents aren't placing obstacles between them and you, that being able to avoid said obstacles is of no value.

[massey]

Vader had Gestures and Invisible Power Effects on his VPP.

 

As to which you choose, that all depends on the concept of the character. Not whether or not it gives you the most bang for your buck.

 

My point is not how Vader was built (though I'd argue that Vader didn't buy Invisible Power Effects -- despite the absence of flashing lights, everybody knew it was Vader doing it, nobody was looking around going "who did that?" -- the only instance of IPE in those movies was Luke lifting 3PO to impress the Ewoks).

 

My point is that Indirect does not give you IPE.  People still know where it came from.  And the entire argument about whether something is overpriced is entirely about whether it gives you the most bang for your buck.

 

For the same effect, Indirect does not need CSLs nor does it need the GM to decide what surfaces are appropriate.

 

Of course it doesn't need CSLs.  But they can be used in place of Indirect.  CSLs can be had for 2 points apiece.  Indirect is between a +1/4 (which doesn't give you the "from behind" effect) up to +1.  Far far more expensive.

 

No, it doesn't require the GM to decide an appropriate surface.  So that's the question.  Is that small difference worth the very large difference in price?  And remember, CSLs can just be applied to hitting the opponent if you choose.  +5 OCV can give you 5 bounces.  Or it can just give you +5 OCV.

[massey]

I think it's less a case of Indirect being overpriced than of cover being underutilized. If your opponents aren't placing obstacles between them and you, that being able to avoid said obstacles is of no value.

 

Except it is overpriced, even if people are using cover.

[Greywind]

Everyone knew it was Vader doing it because of his reputation as the last Jedi. Otherwise, yes, he has full IPE. Gestures, while aiding the user are not always necessary for the effect. If I recall correctly, during the fight on the cloud city, didn't Vader just stand there while force throwing everything that wasn't bolted down at Luke?

 

Now, attacks require that the origin point and the end point are identifiable. You do not have to have a visible attack trail. Otherwise there is an inherent problem with snipers. Ego or otherwise. And if the origin point isn't visible due to something like Indirect, then people aren't going to know where it came from.

[Greywind]

I dislike this line of reasoning. Should you build according to concept? Sure. But I don't think the game mechanics should reward some concepts and penalize others. If my concept involves Indirect attacks and I am consistently overshadowed by characters attacking directly, then the concept is penalized by being overpriced for its benefits. Why should my concept result in an underpowered character?

 

In other words, why should some concepts give more bang for your buck? BTW, that term actually weakens your argument - we want to buy things that give more bang for our buck. That's why the term is so often used in advertising!

 

There comes a point where it is the responsibility of the GM, and not the game system, to ensure that a character gets sufficient utility from its abilities.

[Hugh Neilson]

There comes a point where it is the responsibility of the GM, and not the game system, to ensure that a character gets sufficient utility from its abilities.

So, if we reprice STR at, say, +5 STR per character point, and Blast at 15 points per d6, is it still a GM issue rather than a system issue? If we defer the responsibility for balance to the GM (which is a perfectly reasonable approach, just far from the only possible approach), why have points, or point limits at all? What purpose does it serve to set all characters' points at an equal level, and price out each aspect of the characters' abilities, if not to create at least a rough measure of balance between the characters?

 

FWIW, when I was involved with SETAC, I very much supported reducing the cost of END, STUN and REC simply because the pre-6e pricing resulted in characters buying reduced END and higher defenses, rather than higher END, STUN and REC. The fact that a given ability that is rarely or never selected is, at least to me, indicative that it is overpriced.

 

Sure, we can discuss "concept", but what really happens is that players don't select ineffective concepts.

[Hyper-Man]

Say a character with the (+1/4) Level of Indirect is facing off against another group of characters that includes a solid energy construct manipulator (like a Green Lantern or Invisible Girl/Woman).  If they are just putting up a Barrier between them and the attacker with a (+1/4) Indirect attack then the Indirect attack can bypass it like a flail vs. a shield.  However, if they creating a fully englobing Barrier (which both example characters do quite often in the source material) then Indirect at the (+1/4) level will NOT be enough to bypass the Barrier since there is no 'edge' to get around.

 

Say the example character has a 'teleportation' sfx.  He could certainly Teleport inside the englobing Barrier unless it has the appropriate defensive Advantage.  But any other traditional attacks will need a higher than base version of Indirect to do the same.

[massey]

Everyone knew it was Vader doing it because of his reputation as the last Jedi. Otherwise, yes, he has full IPE. Gestures, while aiding the user are not always necessary for the effect. If I recall correctly, during the fight on the cloud city, didn't Vader just stand there while force throwing everything that wasn't bolted down at Luke?

 

Now, attacks require that the origin point and the end point are identifiable. You do not have to have a visible attack trail. Otherwise there is an inherent problem with snipers. Ego or otherwise. And if the origin point isn't visible due to something like Indirect, then people aren't going to know where it came from.

 

On Cloud City, Vader stared at Luke and moved his light saber back and forth when he sent a piece of equipment into him.  Vader doesn't have Gestures because he could still use the Force if we was handcuffed or tied up.

 

You said yourself, attacks don't have to have a visible attack trail.  Vader doesn't have to buy IPE because everyone automatically knows it's him.  The effects are visible in that you can identify what is happening and you know who is responsible.

[Greywind]

So, if we reprice STR at, say, +5 STR per character point, and Blast at 15 points per d6, is it still a GM issue rather than a system issue? If we defer the responsibility for balance to the GM (which is a perfectly reasonable approach, just far from the only possible approach), why have points, or point limits at all? What purpose does it serve to set all characters' points at an equal level, and price out each aspect of the characters' abilities, if not to create at least a rough measure of balance between the characters?

 

FWIW, when I was involved with SETAC, I very much supported reducing the cost of END, STUN and REC simply because the pre-6e pricing resulted in characters buying reduced END and higher defenses, rather than higher END, STUN and REC. The fact that a given ability that is rarely or never selected is, at least to me, indicative that it is overpriced.

 

Sure, we can discuss "concept", but what really happens is that players don't select ineffective concepts.

 

It strikes me that players don't regularly see it as part of their concept, and so ignore it. That does not mean that it is overpriced, just that they don't want it.

 

The only person that can explain the "why" is Steve Long. And we all know how he feels about discussing game design philosophy.

[Greywind]

On Cloud City, Vader stared at Luke and moved his light saber back and forth when he sent a piece of equipment into him.  Vader doesn't have Gestures because he could still use the Force if we was handcuffed or tied up.

 

You said yourself, attacks don't have to have a visible attack trail.  Vader doesn't have to buy IPE because everyone automatically knows it's him.  The effects are visible in that you can identify what is happening and you know who is responsible.

 

No, he didn't. He stood there. Might have looked at what he was going to toss, but he just stood there unless he and Luke were crossing sabers.

 

[massey]

There comes a point where it is the responsibility of the GM, and not the game system, to ensure that a character gets sufficient utility from its abilities.

 

There does come a point like that, yes.  But we are not there yet.

 

Say a character with the (+1/4) Level of Indirect is facing off against another group of characters that includes a solid energy construct manipulator (like a Green Lantern or Invisible Girl/Woman).  If they are just putting up a Barrier between them and the attacker with a (+1/4) Indirect attack then the Indirect attack can bypass it like a flail vs. a shield.  However, if they creating a fully englobing Barrier (which both example characters do quite often in the source material) then Indirect at the (+1/4) level will NOT be enough to bypass the Barrier since there is no 'edge' to get around.

 

Say the example character has a 'teleportation' sfx.  He could certainly Teleport inside the englobing Barrier unless it has the appropriate defensive Advantage.  But any other traditional attacks will need a higher than base version of Indirect to do the same.

 

The other issue that needs to be taken into account is the amount of power needed to break through the Force Wall/Barrier (and again, I don't have 6th edition so please correct me if I misstate something).  If I can break through the Force Wall with my traditional attack (12 Body vs 10/10 FW or 8/8/2 Barrier) then the opponent gets +10 pts of defense against my attack.  If I can't break through it, then I do no damage.  The value of Indirect must be weighed against the likelihood of my normal attack breaking through the FW/Barrier.  A villain with 20 Def and a 10/10 FW will, on average, be more vulnerable to a 12D6 EB than he will to a 6D6 Indirect EB. (12 Body breaking through the FW, meaning he has 30 Def against the 42 STUN, taking 12 -- as opposed to 21 STUN that ignores the FW, doing a total of 1 STUN past defenses).  But a villain with 15 Def and a 15/15 FW will be more susceptible to the Indirect attack (taking 6 STUN from the Indirect as opposed to zero).

 

It strikes me that players don't regularly see it as part of their concept, and so ignore it. That does not mean that it is overpriced, just that they don't want it.

 

The only person that can explain the "why" is Steve Long. And we all know how he feels about discussing game design philosophy.

 

I've explained in detail why it is overpriced.  By that I don't mean that it was a misprint.  I mean the game designer overvalued it.  I disagree with a lot of the costs that were changed from 4th to 5th, and now apparently from 5th to 6th as well.

[massey]

No, he didn't. He stood there. Might have looked at what he was going to toss, but he just stood there unless he and Luke were crossing sabers.

 

 

3:34 -- Vader nods his head and dips his lightsaber, metal things on the wall start to tear free.

3:38 -- metal thing starts to fly towards Luke

3:40 -- Luke uses Missile Deflection on the object  (not Invisible)

3:48 -- Luke strikes at Vader, Vader blocks, Vader stares at Luke

3:49 -- object flies at Luke

3:50 -- object hits Luke (maybe Invisible?  or maybe Luke's phase is delayed after Vader blocks his attack at 3:48)

3:54 -- Vader looks at object

3:56 -- Luke fails Missile Deflection roll

3:57 -- Vader lowers lightsaber, sending object at Luke, who continues to fail deflection rolls and is occasionally Stunned by attacks

 

3:02 pm -- massey realizes how nerdy this is and starts to cry... 

 

[Greywind]

And at no point is there anything to indicate Vader is responsible, except that he and Luke are there alone and Luke ain't doing it to himself. IPE.

 

Otherwise, there would be a glow or some other SFX to indicate what is going on.

 

We're all nerds here of one flavor or another.

[massey]

There is something to indicate it though (arguably, at least).  Vader makes some kind of gesture or nods his head.  Thing happens.

 

Let me put it this way.  Let's say that power is NOT telekinesis.  Let's say it's Indirect Energy Blast with the limitation "requires object" (only -1/4 in this case, because he can grab things that are actually attached to the scenery).  Then people can certainly see what is happening and there would be no argument that it was invisible.

 

My argument is that shifts in body language, subtle movements, and other people "just knowing" who did it are enough to fit the requirements of visibility.

[Greywind]

And I don't agree with that.

[massey]

For the most part, players may freely define what their powers look and sound like. “Perceivable” can mean many things, from the perceptibility of the actual power itself (for example, a blue energy beam that projects from the character’s hands and hits the target) to just the source of the Power being visible or obvious (for example, few characters can perceive a bullet in flight, but they can all see the gun, hear the shot, and smell the

gunpowder).

 

The special effects of a power can take any form, as long as it’s clear that the power comes from the character.

 

-5th Ed revised, pg. 98

[Greywind]

And the only thing that shows it comes from Vader in that scene is that he is the only one with Luke. If they were in a crowd you'd never notice.

[Hugh Neilson]

It strikes me that players don't regularly see it as part of their concept, and so ignore it. That does not mean that it is overpriced, just that they don't want it.

The fact that few people take the ability, in and of itself, is evidenced (not proof) it is overpriced. Every use of Indirect which has been suggested to justify its high cost on this thread has been rebutted with a more effective means of achieving a similar result, even for the very infrequent situations suggested.

 

If Indirect (and IPE, for that matter) were of sufficient utility to justify their price, Mental Blast would be head and shoulders the most effective attack for its cost, having both inherent in its baseline form at no extra cost. Price it as a Blast with all the Advantages it enjoys and it would be cost-prohibitive. That indicates, to me at least, that those advantages are excessively expensive for their cost.

 

Some of that comes from "increasing granularity" between editions. Each stage of Indirect from "always fires from 1 foot in front of the character directly away from him" to "begins anywhere and fires in any direction, changing with each use as desired" has to be separately priced out, with each additional increment adding a minimum of +1/4 to the cost. We have more granularity of choice, but we're not willing to add granularity in pricing, such as +1/8, or +1/16 (with good reasons) so we end up with overpriced abilities. [We take the opposite approach with Complications and Limitations - it's at least this limiting or you get no limitation at all. Why would it be so hard to decide that "limiting" your advantage less than the increment between advantage levels isn't limiting enough to save points - 30 charges and 32 charges get the same advantage!]

 

Perhaps Adders for some of these overpriced "Advantages" might be a better approach. Maybe we live with varying levels of the advantage having the same cost. Perhaps we apply the "limited advantages" concept (eg. "Indirect, only originates one foot in front of the character and fires directly away from him" is purchased by buying the lowest level of Indirect and applying a Limitation).

 

Regardless, when an ability is overpriced for general use, my view is that the issue needs to be addressed, or the ability will seldom be selected because that concept is not efficient in the game.

 

Some abilities can be niche players, especially in certain genres. 6e moved the KA into that model for Superheroic games - it's not effective as a main attack. I'm OK with that, as the purpose of the Killing Attack is to do BOD and kill the opponent, and that's not appropriate in a four colour Superheroic game, so relegating KA to a niche power is fine with me. I'm also pretty happy with the reduction in the cost of Armor Piercing, which actually makes it viable instead of something that lowers damage against most targets.

 

Maybe we can actually talk about the thread topic at least once on this page.

 

I can choose between two characters. One takes the base 10 STR and spends 50 points on a Killing Attack to do 4d6 HKA. The other buys 55 STR and spends 5 points on a Killing Attack to do 4d6 HKA. Which one is more powerful? I don't believe there can be any argument that having a 4d6 HKA and 55 STR is more powerful than having a 4d6 HKA and 10 STR. To me, this indicates a clear and obvious pricing discrepancy.

 

I note that, while no one ever does it, there is no reason the characters can't combine a Punch (STR normal damage) with an HKA as a Multiple Power Attack/Combined Attack. This further highlights the issue.

 

My solution? No more HKA. You want high STR, buy high STR. You want claws that do a killing attack with no range, buy RKA, no Range. You don't want to be able to use them as a Combined Attack? Apply Limitations or use a Multipower. Draining one should reduce the power of the other? Unified Power.

 

"But I want STR to make the KA bigger". OK, why is KA the only ability in the whole game where that could possibly be relevant? And I have a very simple answer - 2d6 HKA + 2d6 HKA, only by applying 5 STR per +1 DC of HKA. You can, of course, mix and match - that can be +1 STR per DC (limitation low, possibly -0) or +10 STR per DC. Where will this mainly be used? Weapons in Fantasy games, which are pre-built anyway. What's the appropriate limitation for "only if you have abilities that the character buying the power has"? Not very high!