Naked advantage in power framework - enchanted blade

[Hyper-Man]

I think what might be going unsaid is that changing a 4d6K attack to a 4d6K with AP is really changing a 60 active point Attack to a 75 active point Attack.  The latter has a strong possibility of breaking campaign effectiveness limits or what the GM has prepared for the PC's.

[WistfulD]

But (again assuming you start with 60 pts of strength and Maneuvers, which is a bit ridiculous, but makes the math easy) taking a 1D6 HKA would also turn one's attack into a 75 Active Point attack. As a player, I'd prefer 4D6 armor piercing to 5D6, but that's a function of armor piercing being really awesome for +1/4, not because adding a +1/4 advantage is inherently more powerful than adding 1D6 to the attack.

[Ndreare]

I love 6th edition and consider it the best game on the market. But Armor Piercing was better priced at +1/2 IMHO.

[Hugh Neilson]

I found AP at +1/2 rendered it too pricy to be anything but a rarely used Multipower slot.  If the target had low defenses, you were better off with an equal AP attack with no advantages.  If the target had high defenses, they were typically Hardened.

 

Let/s do the math.

 

A standard Heroic character has 6-10 defenses, half of which are resistant.  He has a 3 - 8 DC attack.  Let's use 7.5 DC. 

 

A normal attack will average 24.5 Stun and 7 BOD.  A 6 DEF target takes 18.5 STUN and 1 BOD.  8 DEF means 16.5 STUN and 0 BOD.  10 DEF is 14.5 STUN, 0 BOD.  A massive 16 DEF takes 8.5 STUN, 0 BOD

 

AP, if +1/2, is 5d6, so 17.5 STUN and 5 BOD.  So now a 6 DEF target takes 14.5 STUN and 2 BOD.  8 DEF means 15.5 STUN and 1 BOD.  10 DEF is 12.5 STUN, 0 BOD.  A massive 16 DEF takes 9.5 STUN, 0 BOD.

 

Wow - I get 1 more STUN against something with MASSIVE defenses (if he didn't Harden them) and a bit of BOD on targets we're much more likely to KO anyway.

 

AP, if +1/4, is 6d6, so 21 STUN and 6 BOD.  So now a 6 DEF target takes 18 STUN and 3 BOD.  8 DEF means 17 STUN and 2 BOD.  10 DEF is 16 STUN, 1 BOD.  A massive 16 DEF takes 13 STUN, 0 BOD.

 

Now my AP attack is doing extra BOD, but comparable STUN, to lower defenses, but actually serves its purpose of being more effective against high DEF targets.  Of course, Hardened defenses means I'm disadvantaged at all levels, so it should work better if the target is not hardened.  I find +1/4 much more equitable.

 

Let's go to a KA, where I'll get 2d6, 1d6+1 or 1 1/2d6 (I'll spot you the extra point on that last one)

 

Normal average is 7 BOD, and say 21 STUN with a 3 multiple (bit over average on hit locations).  A 6/3 DEF target takes 15 STUN and 4 BOD.  8/4 DEF means 13 STUN and 3 BOD.  10/5 DEF is 11 STUN, 2 BOD.  A massive 16/8 DEF takes 5 STUN, 0 BOD

 

AP, if +1/2, is 1d6+1, so 4.5 BOD, 13.5 STUN.  So now a 6/3 DEF target takes 10.5 STUN and 2.5 BOD.  8/4 DEF means 5.5 STUN and 2.5 BOD.  10/5 DEF is 8.5 STUN, 1.5 BOD.  A massive 16/8 DEF takes 9.5 STUN, 0.5 BOD.

 

Wow - I get 4.5 more STUN and 0.5 BOD against something with MASSIVE defenses (if he didn't Harden them).  Against everyone else, I suck on ice.  Why did I choose AP again?

 

AP, if +1/4, is 1.5d6, so 5 BOD and 15 STUN.  So now a 6/3 DEF target takes 12 STUN and 3 BOD.  8/4 DEF means 11 STUN and 3 BOD.  10/5 DEF is 10 STUN, 2 BOD.  A massive 16/8 DEF rakes 13 STUN, 1 BOD.

 

Against anyone in the normal defense range, hardened or not, I still don't do as much damage, but I suck less.  I still have an advantage only against very well defended targets. 

 

What if we assume a 2x SM (6e rolling)? Normal average is 7 BOD, and 14 STUN.  A 6/3 DEF target takes 8 STUN and 4 BOD.  8/4 DEF means 6 STUN and 3 BOD.  10/5 DEF is 4 STUN, 2 BOD.  A massive 16/8 DEF takes 0 STUN, 0 BOD

 

AP, if +1/2, is 1d6+1, so 4.5 BOD, 9 STUN.  So now a 6/3 DEF target takes 6 STUN and 2.5 BOD.  8/4 DEF means 5 STUN and 2.5 BOD.  10/5 DEF is 4 STUN, 1.5 BOD.  A massive 16/8 DEF takes 1 STUN, 0.5 BOD.

 

Well, at least I suck a bit less.

 

AP, if +1/4, is 1.5d6, so 5 BOD and 10 STUN.  So now a 6/3 DEF target takes 7 STUN and 3 BOD.  8/4 DEF means 6 STUN and 3 BOD.  10/5 DEF is 5 STUN, 2 BOD.  A massive 16/8 DEF rakes 2 STUN, 1 BOD.

 

Now this is starting to look like a reasonably balanced tradeoff, instead of a choice to be the comic relief in combat.

 

So I think AP is more rationally priced at +1/4, if we want it to be viable as a character's main attack.  To me, this fix (of an issue around since 1e) was one of the highlights of 6e.

[Ndreare]

That is a pretty good argument Hugh.

[Hyper-Man]

But (again assuming you start with 60 pts of strength and Maneuvers, which is a bit ridiculous, but makes the math easy) taking a 1D6 HKA would also turn one's attack into a 75 Active Point attack. As a player, I'd prefer 4D6 armor piercing to 5D6, but that's a function of armor piercing being really awesome for +1/4, not because adding a +1/4 advantage is inherently more powerful than adding 1D6 to the attack.

 

Re: turning a 1d6HKA into a 5d6HKA with 60 STR. 

 

While nothing in the core rules forbids that combination in 6e but previous editions had a doubling rule that would have limited it to a total 2d6HKA w/STR.  Some GM's still might still use that as a campaign level rule in their 6e games for a variety of reasons.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: turning a 1d6HKA into a 5d6HKA with 60 STR. 

 

While nothing in the core rules forbids that combination in 6e but previous editions had a doubling rule that would have limited it to a total 2d6HKA w/STR.  Some GM's still might still use that as a campaign level rule in their 6e games for a variety of reasons.

 

2e through 5e included the doubling rule.

 

[repeatrant]Adding STR to a HKA is an orphan mechanic.  If we want to follow the Hero Maxim of "You get what you pay for" and "Reason from special effect", then I'd ditch HKA entirely  "Killing attack" costs 15 points per 1d6, and is ranged by default (like pretty much every other attack power).  If you want it to have No Range, slap a -1/2 limitation on it.  If you want STR to add to it, buy +X KA, No Range, Drained with STR" or some such. 

 

Yes, it makes building a sword a bit of a pain.  So what?  You aren't paying points for the sword in a heroic game.  In a Superheroic game, when does anyone ever buy a KA that isn't doubled by his STR anyway.  The sword build gives you a template for "Bruising Punch" (Drain PD enhanced by STR), "Eyeball poke" (Sight Flash enhanced by STR) " or "Wrap in handy object" (Entangle enhanced  by STR)[/repeatrant]

[WistfulD]

Re: turning a 1d6HKA into a 5d6HKA with 60 STR. 

 

While nothing in the core rules forbids that combination in 6e but previous editions had a doubling rule that would have limited it to a total 2d6HKA w/STR.  Some GM's still might still use that as a campaign level rule in their 6e games for a variety of reasons.

 

That is an utterly true statement which focuses on the specifics of my shorthand example rather than answering the question I asked. Switch the STR and HKA around, make it 4D6 HKA and 15 pts of STR, I don't care. I still want to know why giving something advantages is "!"-ed while other adders is not.

[WistfulD]

So I think AP is more rationally priced at +1/4, if we want it to be viable as a character's main attack.  To me, this fix (of an issue around since 1e) was one of the highlights of 6e.

 

Well, I think that's pretty much the main distinction. In previous editions, an AP attack wasn't supposed to be a main attack.

[Greywind]

That is an utterly true statement which focuses on the specifics of my shorthand example rather than answering the question I asked. Switch the STR and HKA around, make it 4D6 HKA and 15 pts of STR, I don't care. I still want to know why giving something advantages is "!"-ed while other adders is not.

 

Since your question is "why", the answer is obviously, "because".

[WistfulD]

Yer really giving me a great impression about the quality of conversation around here, there.

[Hyper-Man]

Please don't mind Greywind.  His sense of humor is an acquired taste for some.

 

I think the rule is basically Steve Long saying - don't blame me if a player sneeks in something gamebreaking if you allow this - or use at own risk. I can't think of a gamebreaking use at the moment but I am sure there are many.  But don't forget, one the rules of HERO is that the GM is the final arbiter of rules used in his games.  So no worries of rules police showing up and issuing a citation.

[WistfulD]

Duly noted. :-)

 

No, no rule police, but I was hoping that there was some specific abuse that could be pointed to, so I didn't feel so silly not seeing the difference between the spell magic sword: armor piercing, and magic sword: +1D6 HKA.

[Ndreare]

I think that the concerns may have been around point savings.

Example: Joe the Arch wizard had to pay full points for his ability, but Thom the Battle Wizard got discounts because he only had to pay points for the advantages he added to the great sword. Effectively letting Thom knock 30 active points of of the price he pays for stuff.

 

I can see it being frustrating to some players in a heroic level game were equipment is free. But we will never know because TPTB never answer game design philosophy questions.

[Greywind]

Yer really giving me a great impression about the quality of conversation around here, there.

 

Sorry. The only one you can honestly ask that "why" of is Steve Long. And his answer will be something akin to, "Sorry, but I don't answer game design philosophy questions".

[bigbywolfe]

But (again assuming you start with 60 pts of strength and Maneuvers, which is a bit ridiculous, but makes the math easy) taking a 1D6 HKA would also turn one's attack into a 75 Active Point attack. As a player, I'd prefer 4D6 armor piercing to 5D6, but that's a function of armor piercing being really awesome for +1/4, not because adding a +1/4 advantage is inherently more powerful than adding 1D6 to the attack.

Most GMs won't let you buy a 1d6K attack and add it to the strength of an attack you get from equipment.  If you buy a 1d6K attack you have a 1d6K attack that is independent of any gear you have.  I think that's where part of your confusion is coming from.  Heck, Deadly Blow allows you to add 1d6K to a pre-existing attack but only in limited circumstances.  For 12 points you can apply that to extremely limited circumstances or a single weapon (knives, short swords, long sword would all be separate categories). 

Compared to a 15 point Naked Advantage that can make any attack Armor Piercing, yeah, I see the Naked Advantage as potentially more unbalanced.  

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, I think that's pretty much the main distinction. In previous editions, an AP attack wasn't supposed to be a main attack.

 

That seems a matter of opinion rather than anything that can be backed up.  I suggest rather that the pricing of AP resulted in such attacks not being "main attacks".  Now, back in 1e, there may have been more logic to making AP a main attack - there were no hardened defenses, so one could be guaranteed to have some advantage against high DEF opponents.  As well, it seems like defenses were more varied in the early editions (and polls back in the early edition days found an amazing diversity between gaming groups - which may be what lead to the baselines published in 4e and beyond).

[WistfulD]

Most GMs won't let you buy a 1d6K attack and add it to the strength of an attack you get from equipment.  If you buy a 1d6K attack you have a 1d6K attack that is independent of any gear you have.  I think that's where part of your confusion is coming from.  Heck, Deadly Blow allows you to add 1d6K to a pre-existing attack but only in limited circumstances.  For 12 points you can apply that to extremely limited circumstances or a single weapon (knives, short swords, long sword would all be separate categories). 

Compared to a 15 point Naked Advantage that can make any attack Armor Piercing, yeah, I see the Naked Advantage as potentially more unbalanced.  

Well, no. The equipment is a good point. You could add a naked advantage to equipment, and you can't add additional HKA to it, but that's specific to equipment, and in my mind, they should then have "!" rules around powers effecting equipment, not around the naked advantage itself.

 

I guess the place where I'm unhappy is that there isn't a distinction between naked advatages you are applying to stuff you have paid for (such as your str) and things that you haven't (such as weapons).

[Ndreare]

No one can think of everything (although Steve Long did a great job of thinking of most things).

Instead we see caution and stop signs telling the game master to think about what the power is or how it interacts. At this point I am having trouble understanding your continued argument. The potential for breaking balance is there, you appear to disagree that the flag should be raised on this side and instead should be on the free Equipment side. But that would cause it to be ignored or dismissed because virtually every heroic game will use free equipment.

 

If this is not your point of view...

I know it can be an unreasonable request, but to avoid the moving target would you be willing to state/write your full concern in one post?

[WistfulD]

In as simple terms as possible, am am not so much concerned, so much as displeased.

 

What I am displeased with is thus: There a great big warning around naked advantages. One saying don't put them in power frameworks. Be cautious with them if you use them at all. As big a warnings as possible given that 1) they exist at all, and 2) the GM can always overrule. This desturbs me because:

 

It is not the naked advantage that is the risk to balance. you can apply 15 pts of armor piercing to something or 15 points of str or DCs to something, and the relative power is about equal. It is the act of being able to apply additional power points to equipment that clearly is the overpowering factor. No wonder things like what Bigbywolfe mentioned or STR or martial arts are indeed so limited.

 

In that regard, I will likely either scrap the flaming sword spell or find a way to make it less powerful than otherwise it would.  

[Greywind]

It disturbs you, that, in his game, the GM can tell you "no"?

[Scott Baker]

It disturbs you, that, in his game, the GM can tell you "no"?

From the way it's written the disturbing thing appears to be the combination of Naked Advantages existing in the rules at all and that the GM can overrule.  

 

 

@WistfulD: Seriously, your issue currently seems to be that you have an opinion on how the rules should be written that doesn't match the actual text of the Rules As Written. None of us here can change that, whether we agree with your position or not. If you're a player, talk with your GM about what you want to accomplish and how to best do that in the game. If you're the GM, congratulations, you can decide for yourself what will work best for your game. Either way I see a lot of stress over the one thing you can't change rather those things you can change.

[WistfulD]

It disturbs you, that, in his game, the GM can tell you "no"?

That was a poorly worded aside, basically meaning, "yes, I am aware that the GM can always overrule anything that they don't like. That's not the point."

 

Scott, great, we can't fix anything. Little, if anything has ever been truly changed on an internet forum. A game designer who listens too much to the people on forums in the end trusts too deeply that those people represent the majority of their fan base anyway. I'm not looking for the Scott to answer me directly and say, "yep, you're right." But isn't the very purpose of this forum to discuss what we do and do not like about the way things are in the system?

 

And you guys are seeing a lot more stress then is there. I tried to make that clear when I said I was displeased, not concerned.

[Hyper-Man]

The warnings and stop signs in the rules are there to help GM's who are inexperienced with HERO's rules that are on the most part very permissive.  However, sometimes permission from the GM is still needed to achieve a particular desired sfx.

 

example.

I built rookie versions of both Superman and The Flash with a Framework slot of 4-5 Overall Levels that Cost END*.  RAW states it is not legal to include Skill Levels of any kind in a Framework without GM permission.  My reasoning for including them is that they are a great way to represent the 'super-speed' sfx since the rules allow any skill to be completed 1 step down the Time Chart for a -3 penalty (1 minute goes to 1 turn).   And since Overall Levels are the most expensive Levels available I don't see balance issues. In fact, the characters losing access to other potentially more powerful Framework slots provides its own balance of sorts.  So I include the slots on the builds and note that GM permission is required for their use.

 

*Examples:

from Superman

 

5 (END)

6) Faster than a speeding bullet! v3: +4 Overall Skill Levels (GM permission is required to be included in a Framework) (48 Active Points); Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to Activate; -1/4) Real Cost: 27

Notes: Changing (Only Costs END to Activate; -1/4) to (Costs Endurance;-1/2) allows for +5 Overall Skill Levels @6 END per Phase and a Real Cost of 30. The special effect of these Levels is Super Speed and they can be used towards ANYTHING that requires a roll. Examples: All Combat CSL's, Dive For Cover (a DEX roll), Enhanced Perception and to complete tasks faster. From 6e1 page 59, If a character has to perform a task in less time than it normally takes, he suffers a -3 penalty for each level up the Time Chart. Example: a task that would normally take 5 minutes to complete could be done in 1 Turn @ -6 to the roll.

0

 

 

 

from The Flash

 

6 (END)

4) Faster than a speeding bullet! v3: +5 Overall Skill Levels (GM permission is required to be included in a Framework) (60 Active Points); Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to Activate; -1/4) Real Cost: 40

Notes: +4 Overall Levels without the Costs END Limitation. The special effect of these Levels is Super Speed and they can be used towards ANYTHING that requires a roll. Examples: All Combat CSL's, Dive For Cover (a DEX roll), Enhanced Perception and to complete tasks faster. From 6e1 page 59, If a character has to perform a task in less time than it normally takes, he suffers a -3 penalty for each level up the Time Chart. Example: a task that would normally take 5 minutes to complete could be done in 1 Turn @ -6 to the roll.

0

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Unlike many game systems, Hero provides much less in the way of Rules than Guidance.  If you don't see a balance concern, don't worry about the Caution or Stop sign.  Many of us have such constructs in our games and they work just fine.

 

They don't say "this is always unbalanced".  If that were the case, they would not be in the rules at all.  They say "heads up - this can be a sleeper from a balance perspective so consider the impact of such abilities in your game". 

 

There are plenty of controversial builds in Hero.  5e Deadly Blow (adding DC's to free equipment) was pretty controversial.  Prior to that, the rules spoke to "customized equipment" as needing to be purchased from the ground up.  You wanted a dagger that did 1 1/2d6 KA base damage, you paid for a 5 DC killing attack, not just the added DC's.

 

6e changed Deadly Blow to a skill level basis, since skill levels can already enhance damage.  It also removed the default "can't more than double the base DC's with additions from STR, skill levels, martial arts, etc." rule, which has also been pretty controversial (so much so that it got a "you can put it back in" sidebar before the restriction was even out).  With the conversion of Deadly Blow and similar abilities to skill levels, I suggest we have returned to the pre-Deadly Blow state of affairs that you cannot, in fact, buy an extra DC that floats around waiting for an attack to be added to.

 

But a naked advantage still lets me add AP to an attack I did not pay for.  That can be pretty powerful, so there is a warning for the GM to consider whether that ability is OK for his game.

 

If you are the GM, clearly you think it is OK for your game.  Great. Allow it.

 

If you are the player, ask your GM.  For many experienced hero GM's, the main value in those Stop and Caution signs is that less experienced players tend to ask you about them earlier in the design process, so they don't have to go back to the drawing board when they discover you don't allow something they were relying on.  Whether or not there's a sign on it, a GM can just deny it anyway, but the signs (and notes on "GM permission", which are the same as stop signs to me) highlight items the GM may be more likely to disallow.

 

While I'm typing, Hype gets the same issue, phrased differently.