Naked advantage in power framework - enchanted blade

[Scott Baker]

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.

To fix something implies that it is broken. [Long dissertation deleted here.] We all have our opinions of what we do/don't like in the rules. Despite your assertion otherwise, the tone of the posts seems to imply that you do expect us to say, "you're right," and that we need to do something about it, even if that is not your intent. I simply hoped you wouldn't go down the rabbit hole of railing against the rules rather than using what you like, and not using what you don't like, in order to enjoy your game.

[WistfulD]

More along the lines of "good point" then "you're right," but neither seem that important to me now. If there's any reason to continue with this thread (itself an open question), we should shift back to how others would do a "enchanted blade" spell? We had some good ideas there before we went off into the weeds.

[Ninja-Bear]

I built a flamming sword as a naked advantage. Variable special effect (+ 1/4) it converts pd to energy (GM permission 5th r).

 

Oh and another caveat too is that if you build a power x and have an issue you can (and should) rebuild said power to a closer vision.

 

This seems minor but sometimes ( and I can be just as bad about it) get in the mind set that once it is written its in stone. Stuff happens on paper it seems fine but then during play bam! Something unforseen happens.

 

P.s. as a balance issue I am dealing with this too with "booty" magic. My players killed a Fell Drake, the dwarf wants to transform the hide into armor. Question should the players pay for it with exp. or is it a reward?

[Ninja-Bear]

Hugh you mentioned that in your group AP wasn't really priced well because a lot of people with high defenses had hardened which nerfs the AP. So my question is why is hardened so prevailent? That sounds like a GM control thing.

[Ndreare]

Hardened is super common on published characters.

[Hyper-Man]

Hardened is super common on published characters.

 

Yep. It's part of any defenses based on Combat Luck.

[Ninja-Bear]

Hardened is super common on published characters.

True-doesn't mean you need allow those charact ers to have it though.

[Grailknight]

Independent Advantages are considered as Special Powers and as such are not allowed in Frameworks without GM permission.(CC page 95).

 

So, unless your player has a truly compelling reason, you can say no within the rules.

 

I wouldn't allow it because

 

1- It favors one set of special effects over another which is a no-no in Hero.

 

2- It makes it easier to have combinations which exceed campaign limits

 

3- I see it as a purely point saving build. Just buy the powers with the advantage and house rule that you don't have to use it at all times.

[Hugh Neilson]

Hugh you mentioned that in your group AP wasn't really priced well because a lot of people with high defenses had hardened which nerfs the AP. So my question is why is hardened so prevailent? That sounds like a GM control thing.

 

 

Hardened is super common on published characters.

 

 

Yep. It's part of any defenses based on Combat Luck.

 

Bingo.  In any case, the math for AP does not work at +1/2 even if hardened defenses do not come into the picture.

 

Independent Advantages are considered as Special Powers and as such are not allowed in Frameworks without GM permission.(CC page 95).

 

So, unless your player has a truly compelling reason, you can say no within the rules.

 

I wouldn't allow it because

 

1- It favors one set of special effects over another which is a no-no in Hero.

 

2- It makes it easier to have combinations which exceed campaign limits

 

3- I see it as a purely point saving build. Just buy the powers with the advantage and house rule that you don't have to use it at all times.

 

Actually, I think point #2 is a key reason this is a stop sign ability.  Adding 3 DC's to a 12 DC attack is easily noted as breaching our 12 DC campaign limit.  Independent advantage?  That can go unnoticed a little easier.  If the GM stops and considers it (which the Stop Sign should suggest), it's easy to go back and tell the player he needs to reduce the IA to 12 points, so it covers a 48 AP power and brings it up to 60 AP at maximum.

[Ninja-Bear]

Hardened is super common on published characters.

Well considering the history of their publications, that's too broad of a characrerization. However I believe you are referring to more current releases. Such as fifth and sixth edition.

[Ndreare]

Well considering the history of their publications, that's too broad of a characrerization. However I believe you are referring to more current releases. Such as fifth and sixth edition.

 

The question was framed as a 6th edition question. In 6th edition published villain books Hardened is super common and not just on tanks, but on a lot of other characters as well.

[Ndreare]

True-doesn't mean you need allow those charact ers to have it though.

 

 

That feels  like a wrong approach in general to me, the game should be playable out of the box for GM's who spend the money on the supplements. After all if we have to rework the characters why would I buy them, we could just make them ourselves.

 

The only reason in my opinion to buy the supplements is to make GMing easier.

[Ninja-Bear]

The question was framed as a 6th edition question. In 6th edition published villain books Hardened is super common and not just on tanks, but on a lot of other characters as well.

That s a fair answer. I just went through classic enemies and out of 77 villians (not counting Dr. D twice) I counted 7 villians that had fully hardebed pd and ed..

[Hugh Neilson]

It doesn't need to be fully hardened to make AP less effective.  A fair (but MUCH more labour intensive) approach is to apply an average 8d6 AP attack (28 STUN, 8 BOD) and an average 12d6 normal attack (42 STUN, 8 BOD) against each character's defenses and assess how many provide an advantage to AP, how many provide an advantage to normal attacks, and how many are they about the same on (say within 1STUN).

 

For targets with no hardened defenses whatsoever, the average damage from the normal attack will be 16 against 26 Defenses, and the AP attack will get 15 past the same defenses.  So all characters with 25 or less defenses, none hardened, are better off taking the AP attack.  Those are all "AP Loses" targets (hardened will only make it worse for the AP user, so no need analyzing their hardened defenses).

 

Against defenses of 30, the normal attack gets 12 STUN past and AP manages 13,  So, for targets with none of their defenses hardened, DEF 27 - 30 is "about the same".  Any hardened defenses at all will move these guys to "AP Loses" as well.

 

Against defenses of 31+, the AP attacker will average greater than 1 STUN past defenses, assuming none of those defenses are hardened.  If some are hardened, the AP user may still come out ahead - need to do the math. 

 

For the 7 who are fully hardened, of course, AP always loses.

 

If we get up to defenses of 54, AP will average 1 and Normal 0, so we are back to "equally effective", but I doubt we'll see many functionally invulnerable targets.

 

Note that the AP user also loses more DC to sacrifice some damage and spread to hit a high DCV target, or multiple targets, a further drawback.

[Ninja-Bear]

Well if AP is that bad then eliminate hardeded and AP.

[WistfulD]

Well if AP is that bad then eliminate hardeded and AP.

 

That is not a horrible idea. I know I read the penetrating adder in the player's handbook I and said, "this is the right way to do armor piercing, but it will never get used because AP exists."

[Hyper-Man]

AP @(+1/4) on a normal damage attack can make the difference in that attack doing body vs. normal objects like walls or not.

 

Example:

A 75 active point normal damage attack with no Advantages will average 15 Body.

Add AP and it becomes 12 Body vs. 1/2 defenses.

If used against anything with less than 25 DEF the AP attack has a much better chance of doing Body & will do about the same or better Stun damage.

[WistfulD]

Bingo.  In any case, the math for AP does not work at +1/2 even if hardened defenses do not come into the picture.

 

 

Actually, I think point #2 is a key reason this is a stop sign ability.  Adding 3 DC's to a 12 DC attack is easily noted as breaching our 12 DC campaign limit.  Independent advantage?  That can go unnoticed a little easier.  If the GM stops and considers it (which the Stop Sign should suggest), it's easy to go back and tell the player he needs to reduce the IA to 12 points, so it covers a 48 AP power and brings it up to 60 AP at maximum.

 

So, in your mind, it is the Total Cap that is the issue? I can see this being the case, but I like the idea that if you do include it, it might be fine.

 

As an example not involving flaming swords, someone wanted to make a Bestial Claw spell for his nature mage. That would be HKA 1D6 (15 base), AP (+1/4) for 19 active points. He also wants to add the AP to his 15 STR, so that he doesn't have to divide the 3 DCs by 1.25. The total attack (37.5 AP) is well under the 60 AP cap for our campaign, so it's fine by that matter.

 

So the power would be: HKA 1D6 (15 base), AP (+1/4) for 19 active points, divided by 2 for gestures, incantations, and RSR, plus AP (+1/4) on 15 STR for 4 active points/2 for 23 Active Points, 11 RP. 1 point fixed slot for 2 END.

 

He could have just as easily taken +5 STR as part of the power for 5 AP. That would give him 4 DC of Strength, which divided buy 1.25 is 3 DC added to the HKA, or he could have taken one more level of HKA for 6 AP. The difference in active points is negligible, and the difference in points for the fixed slot is nonexistent. In that example I would allow it.

[The_GeeK]

I have played the magic-multipower-adding-to-free-weapons.  And yes, it did turn out to be far, far more cost effective than anyone expected.

IIRC, the one limitation was RSR (Magic Skill).  30 pt MP.  Did not take 'Requires a focus' for the naked advantage slot.  So, Could throw a 2D6 RKA fireball ... but more effective was dropping an advantage - or extra damage - on top of sword or bow.  (Hail of arrows was a particular favourite: AE on 1½D6 Longbow)

 

I do find it offensive that the original player was trying to justify buying the AP advantage for large amounts because they didn't want to do the math.  Seriously?  Buy your advantage for the sword.  Assuming a 60 pt cap on attacks, the most you should be looking at is ~11 pts, a +¼ advantage on a 3D6 K.  (Excluding the reduced END, which seems kinda questionable).  Then just work out what the attacks are, using each maneuver.  2D6 Sword 6DC), 15 STR (3DC), Martial Strike  (+2DC) => divide the 5DC by AP cost, to get 4DC.  Substitute Offensive Strike (+4DC), divide 7DC to get 5.6 ... I'd round up, but I'm a generous GM.  

 

There are all sorts of warnings and stop signs regarding how advantages should be applied to things like STR & Martial Maneuvers, when you haven't explicitly paid for them.  Spending 1 minute before hand, doing the above math, solves *all* the problems.

 

And, as a laugh, once built a STR 15 martial artist ... Find Weakness (I miss ya!), AP on STR (0 END), Autofire on STR, Offensive Strike, Two Extra DC on Martial Maneuvers,  ...  got played by someone else, who came back wondering why the character's attacks seemed to be stomping the bad guys.  Yeah, essentially a 90 AP attack, combined with Find Weakness.

[Ninja-Bear]

Ignoring hardened on defenses on a character is what I would hardly call rewritting a character. And if you are like me, tweaking a character here and there to fit into my game concept is far easier than building one from scratch. And if you are opposite then I am jealous! : )

 

Now to your first point about being playable right off the shelf, well that's always been a bit of a dilema for hero games. In order to have right off the shelf and the implied no gm oversite would require that the villians would be built on concrete campaign levels and defined optional rules in use. Hero games historically has shyed away from this because hero system is touted of leting you creating a game you want to play. And I think right of the shelf without GM oversite is a myth. Even DnD games set in a predefined game world asks the DM to read over the module to make sure your characters can handle the module or to make sure your party has the right class/es. Let ask you this would you allow a new player to use a character in your Champions game without looking at it and even if you had proof that said character was built within your point caps? That's pretty brave if you do. My character Ghost Panther is 4th ed. 60 pt cap character that is very unbalancing because he has desolid and life support for being desolid and strength affects real world.

 

 

 

That feels like a wrong approach in general to me, the game should be playable out of the box for GM's who spend the money on the supplements. After all if we have to rework the characters why would I buy them, we could just make them ourselves.

 

The only reason in my opinion to buy the supplements is to make GMing easier.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Hugh you mentioned that in your group AP wasn't really priced well because a lot of people with high defenses had hardened which nerfs the AP. So my question is why is hardened so prevailent? That sounds like a GM control thing.

It is absolutely a GM control issue.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Hardened is super common on published characters.

Which is a failing on the part of the game designers. Hardened defenses, IMO should be somewhar rare. Characters where armor is a part of their theme should have it. others, not so much. Because as mentioned, AP becomes overly expensive or absolutely not worth the trouble.

 

At the same time, not everyone should be running around with an AP attack which makes hardened defenses necessary.