How much would this limitation be worth?

[Trencher]

Im thinking of making some powers that activate if the players hit their targets with half of what they usually would have had to hit under. So if a player needs 11 or lower to hit the power would activate if they rolled 5 or less. If they needed 14 or less to hit it would activate if they rolled seven or less and so on. 

These powers would be linked to their weapons attack powers. Basically I am going to make critical hit lists for each weapon they choose and with indivudal power effects for each weapon.

Players will usually need 14 or 11 or less to hit regular mooks. And 10 or 8 or less to hit the most skilled opponents. 

[Tech]

This looks like a 'Requires a Roll" situation. Complicating it, it's a little variable. As GM, I would look at the best chance of having the power activate and use that as the roll. Quickly based on what you said, "If they needed 14 or less to hit it would activate if they rolled seven or less and so on", I would go with it activating on a 7 or less. If I'm reading the Champions Complete chart correctly, it looks like that turns into a -1 1/2 limitation.

[Grailknight]

9 minutes ago, Tech said:

This looks like a 'Requires a Roll" situation. Complicating it, it's a little variable. As GM, I would look at the best chance of having the power activate and use that as the roll. Quickly based on what you said, "If they needed 14 or less to hit it would activate if they rolled seven or less and so on", I would go with it activating on a 7 or less. If I'm reading the Champions Complete chart correctly, it looks like that turns into a -1 1/2 limitation.

 

I second this but I caution you to beware of Higher OCV concepts and OCV/Skills thru XP as they will warp the cost structure. Or you can have the value of the Limitation change with each individuals maximum OCV.

[sentry0]

I personally think this sounds more like a standard Trigger advantage with the trigger being a critical hit.

[massey]

25 minutes ago, sentry0 said:

I personally think this sounds more like a standard Trigger advantage with the trigger being a critical hit.

 

I disagree.  That would make it more expensive than just having the extra damage all the time.

[Trencher]

Thanks for interesting answers. I am going to go with the activation type of limitation. Trigger could work but as said earlier it would make it more expensive than just buying extra flat damage. 

Also I want to avoid using the trigger concept for things other than traps, just to keep things simple for my players. Most of them are new. 

[sentry0]

8 minutes ago, Trencher said:

Thanks for interesting answers. I am going to go with the activation type of limitation. Trigger could work but as said earlier it would make it more expensive than just buying extra flat damage. 

Also I want to avoid using the trigger concept for things other than traps, just to keep things simple for my players. Most of them are new. 

 

It reminds me of Pathfinder where you would threaten a critical and have to confirm it with a second roll.  Sounds interesting, you'll have to let us know how it works out for you.

[PhilFleischmann]

I'd call it a -2 at least.  The 7- roll is based on the best-case-scenario:  a low-level mook that you can hit on a 14-.  Which is also the case in which the power will be the least useful.  How much extra damage do you need to do to a mook?

 

In the "average" case, you hit on 11-, which means the power works on 5-.  11- is 62.5%.  5- is 4,6%.  This means the power works once for every 13.5 normal hits.  That could be about a -12 limitation.  The power loses about 92.6% of its effectiveness in this average case.  If the normal to hit roll is even lower, then the power activates even less often.

 

Assuming a correlation between how hard an enemy is to hit and how hard an enemy is to put down, then this power becomes more likely to work, the less it is needed, and less likely to work the more it is needed.

[Trencher]

1 1/2 or 2 wont matter that much as this is an fantasy campain and the extra powers will be realativly small. But good observation. 

 

18 minutes ago, sentry0 said:

 

It reminds me of Pathfinder where you would threaten a critical and have to confirm it with a second roll.  Sounds interesting, you'll have to let us know how it works out for you.

Ok I will do that. 

 

[Duke Bushido]

I tend to agree with Phil. Based on his observations, I don't even know if I would build this as a power (unless the effects are radically different from the power being used: like Flash adding a Drain or or something like that. 

 

I think you might be better served creating a Critical Hit system for your campaign (as others have alluded to above) and calling it a day:  hit by half?  + X dice of effect, or times 1.x the actual effect.  Roll a natural three?  +Y dice of effect, or times 1.y the actual effect, etc. 

 

Just declare it the way the universe works, at least for main characters.

[Lee]

My take on it is, if you look at the Talent builds in 6E1, specifically for Danger Sense, you'll see a limitation "Only if Character Makes Half Roll (-1)". So, I'd use the same value.

 

Lee

[PhilFleischmann]

It's perfectly OK, IMO to "hard-wire" in a critical hit system, either for specific weapons/powers or for specific characters - the PCs and significant NPCs, or whoever.  It could allow for some interesting builds.  It would be a bit strange for one of these hard-wired-crits to do something completely different from the base attack power, but HERO allows it.  The justification for it might be a bit tricky, but that depends on the genre and style you're going for.  Magic can pretty much justify anything.  An exaggerated anime-style, perhaps.

 

The main thing to keep in mind is that making the roll by half is a very rare phenomenon.  So it's worth a pretty big limitation.  Without having to do all the math yourself, you can test it by rolling 3d6 several times.  How many times do you roll 11 or less?  How many times do you roll 5 or less?  etc.

[Lucius]

Stunning knockdown:  (Total: 54 Active Cost, 10 Real Cost) Change Environment (-1 to  CON Roll, -1 to STR Roll, Stunning), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (54 Active Points); OAF (-1), Requires A Roll (Attack roll, -1 per 20 Active Points modifier; Must be made each Phase/use; -3/4), No Range (-1/2), Inaccurate (0 OCV; -1/2), Required Hands Two-Handed (-1/2), Linked (Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand; -1/2), Can Be Deflected (-1/4), Real Weapon (-1/4) (Real Cost: 10)

 

To be linked to a large hammer. If the attack roll is made by half, roll another attack at -3; if that succeeds, target must roll CON to avoid being stunned and STR to avoid falling down.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

No roll to evade the palindromedary

[Tech]

A -2 limitation is fine and that's what I was going to go with, but the Champions Complete gave it a total of -1 1/2.

[Hugh Neilson]

18 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

I second this but I caution you to beware of Higher OCV concepts and OCV/Skills thru XP as they will warp the cost structure. Or you can have the value of the Limitation change with each individuals maximum OCV.

 

As well, abilities that reduce the opponent's DCV become much more powerful. 

 

15 hours ago, Lee said:

My take on it is, if you look at the Talent builds in 6E1, specifically for Danger Sense, you'll see a limitation "Only if Character Makes Half Roll (-1)". So, I'd use the same value.

 

Lee

 

Danger Sense is a flat roll, which is different from the opposed to hit roll.  Really, there should be more granularity on the Danger Sense limitation as well.  This seems like another outgrowth of "when in doubt, discount the limitation heavily"

[dsatow]

I usually simulate it with a -2 limitation. 

 

This came about with the following observation:

An 18 will always miss.  Making a 17- the best hit chance.  If a critical is 1/2 of what you need to hit rounded down, then a critical equals 8-.  An 8- is normal -2.

 

The requires a roll is neat idea and I have used it on martial artists as "finding an opening".  Its a triggered, naked advantage autofire(3) on the punch with requires a roll 11-.  When the villain succeeds on punching a hero, I roll 11-. if successful, the hit is autofire(3). 

[Lucius]

Arrow impalement:  (Total: 57 Active Cost, 13 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6-1, +3 Increased STUN Multiplier (+3/4), Damage Over Time, Target's defenses only apply once (9-12 damage increments, damage occurs every Turn, +4) (57 Active Points); OAF (-1), No STR Bonus (-1/2), Required Hands Two-Handed (-1/2), 12 Charges (-1/4), Inaccurate (1/2 OCV; -1/4), Linked (Killing Attack - Ranged; -1/4), Real Weapon (-1/4), Requires A Roll (Attack roll, -1 per 20 Active Points modifier; -1/4) (Real Cost: 13)

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Did the palindromedary eat

[Trencher]

On 1/18/2020 at 1:52 AM, dsatow said:

The requires a roll is neat idea and I have used it on martial artists as "finding an opening".  Its a triggered, naked advantage autofire(3) on the punch with requires a roll 11-.  When the villain succeeds on punching a hero, I roll 11-. if successful, the hit is autofire(3). 

But what if the attack roll is not enough to get the second and third hit?

 

In any case this is what I got so far. 

The players have not bought the powers yet so I have not had any chance to in game test it. 

 

Slashing: +2dc +2 HTH for rest of the turn vs that opponent. 

 

Chopping: Armour piercing advantage on up to 15dc damage.

 

Smashing: +1 stunX and +1 HTH for the rest of the turn vs that opponent. 

(+3d6 and +1 HTH if the smashing weapon does normal damage)

 

Tearing: Penetrating advantage on up to 15dc damage.

 

Piercing +4dc

 

Each of them will cost four points.

[dsatow]

It doesn't matter, the character only knows they have successfully hit once and the activation roll makes them believe they can hit a couple more times.  The player may know how well they hit by how well they hit, but the character really doesn't know they rolled.  So the trigger activates on any hit with an 11- or less chance to activate.