6th Ed Deadly Blow/Weapon Master Cost Math?

[dsatow]

7 hours ago, Tywyll said:

Back to the main point, do people who allow weapon master and deadly blow ever consider doing what I suggested (lower cost CSLs, Only for Damage limitation)?

 

I've seen the argument from a player.  It just depends on what you as a GM are comfortable with.  I was okay with it as long as it didn't exceed the maximum DC of my game.

 

I would like to note a couple of things on the whole 5 pts of Strength vs 4 MA DC.

1) If Strength is drained/suppressed to 0, you can't use DC of martial arts (you only do 1d6 or +1 DC to a weapon)6e1p42.  Martial arts are dependant on Strength.

2) As noted, MA does not give you lift capability as well as other effects that are defined in Strength but not martial arts.  This can be a problem in high gravity zone games.

3) If a martial weapon has a strength minimum on it, martial art DC do not compensate for a lack of strength which may cause penalties.

4) Technically, a GM does not have to let you use martial escape to get out of an entangle, though I see in real life most GMs allow it.  Martial escapes are usually only to counter a grab maneuver (but again the rules says the GM can allow it and most GMs I know allow it).

 

[Ninja-Bear]

9 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

10 points of MA maneuvers is a good investment for everyone because MA scaling is screwed up beyond belief, so that's not really a hindrance. 

The GM can veto anything, and should veto abusive constructs.  But that doesn't make those constructs any less abusive, the GM being able to fix the problem just means there is a problem. 

No what it means is that the game has great freedom and flexibility therefore it takes oversight by both GM and Players. 

[Ninja-Bear]

Phil 6thed HA is the same as 5thed. It’s 5 ACT pt per D6 with mandatory-1/2 Limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

11 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Back before 6e, there was a discussion here in which I made the case that STR should cost 2 points, HA should be 5 points per die, and MA DCs should cost 6 points each.  With the removal of figured characteristics, the STR cost issue is resolved.  In 4e HA cost 3 points, because it needed to be cheaper than 5 points of STR.  In 5e, this became 3.333 points (5 points with an arbitrary "HA limitation") for the same reason.  And MA DCs needed to cost more than HA, because they do more and don't cost END.  So they cost 4 points.  What does HA cost now, in 6e?  5 points per d6?  Great!  Then MA DCs should cost 6 points.

 

Based on the costs of Figured Characteristics, and the amounts provided, both STR and CON had an effective negative cost pre-6e.  That was a combination of Figured's being overpriced (addressed in 6e) more than STR and CON providing too much.  +20 CON provided +4 ED (4 points in 6e), +4 REC (4 points in 6e), +10 STUN (5 points in 6e) and +40 END (8 points in 6e), so 21 points worth of 6e Figured.  Price CON at 2 points and make "no figured" a -1 limitation and we're pretty close.

 

The value of STR goes way up if you fight with muscle power and/or must worry about encumbrance for essential gear. 

 

6e sets Hand Attack as a -1/4 limitation.  To me, that is too low.  -1/2 would be more appropriate.  That would allow a -1/4 limitation for "combat effects", so you also get Shove, Escape, Grab, etc.

 

Or we could also rebuild HA, along with MA DCs, to follow the Deadly Blow and Weaponmaster model.

 

I think we start by ignoring "limited skill levels only add to OCV".  If we want that, buy limited OCV.

 

Looking at 6e v1 p 447, Weaponmaster is already constructed with 3, 5 or 8 point skill levels, with 8 point levels getting -1/2 for "Only with Weapons", making their cost only slightly more than a 5 point level.  The problem is making "only to increase damage" a mere -1/2 limitation.

 

Deadly Blow uses 8 point levels only to increase damage (-1/2 - same issue), only with weapons (-1/2) and a Limited Power of -2, -1 or -1/2 depending on the situations where it works.

 

I would say "Damage only" is at least -1, probably -1 1/2.  Only with Weapons is arguably -1/4, but let's retain -1/2 for now.  I also note that the writeup limits it to killing or normal damage, but the actual build does not.

 

That would be -2 in total limitations, and it will work with a sword or a club.  So that would make the costs of Weapomaster for all weapons 6 x 8 = 48 AP/3 = 16 points.

 

Only with Blades is 6 x 5 = 30 AP/2.5 = 12 points.

 

Only with Daggers is 6 x 3 = 18 AP/2.5 = 7 points.

 

Making it for bare-handed HTH combat should be 5 point levels, so 30 AP, damage only (-1 1/2) = 12 points.  Tack on Costs END (-1/2) and it becomes 10 points, so Hand Attack is 3 1/3 points - or the same as a -1/2 limitation on STR (but STR would be 1 END per 2 DCs and we're only getting 1 DC per END).

 

Martial Arts should be 5 point levels, so 30 AP, damage only (-1 1/2) = 12 points.  Divide that by 3 and we get a 4 point Martial Arts DC, so this ties in quite nicely after all.

 

The fact that this ties in nicely with MA DCs and fairly well with Hand Attack suggests this should be the model, at least in my view.

[Hugh Neilson]

5 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Phil 6thed HA is the same as 5thed. It’s 5 ACT pt per D6 with mandatory-1/2 Limitation.

 

ummmm...6e v1 p 231 says othewise.

[Ninja-Bear]

42 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

ummmm...6e v1 p 231 says othewise.

Really? I didn’t check. I assumed. I’ll check but you’re probably right.

[Ninja-Bear]

6th HA is now a -1/4 Mandatory Limitstion.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I think we start by ignoring "limited skill levels only add to OCV".  If we want that, buy limited OCV.

I absolutely agree with you here, which dovetails into my disagreement regarding using Limited CSLs to get damage.  Why not just buy damage to get damage? 

[Hugh Neilson]

7 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

I absolutely agree with you here, which dovetails into my disagreement regarding using Limited CSLs to get damage.  Why not just buy damage to get damage? 

 

In this context, because it is damage which applies to a group of attacks, rather than a specific attack.  Skill levels are the only real "floating DC" concept in the game.

 

The pre-6e versions of these talents were controversial because, with the "no more than double" rule, they could not be built with skill levels, so they were a limited form of something we could not buy in unlimited form - that floating DC.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

In this context, because it is damage which applies to a group of attacks, rather than a specific attack.  Skill levels are the only real "floating DC" concept in the game.

 

The pre-6e versions of these talents were controversial because, with the "no more than double" rule, they could not be built with skill levels, so they were a limited form of something we could not buy in unlimited form - that floating DC.

So, when you say "group of attacks" all I can hear that as is "Multipower". 

We have to pay for flexibility in attacks, Multipower slots cost points.  I don't see why "floating" damage should get around that surcharge.  I don't see why "floating" damage shouldn't just be built by listing the forms of damage boost available and MPing them. 

We can buy the appropriate forms of damage via a(nother) Multipower and apply the appropriate slot.  If we somehow don't know what Advantages the damage will have, we have Variable Advantage (which can certainly be given a cost break for having to duplicate another set of Advantages).  If we somehow don't know what types of damage the character will be outputting, we can make a VPP. 

 

I really don't see why having two competing cost structures derived in totally different ways is a good idea. 

[Duke Bushido]

On January 18, 2020 at 2:28 PM, Tywyll said:

So is anything going to break if this build is ignored in favor of using lesser CSLs instead?

 

 

If you're just opinion shopping, mine is "no; you'll be fine."  The key, I believe, to creating something that's "fair" is really more about _consistency_ than it is about math.  Do it X way every time, and no one has any real reason to complain, so long as the options are open to everyone.

 

23 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

perhaps it is time to eliminate Martial Arts 

 

 

Hugh, my friend, your observations and my selective retention very briefly combined to make me very, very happy.     

 

Seriously, though-- you make a point that I totally agree with.

 

22 hours ago, Tywyll said:

Back to the main point, do people who allow weapon master and deadly blow ever consider doing what I suggested (lower cost CSLs, Only for Damage limitation)?

 

I will give you my answer for this, as I do it in my games.  It's likely not what you're looking for, as I both play older editions and don't allow limitations on Skill Levels.  

 

I don't use a "Deadly Blow" super-special conditional martial maneuver.  If you want a "deadly blow," you build it as a power that adds to whatever strike you're using.  Yeah, everything since Alston published his "how to build a martial arts" thing craps all over this, but I still do it, mostly because I feel that martial arts has no real place outside of a martial arts-based campaign.  It's too niche for my tastes.  This isn't about that, though.  This is about trying to give you something you can use, if only as thought fodder.  Consider also that I build "martial maneuvers" as the application of skill levels while yelling "Hai-yah!", pretty much period.  It's more about simplicity and accessibility than it is about anything else.   And just like in the rules, lower cost Skill Levels require a more specific application.  If you want to put it to "weapon element" or "Great Cleave" or whatever, then go for it.  If you want to cover "hand to hand" or "anything the GM let's me define as "martial," then that's good, too.

 

The thing is that Skill Levels already have tiered pricing because they have tiered effectiveness.  That's sort of a built-in "discount for limitations" right there, and why I don't allow limitations on Skill Levels: I instead encourage you to buy a lesser Skill Level that is appropriate for the limitation you have in mind, and if you want Extra Damage, then to build that extra damage as a separate thing, period, _or_ allocated a full-cost skill level that is appropriate to that.

 

I won't even begin to get into the pricing, because it's one of-- and perhaps the greatest-- things I have against Martial Arts in the first place.

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

In this context, because it is damage which applies to a group of attacks, rather than a specific attack.  Skill levels are the only real "floating DC" concept in the game.

 

The pre-6e versions of these talents were controversial because, with the "no more than double" rule, they could not be built with skill levels, so they were a limited form of something we could not buy in unlimited form - that floating DC.

 

2 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

So, when you say "group of attacks" all I can hear that as is "Multipower". 

We have to pay for flexibility in attacks, Multipower slots cost points.  I don't see why "floating" damage should get around that surcharge.  I don't see why "floating" damage shouldn't just be built by listing the forms of damage boost available and MPing them. 

We can buy the appropriate forms of damage via a(nother) Multipower and apply the appropriate slot.  If we somehow don't know what Advantages the damage will have, we have Variable Advantage (which can certainly be given a cost break for having to duplicate another set of Advantages).  If we somehow don't know what types of damage the character will be outputting, we can make a VPP. 

 

I really don't see why having two competing cost structures derived in totally different ways is a good idea. 

 

 

Sorry, you two.

 

I'm all out of rep today....  

 

 

[Tywyll]

23 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I haven’t used them as of yet. I’m working on a game that may allow it. The allowance is more because the GM is new so builds are really going to be basic not do the build itself.  
 

What do you hope to achieve with lowering the cost?

 

So, I do use MA as written in my game. I don't expect that to change. The cost for WeaponMaster/Deadly Blow seem wildly out of line with MA, so that's a problem for me.

 

But the main reason I would do it is it seems to be more consistent. Why buy an 8 point all HTH level with a limitation only Blades, when a 3 point level already exists for that very purpose? To put it another way, a player could just buy 6 (or however many) 3-point levels and mentally ear mark them for only damage and it would work the same in play, and be cheaper then buying the talent as currently written. And since you can put limitations on 3 point levels, it seems the Only for Damage should fit in there. 

 

Also, I prefer players being able to buy it DC by DC rather than 3 DC at once. 

[Duke Bushido]

15 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

 

So, I do use MA as written in my game. I don't expect that to change. The cost for WeaponMaster/Deadly Blow seem wildly out of line with MA, so that's a problem for me.

 

But the main reason I would do it is it seems to be more consistent. Why buy an 8 point all HTH level with a limitation only Blades, when a 3 point level already exists for that very purpose? To put it another way, a player could just buy 6 (or however many) 3-point levels and mentally ear mark them for only damage and it would work the same in play, and be cheaper then buying the talent as currently written. And since you can put limitations on 3 point levels, it seems the Only for Damage should fit in there. 

 

Also, I prefer players being able to buy it DC by DC rather than 3 DC at once. 

 

 

^  That.  That right there.  All of it.  There are already Skill levels at prices A, B, C, etc.  Why is Price C not able to do what "Price F limited to cost only Price C", does?

  Why can Price C not simply be something like "must be defined as one of the following at time of purchase"?

 

Makes _so_ much more sense, is easier to grasp, eliminates futzing around with limitations (which at one point weren't even _legal_ on Skill Levels)

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

So, when you say "group of attacks" all I can hear that as is "Multipower". 

We have to pay for flexibility in attacks, Multipower slots cost points.  I don't see why "floating" damage should get around that surcharge.  I don't see why "floating" damage shouldn't just be built by listing the forms of damage boost available and MPing them. 

We can buy the appropriate forms of damage via a(nother) Multipower and apply the appropriate slot.  If we somehow don't know what Advantages the damage will have, we have Variable Advantage (which can certainly be given a cost break for having to duplicate another set of Advantages).  If we somehow don't know what types of damage the character will be outputting, we can make a VPP. 

 

I really don't see why having two competing cost structures derived in totally different ways is a good idea. 

 

When I see Deadly Blow and Weaponmaster, it is typically in a "weapons cost no CP" heroic game, so a multipower to enhance a power you didn't pay for is pretty tough for many, especially Hero non-experts, to figure out.  We could eliminate skill levels entirely, and build a pretty effective Deadly Blow as +X STR, only to add damage to weapons.  +30 STR, 0 END (45 AP), OIF Weapon of Opportunity (-1/2) would cost 30 real points, making the cost of Deadly Blow "with any weapon, whenever I want" 15 points for +1d6 KA, or 5 points per DC.  That's cheaper than all but the lowest level of Deadly Blow, again supporting the assertion that the present model is overpriced.

 

30 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

But the main reason I would do it is it seems to be more consistent. Why buy an 8 point all HTH level with a limitation only Blades, when a 3 point level already exists for that very purpose? To put it another way, a player could just buy 6 (or however many) 3-point levels and mentally ear mark them for only damage and it would work the same in play, and be cheaper then buying the talent as currently written. And since you can put limitations on 3 point levels, it seems the Only for Damage should fit in there.

 

As  noted above, the 6e price is based on 3 and 5 point skill levels.  It just massively lowballs "only for damage", which is not that tough to fix.

 

And all you need to buy 1 DC at a time is to buy 2 skill levels at a time.

[dsatow]

Weaponmaster/Deadly Blow could be from a earlier supplement or from a version of the game where the number of DCs, levels, and multipowers were restricted.  The first edition of Fantasy Hero didn't allow multipowers.  IIRC, there were no DC for MA.  Only levels which could be used for OCV, DCV, and DC.  Weaponmaster would then allow you to increase your damage without  allowing you CVs to change.

 

Note: I am not in support or against Weaponmaster/Deadly Blow.  Just a historical viewpoint.

 

[Tywyll]

9 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

As  noted above, the 6e price is based on 3 and 5 point skill levels.  It just massively lowballs "only for damage", which is not that tough to fix.

 

What would you put 'Only for Damage' at? I would assume -1 1/2 because that's losing 2/3rds of a CSL's utility.

 

9 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

And all you need to buy 1 DC at a time is to buy 2 skill levels at a time.

 

Yeah, I know. But the pricing for the talents does it in chunks of +1d6. And looking at my FHC it didn't spell out the full breakdown. Scanning my pdf of the core rules I missed the math section, so...hey ho. 

[Hugh Neilson]

In early editions, you bought KAs in 1d6 increments, until someone came up with the +1's and half dice.  Here, I'd just divide by three and probably round up for the middle steps, as applicable.

 

As you note, I consider loss of both OCV and DCV pretty significant, so I picked -1 1/2.  It aligned perfectly with a Martial Arts DC, which I was not expecting, but which suggests an underlying consistency.