Paragon

Re: Character Effectiveness

I produced a Rule of X varient some years ago that did a pretty fair job in the field (it wasn't perfect because if applied literal-mindedly it could occasionally overweight really heavily flawed defenses (like something "only versus Radiation) and the like, but that was generally the only problem that came up with it).

I've never yet posted it without one or more people having big issues with one piece of it or another, but that's an application problem; the Rule assumes certain things about the prevalence of Targeting senses for example (in why it weights Invisiblity the way it does), so if you don't share those assumptions you wo't nececcesary share the conclusion, and it was done for 4e so its possible some bits would need adjustment, but I could put it up if you're interested.

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

You don't see determining a base value as different than modifying an existing one? Then I guess we don't have much of a common ground to discuss this issue over.

I'm not concerned about process; I'm concerned about results. The result is that defenses preturb one far more than the other. Since its only the process that does this, I see no particular benefit to it. There's no easy way to fix it at the KA end (as you note, there's got to be an upfront multiplier there or they're useless against defenses) but there's no reason once you did that you had to multiply the normal damage after defenses; it might have been mroe desireable to do so, but if so, it would have been more desireable to put a flat multiplier on KA and then multiply _that_ again after defenses.

I'm just not seeing much of any virtue to the current split method, and I don't even recall hearing an argument for one; the only one I can even think of is an argument that normal damage should be worse against armor and the like, and I'd be interested to hear why someone thinks so if that was their argument (since I think, if anything, the opposite is generally more true).

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

Of course they produce vastly different results. They are doing very different things' date=' by different methods. One is determining the base STUN generated by an attack, one is modifying the STUN already generated for an attack.[/quote']

 

I don't see it as vastly different things; in the end, they're attacks delivering damage to the target, and the fact one tends to deliver more stun to the target than the other while costing the same doesn't seem a virtue (and frankly, if I was going to expect stun to transfer through armor better with either a sword or a club of otherwise comparable magnitude, it'd be the club).

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

As a note, this is somewhat misleading. Of course the amount of Stun of a KA is determined before defenses are applied to it. It has to be. There isn't anything to apply the defenses to until then. Just as you

 

I don't think its misleading, its just a statement of fact; as you note, its a necessity as long as killing stun is a multiplier, as otherwise you have nothing to base it on. But it still has the effect that the locational multipliers produce vastly different results for killing or normal damage based on the defense of the target; there's no overwhelming reason why the normal damage had to be multiplied after the defenses that I can see. If that was the case they'd be pretty close to equivelent under hit locations.

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

Yup. I never said that defenses were the only matter complicating the math. Just that it isn't as straightforward as some people seem to believe.

 

Sure.

 

I'll also note that while a 1d6 KA has a 1 in 36 chance of doing maximum damage, it also has a 1 in 18 chance of doing minimum damage.

Yeah, but the issue is that often that doesn't matter as much; it just means that you do nothing rather than leaking some stun through that may or may not matter (because you don't hit again until post-12 has washed it away. The high end result, on the other hand, almost always matters.

 

 

Again, yup. Things are complicated. I've never had any particular balance issues running KAs with hit locations to determine StunX. And I like the way the current system works WRT Normal damage and Killing damage. So I'd be quite happy with it staying just the way it is.

The problem with the current system in hit locations is while its not as severe as the die roll on gusting (because the high multiple locations are relatively low occurance), it still ends up meaning that killing attacks are much better against significant defenses because its way too easy for a normal attack even in a high multiple location to either flat out bounce or do minimal damage, since its damage is multiplied afterwards and killing attack before. The only time normal dice come out better is against low multiple locations where this features is a small benefit, but since that usually means its the difference between no stun and a pretty small amount of stun, its just less noticeable than the inverse.

Mind you, if you use it in settings where damage tends to outreach defenses noticeably, its probably not an effect that's going to be very visible since most damage gets a fair bit through anyway, and in those cases the effect isn't very pronounced and probably pretty much trivial.

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

Well, the problem with the math is that it depends on things like how much defense the target has. Without taking defenses into account the straight baseline KA vs NA gives the KA slightly lower average STUN, with a higher total amount possible. As you start to add defenses, the KA starts to be a better bet, eventually passing NAs. Exactly where the breakpoint is depends on how many DCs the attacks are.

 

There are also complicating issues involving the linearity of the base damage too; over and above the intrinsic gust in the standard stun multiple die, a 2d6 KA gets more gusting than a 6d6 NA just because its rolling 2d6 instead of 6. This gets fairly trivial by the time you're hitting 12 DC and isn't terribly strong at 9 DC, but at the low end it can be quite marked; a 1d6 KA does its maximum damage (30 stun) one time in 36, whereas its normal equivalent only does it one time 216. Now naturally one time in 36 still isn't a common result, but its frequent enough that it can tip a fight by stunning someone who otherwise simply couldn't be stunned by the attacks involved.

 

Personally, I have almost always used the Hit Location Chart for at the very least determining the StunX of KAs, and I've never had a problem with them being unbalanced.

Even hit locations have some problems here, but the fact they trend toward the middle much more strongly makes the gusting rather less pronounced. The problem with them is that by necessity, KAs and NAs in the hit location system interact with defenses differently, and this creates some artifacts of its own.

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

See, despite a million mathematical models presented here, In actual gameplay with HERO since 1st edition gameplay has always been like you describe. The KA guy almost always takes massive damage from the other guy before his lucky roll comes up and when it does it never seems to be as devastating as presented in these arguments.

 

Speak for yourself. I've seen exactly the result I described over the same period; for every time someone managed to have a bunch of 1's or 2's come up the whole fight, someone got a 6 right out the gate and stunned or outright took out someone in the first round of the fight.

As someone said, ancedotal experience can tell you all kinds of things, most of them wrong; that's why if you don't use the maths, you'll make decisions that, even if they reflect what's happened in the past, may have nothing to do with the future, and they certainly won't tell you what'll happen anywhere where conditions differ.

Now buying superheroic defense with how it works in mind makes a big difference I suppose but good design is always better than bad anyway.

The problem is that high defenses are actually the place that makes KAs matter more, as those will almost inevitably choke off normal damage more and more as the dice increase and the variance decreases.

Re: EC's cannot have non-END powers!!!!

Hmm' date=' didn't Superworld or Villains and Vigilantes have a construct like that? I seem to remember a big chart listing the different element types, with powers for each. But I don't think it was Champs that I saw it in, since I didn't own Champs until 4th Edition (had bummed GMs books prior).[/quote']

 

Well, Superworld was essentially a hybrid of Champions and V&V run through the Basic Roleplaying system, so you may well be thinking of both.

Re: EC's cannot have non-END powers!!!!

I'm not entirely sure my memory is working as well as it ought.

 

EC's came from 1st Edition, no?.. weren't Package Deals adopted from some (albeit brilliant) offshoot and not mentioned in core books until 3rd?

 

Notice my phrasing "effectively package deals"; the package deals for skills didn't come out until after this, because honestly, 1e didn't emphasize skills much at all (neither did 2e to be frank); it showed up in Espionage if I'm recalling correctly.

But ECs were still essentially package discounts for power sets that "went together". The concept was pretty much the same.

 

I recall weather control as an example of an EC that wasn't a unipower, and of course a lot of the classic elements were natural fits for EC's.. but didn't the published core book specifically say something to the effect that EC's weren't limited to Elements?

 

I'm very confused.

 

I am!

The four-elements-and-weather-control examples predated the published material; in fact they predated Champions proper, but they were still the genesis of the published EC. I should know, because I created them (along with the prototype multipower, though originally multi slot and ultra slot multipowers were entirely separate constructs).

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

You are quite right.

 

I suppose, if I were starting from scratch, I might be inclined to do it with advantages:

 

Killing attack: only resisted by resistant defences: -1

Killing attack: affected by normal defences except for , which require resistant defences: -1/2

 

I'd then rule that the DEF or non-living objects was supplemented by the same amount of nonresistant defences, so a 5 DEF wall was 5rDEF and 5 more nonrDEF.

 

OK, perhaps not quite as nice as a single seperate power.

 

If we had a more robust AVLD system, it probably would make KA's somewhat superflous (though some people _like_ the mechanic of KA stun multiples, balance be damned).

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

My point is twofold: in some ways the existence of a KA system makes us lazy; we assume one size fits all and it really does not, but second, and more important, we simply do not need it to emulate what we see as 'killing attacks'. The system already has that pretty much covered.

Well, to be honest, for most users if they have to go to too much trouble to build an attack, they'll just do the simple thing and not bother with the nuances, even if the simple thing doesn't really do what it should. That's the intrinsic problem with effect based systems; they're great when you want to get something just right, but the cost of that is that you often have to do a lot of fiddling just for relatively day-to-day usage.

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

Fortunately' date=' I haven't ever run into this problem. Even if I did, however, I wouldn't worry about it: for whatever reason, the Stun multiplier of killing attacks are very frequently low. If you want to do alot of stun damage in the campaign I'm in, [i']don't[/i] pick KA.

But they don't want to do a lot of _average_ stun damage; they want the gusts, because the gusts in the end matter more; they're more likely to stun a target or put it down outright. Against low defense opponents this may not be crucial, but against those with relatively high defenses, the benefits are almost impossible to miss; if you spend a lot of time bouncing but dump enough stun into the target to stun them one time in six, you're still far more effective on the whole than someone else who leaks tiny amounts of stun through consistently.

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

No, it's not like that. The thing is: You do not need to roll a x5 (or rather: 6+6 in this case), it's often enough to roll a x4 (or even x4.5 if you accept half numbers). So it comes up way more often than only in the x5 case. Even x3 might be very big (4d6 -> 20 body -> 60 stun, try to roll 60+ on 12d6, that will take you a couple minutes of constant rolling).

 

So yes and no, it's mainly the maximum height, and not how often it comes up. Even if that's rare, it sucks each and every time.

Yeah. The problem is that unless defenses are very low in a campaign, the extent stun multiple rules almost always make a killing attack a fight ender over time just because its pretty likely that 4 or 5 will come up often enough to do the job. This becomes, if anything, more pronounced as the damage goes up.

Re: EC's cannot have non-END powers!!!!

ECs have an odd history; the very first version of them were, effectively, package deals for a very limited set of powers (specifically the four elements and weather control); during the development of Champions, the idea was generalized, but still was essentially a package deal bonus. Given that 5th edition no longer recognizes the idea of package deal bonuses as being valid, I'm not sure the EC any longer makes any sense.

Re: Combat Skill Levels

Where is the against similar from? We have always played it that they were when you are using the attack type against all attacks. I know there is an OPTIONAL rule about Melee vs Melee, and Ranged vs Ranged only, but have never seen sword vs sword only (A good swordsman should be able to defend well against a guy with a mace for instance)

 

Or am I reading more into a coment that was talking about type being Ranged, Melee, mental, etc...

I'm curious too, since I had the same impression you did.

While I realize a GM can do what he will in the game, what I was trying to determine was pretty simple; is it the default assumption in the rules that throwing axes are intrinsically less accurate than throwing spears? I simply couldn't tell from the table whether that was assumed to apply to weapons made for throwing, and I'm still not sure from your prior post.

The table for throwing objects (regarding the penalties for their degree of balance or aerodynamic properties) seems a bit confusing in the light of dedicated throwing weapons; read literally the example would seem to suggest that all throwing axes (because of the tomahawk example) have a penalty while all spears (because of the spear example) don't.

I'm thinking this text is probably a carry over from earlier editions and is really about weapons not normally used for throwing and has no bearing on weapons actually designated as throwable. Is that the case, or is there a hidden penalty on some weapons designed for throwing and not others?

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

How 'bout a Teleportation gate going the other way? Along the "water cliff walls"' date=' teleporting all of the water (and fish) from one cross-section of the riverbed to another a few hexes downstream. Then you just make the gates wide enough to cover the whole cross-section of the river. Then the water simply bypasses the section between the gates.[/quote']

 

Hmmm. I'll have to think about this one.

Re: Penalty skill lvl question

But whether your character makes a placed shot, and where, is also completely under your charatcer's control, but PSLs to offset Placed Shot Penalties are valid.

 

I agree that PSLs should be available for Sweep and Rapid Fire OCV penalties.

And honestly, range is enough under your control that its pretty trivial to get th e benefit out of the bottom two at least; there are a fair number of superheroic characters who can get that benefit just out of their own half-move.

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

I can see that. I am just wary of someone using AoE TK to pick up many large objects (each at their STR capacity)' date=' then "stacking" those objects on some victim to get the crushing damage from the total weight (which the TK ordinarily couldn't budge in one object). So I tend to hedge against allowing lifting capacity to be multiplied by AoE as a precaution. [/quote']

 

Honestly, in most contexts once someone has TK, the best way to damage them is pick them up and drop them anyway; even with the limits of movement, its still easier and more damaging than anything you're likely to do with trying to be cute with piling rocks on them.

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

Ah' date=' I see now. Though I still think it's impossible to get rid of all of the inconsistency without endangering game balance.[/quote']

 

I don't see them as the same kind of inconsistency, honestly; the "area against large object" generic problem is a problem of base mechanics (since it involves how you damage things in general); the other is a case where the mechanics aren't even consistent with themselves.

Re: Penalty skill lvl question

Yeah' date=' hit location targeting can really improve the utility of KAs. If I've got at least 3 PSLs to offset targeting mods, I no longer have less than a x3 StunX using attacks that I can use them on. [/quote']

 

The first couple of range offset levels are also pretty painless in pre-modern games, as for the most part, if you aren't at least the 5-7" away that make them pay for themselves, you most likely aren't going to pull out a bow or a crossbow anyway.

Re: Penalty skill lvl question

I try to' date=' yes. Though one group I play with puts them at a 2:1 ratio (2 PSLs are = to 1 CSL for the cap limit)[/quote']

 

That was originally what I was going to do in my upcoming FH game, but got convinced (largely because of locational targeting) that it was probably a bad idea to rate it less than 1:1.

Re: Penalty skill lvl question

Actually... I take it back. It's pricing is manufactured wholesale with no "build" underneath it.

 

The hoops needed to jump through to create all that it does just really aren't worth building out completely. I believe Steve priced it to balance against similar capabilities.

Certainly possible.

A supporting element to your position is that he talks about its balance (or lack thereof) compared to simply buying levels with Sweep in Fantasy Hero (and doesn't refer to them as penalty levels); of course since he describes them as 2 point levels, I'm not sure the penalty levels would be any cheaper (if so, they couldn't be by much).

As an aside, my earlier comment made me wonder: for those who use CV or level caps, do you factor PSLs into that?

Re: Penalty skill lvl question

Probably based off the the fact that Sweep is a Combat Maneuver wheras aiming at a hit location isn't.

 

Edit: Oh, and according to 5ER p73, Two Weapon Fighting is an improved maneuver that lets you combine either Rapid Fire or Sweep with a limited form of Ambidexterity.

Does it still offset the first -2?

As to it being a manuever--that seems to have more to do with making it a Full Phase action than anything to do with the penalty, to be honest; there's no way to do that sort of thing _other_ than define a maneuver.