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.

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

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 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.

Me and a co-GM have been working on making the Starship building/fighting system work for us for a while. The first thing is that you do have to limit people with what they can get not based on points, but by what is available to their character. Yes, characters do kit out their YT-1300 into aluminum falcons, but they are taking out the factory standard weapons and engines, and putting in high-end fighter-grade weapons, not capital ship weapons. The next thing we determined was that, while fighter class armaments are not going to penetrate warship armor, they can make called shots to try to damage things like sensor cameras, field emitters, and weapons apertures. Some stuff can be hardened and ruggedized, but can only be armored so much, or they defeat the purpose of their own existence (like a tank, you can armor the tank all you want, but you can't make the main gun's barrel not need a smooth lining. If Sniper McRidiculous can shoot into the barrel of the main gun, he'll start damaging the ability to shoot straight). This emulates the fighters slowly taking down the main bridge shields on the star destroyer in RotJ.

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.

You're not explaining why. Again, using the 60 active point power example. I can add 15 points of extra damage and it's okay. I can add 15 points of armor piercing and it is not. Why?

Using the 60- point melee (from strength and Maneuvers) attack example: Naked advantage: armor piercing(+1/4) costs 15 AP and is "!"-ed HKA +1D6 costs 15 AP and is fine. I'm not sure I see the difference.

Well no, it would be the same as making an enemy with the sole purpose to be immune to the attacks of one specific member. It would be metagaming, pure and simple. It has its storytelling uses (once everyone knows that Superman is vuolnerable to Kryptonite, you'd better believe every crook will try to get a chunk), but you are right that it should be reserved for enemies who have every story-based right to be specifically spending their points to circumvent the heroes' abilities. However, I think the inconsistency of the fact that enhancing flash to include another targetting sense costs a flat 10 pts and enhancing flash defense costs a geometric 100% of total is the main issue. As for myself, it makes sense that a flash-bang grenade would be a sight and sound flash effect. A sight+ radar flash would be a lot harder to justify.

Examples from the various vehicle builds suggest that you do pay for non-combat movement. What advantage are you trying to build? If it is not important to your noncombat movement, I'd suggest turning your movement into a small powerframework, such that the ncm and the advantage do not apply at the same time. Otherwise, even a little bit of an elevated speed score could mean that you can't use your movement for marathon running without maxing out your REC as well.

What about making it the same cost as added senses for the flash offensive ability? Flash defense is cheap, costs 1pt/level, and applies to one targetting sense (or non-targetting if you really like). Each additional targetting sense it applies to costs +10 pts, and +5 pts for a non-targetting sense. This would actually be more expensive than most people put into secondary flash defenses, but in high level games it would pay off, since you would apply your full flash defense to all of your paid-for senses.

Thanks for the help on that. I'll look into it when I have my books around. As to the naked advantage and power frameworks--what is it about naked advantage that is considered the overpowered part? I can create a power which adds base damage to my sword blows, which might violate perceived power levels and need GM arbiting. Why is adding advantages considered so powerful as to require the exclamation mark? Again, I'm the GM, so I'm the one who has to look for abuses and I'm not afraid to do so. However, I'm curious as to the why of the naked advantage warning and if anyone else has meddled with it and how it turned out.

So no one will help me understand paying for advantages on martial arts DCs?

I require it for relatively constant things like STR (and I was hoping for some help with martial arts), but not for situationals like haymaker or getting a beneficial spell cast on you. For the martial art that gives +2 DC, how many active points is that considered for applying the naked advantage against? The cost of the maneuver, the cost of 2 DC (8), the cost of 10 str (10)?

HKA, Armor Piercing, 0 END, Usable by others, OIF (Sword of Opportunity) is indeed the simplest option, but part of the reason for the desire for naked advantage is that my player wants to apply (paying for it of course) the Armor Piercing advantage to the sword, strength, and martial art damage as well as to any HKA power he buys. Why? Because my players hate the mechanic of 'okay, take the DCs you contribute from strength, etc., and divide them by 1.25 before you add them to this attack because it is armor piercing." Why? Because they say, "well then why have DCs or str at all?" They're not wrong about that. Hyper, why did you choose 60 pts.?

But how does Christougher's suggestion address that? The one instance I can think of is a character with an additional targetting sense, Perhaps a non-blind Daredevil who can target with hearing or sight, or a robot who has sight and radar. To them, buying flash defense for both costs 200% of buying for one of them, while an opponent can (if he's specifically prepared for that hero or has a versatile vpp) apply their flash attack towards both for +10 base points. That is an inconsistency in the system that exists (I believe) for no other reason than because the designers didn't want someone to have to pay 50 pts for a 10D6 sight flash and 50 pts for a 10D6 radar flash. With power frameworks, that's a much lessoned worry. I'd remove the cheap buying up of additional senses before I'd suggest changing flash defense. I don't feel that flash is overpowered. It costs 5 pts/damage class but each dc only gives you an average of one phase where a hero can't use one sense, and additional flashes don't work until the last one wears off. I do dislike flash because, like power defense, mental defense, resistant defense, etc., it is one more thing you have to defend against in a system which also has physical and energy attacks, entangles which can't really be defended against so much as overcome, baleful teleports or UaA movement powers, and just about everything else. As boring as other games can sometimes be with combat (I roll to hit, then roll damage, you roll to hit, then roll damage back), Heroes often becomes a game of "let's take turns trying out different powers we've designed against one another until one of us finds something the other didn't put points into defense against."

6E1 advises against allowing naked advantages as part of a power framework. However, a player of mine has successfully argued that it is appropriate to be able to add armor piercing to any sword he picks up as a spell, akin to the D&D spell "magic weapon." What do people think? Is this appropriate? Can someone help me figure out the build? His spells are part of a 30 point power framework, with RSR, incantations, and invocations (total -1). He wants to add AP to his sword, and preferably the 15 strength he weilds it with, and the martial art maneuver he uses (+1 OCV, +0 DCV, +2 DCs). I believe a fixed slot spell would be fine.

Flash attacks only shut down the sense they are targetting. If the attack is rarely used, or rarely has an effect, why are you buying a defense against it? Let the sewer monster flash your sense of smell all it wants. You're not targetting him with your roto-rooter gun using that sense. AVAD makes things a little different, although they do give non-sight/sound a higher slot level for the advantage. As to 6E, yes, it is relatively inexpensive to add an additional sense to your flash. No, I don't have a specific reason why the defenses shouldn't be allowed to do the same. I just don't know why you need it.

Well, the Yoda thing can be explained by the fact that he was play acting to gauge Luke before revealing that he was Yoda, and the "episode IV" part was added after the original release. However, yes, the whole story was built one movie at a time, with little effort towards after-the-fact continuity.

Trusting in himself, and Ben, who isn't really still there, but just force boosted words of wisdom at that point in the film (and before the sequels came out turning him into a force ghost, remember that the first one was originally a stand-alone movie) is clearly seen as his personal growth. He also convinces a hardened and cynical rogue to trust in friendship and idealism (by...uh, not really doing anything, just giving Han someone he doesn't want to leave to die), and gets the girl (seriously, walking out of the theater in 1977, could you have said, "oh, she's going to go for the smuggler" ?). JS's heroine doesn't have that much less agency. She's just not that interesting or very developed. It's the first pitfall of starting sci-fi authors. There was an Onion article maybe a decade back "Sci Fi writer creates boring, cardboard-cutout protagonist to carry story in elaborate, overthought universe." It fits like a tee. The Wachowskis have been doing this too long to call it a beginner's mistake.

I guess, what has to be asked then, is: does the existence of these trick arrows make the group "bow and arrows" large? It certainly opens up the world of attacks to the player, and thus is what the 5 pt. csl is designed for. On the other hand, it all is limited to what he can shoot with his bow. So it kinda matters what you feel the point difference between CSLs is for in your campaigns. Is it limited (and thus cheaper) because the PC can't use the CSL with the "+3" sword you left in the dungeon, or limited because it's only useful for the normal damage RKAs that bows normally do, and these AVAD and AoE arrows bypass this?

That the items in the book are made for heroic-level games is news to me. Why are we pointing out things if we are just spending money to buy them? As for the decision to give it -0 because it is assumed, I guess I thought it was a rule. Double check says that must be something my GM does. As for restrainable. I said right in my description that the concept of restrainable was inherent to the concept of a knife, and thus worth nothing. Of course you wouldn't list a non-existent limitation. I was just covering all bases for the person asking for a go-through.

In other words (if I read you correctly), because this is a non-cinematic world., However, the world contains supranormal abilities like magic and conveniently-useful mutations, etc., but they are supposed to be rare, inconvenient, and likely and individual character's one useful and interesting thing (perhaps in place of being highly skilled). Do I have that right? If so, fine. That's hardly unreasonable. It does have have unexpected consequences, however, some of which can be features, and some bugs. Doubling the Endurance cost? Great. Makes casting a spell more exhausting, the magic user doesn't do it very often. Doubling the skill roll penalty? Not necessarily so great. It means no one takes the Requires Skill Roll limitation. Mutant powers suddenly become the way to go instead of magic spells.

D&D 3.5 had plenty of battlefield control as well. That's why reach builds and gaining/denying-your-opponent full round attacks were so important for warriors and why Evard's Black Tentacles was such a killer spell.

Okay, here is a primer (and please jump in to correct me, fellow board members). Let us limit our scope to simple, killing weapons that have one basic function, and thus are not built as multi-powers. Since you didn't provide a book and page reference for your laser rifle, I can't comment on it. Let's build two weapons, a combat knife and a .22-.270 deer-hunting rifle, and then we'll add a scope to the rifle. Knife - A knife is HKA 1/2D6 for 10 base points. Advantages:The knife is armor piercing (+1/4), and doesn't cost more Endurance than the STR used to swing it (reduced endurance: 0 END; + 1/2). That makes it 10*(1.00+0.25+0.50) = 17 Active Points (remember 17.5 rounds to 17). Limitations: The Knife is an obvious, accessible focus (-1). We could decide that it is inobvious, as a combat knife could mean a switchblade or other easily concealable tactical folder, but we decide that it's more of a Rambo-style knife. Now it's a "Real Weapon," but it is a modern knife in modern times, so maintaining it isn't likely a real burden. We'll say that we're building it for a heroic, instead of superheroic game, so taking the real weapon limitation is assumed (and thus -0), so we won't worry about it. Likewise, restrainable is inherent to a focus you take out and weild with your arms (-0). The weapon ends up being 17/(1.00+1.00) = 8 Real points. Rifle - how much an individual gun does is really dependent upon your campaign. To make life easy, let's make our rifle do RKA 2D6 for 30 base points. Advantages: There easily could be no advantages to add to the active cost, but let's think about the range, since you brought that up. The basic range of the weapon is in fact, as you suggested, the same as the power. That would be 30 (base points) x 10m = 300m. How far a bullet travels if you ask it in a high school physics question is not the distance you can successfully hurt something with it. Since we aren't converting the thing into a sniper rifle, let's say that over half a kilometer is unlikely, and give it one level of long range (+1/4) and a maximum range of 300 x 2 = 600m. Looking over other potential advantages (armor piercing for armor piercing bullets of course, indirect for mortar rounds, no range penalty for guided missiles maybe), nothing else looks too important. Thus our rifle is going to be 30 x (1.00 + 1.25) = 37 active points. Endurance/Charges: Note that we didn't pick up reduced endurance (0 END; + 1/2) for this one. Therefore, we have to explain how it pays for it's effects. Since it doesn't have an endurance reserve (although a self-recharging laser rifle or something might do that), and the weilder can't pay the END cost (as a magic wand might allow), it is going to have to use charges (bullets). These will be simple cartridge based clips. We'll say it is a 4-cartridge clip, and that no special rules about clips or reloading time or anything apply. This will be a -1 limitation that we'll add in with the limitations. If it was a 30-round tommie-gun drum clip, it'd instead be an advantage. Limitations: The rifle is an Obvious, accessible focus (-1), and we already covered the charges limitation (-1). A rifle needs maintenance or else it will start to jam, so it qualifies for the Real Weapon (-1/4) limitation, but we've already stipulated in this campaign that maintenance requirements are an assumed part of equipment, so (-0). The rifle is two handed, for a (-1/4). Trying to shoot it one handed will subject you to some significant penalties. Same with firing it if you are a 80-lb weakling, so take STR minimum (-1/4). Finally, the gun qualifies for the Beam (-1/4) limitation. You can shoot a person, or possibly shoot a lock off a door, but if you actually have to cut your way through a wall or something, your little tiny bullet holes are going to do bupkiss. Thus your rifle ends up as a 37/(1.00+1.00+1.00+0.25+0.25+0.25) = 13 Real Points. Now some weapons have innate bonuses to OCV or Rmod, which we would have to add, but let's do that with the scope. Scope: this adds powers to the rifle. It could include basic OCV, range penalty remission, or even darkness penalty remission. For simplicity's sake, we'll limit it to range. Let's say that we want to be reasonably able to hit something at 100m, a +8 rMod. That's just 8 2-pt. Penalty Skill Levels taken with obvious accessible...whatwhatwait? Oh no! Penalty skill levels for a single weapon cost 2-pts apiece. You cannot apply limitations to them. Alright, we'll find another way around this. Okay, since we aren't using a power framework, active points are not our primary concern, real points are, so let's use basic OCV (5 pts. apiece). Eight levels of that are (8 x 5) 40 active points. To that we can add Limitation (only to counter range-based penalties; - 1/2), limitation (bonus only applies when set or braced; - 1/2), along with OAF (-1), and real weapon (-0 in this case). Thus, the scope costs 40/(1.00+1.00+0.50+0.50)=13 extra points. Another method is to use 3-pt. PSLs, even thought the scope presumably is designed for one type of weapon (rifles) and thus qualifies for 2-pt PSLs (but 3 pt. skills can apply limitations). Check with your GM. That makes the active costs (8*3) 24 points, but of course you can't apply the (only to counter range-based penalties; - 1/2) limitation. Thus the total real cost is 24/2.5= 10 points. Taking a guess at your laser rifle, It could be RKA 5D6 for 75 Active Points, but it could be 4D6 with a +1/4 advantage (perhaps the GM is applying Inobvious:does not leave bullet casings at scene to the rifle, perhaps it is armor piercing, or a level of extra range). To get to exactly 24 real points is a challenge (2 total points of limitation would be 25, 2.25 would be 23), but adding a bit of OCV, Rmod, and who knows what else won't make it ridiculous. Yes, weapons are a lot cheaper than powers. They can be taken away, shot, and usually come with charges instead of being power by your END (and rarely have > 16 charges).