Hugh Neilson

You have a 20% chance of at least matching the Stun. You have a chance of a much higher than average result - at the extreme, 72 STUN - one chance in 3,888 is low, but a lot better than 1 in 2,176,782,336 to roll 72 on 12d6. With the old stun multiple, extremes were sufficiently likely to make the KA a better bet at getting STUN through. Now, while still possible, the KA delivers big STUN much less often, making it a poor choice for inflicting STUN. That was the goal - it's KILLING attack, so it should not be used to punch STUN through more effectively than a normal attack. It makes KA a niche power - useful against automatons, entangles and objects, but not as useful to KO living targets as a normal attack.

If I have a Blast and an RKA, I can use them as a combined attack. Neither augments the other. If I have STR and an HKA, and we remove "STR Boost HKA", I can still use them as a combined attack and the high STR character still hits harder. Doubling isn't the issue. One ability adding to one other ability is an outlier mechanic that I would remove. Show me the character creativity it stimulated. Find me three characters - just 3 - in all of 2e through 5e after the change (not the ones written in 1e) that have a 3d6 HKA and 15 STR, or a 1d6 KA and 45 STR, or any similar build with a 3:1 or greater ratio of STR:HKA or HKA:STR. A lot of us muddled along with the Stun Multiple for a long time too - one extra edition. It was still a good change, and it was not essential. Note that it has an optional rule too - adopt hit locations and the multiple returns to 1-5. Show me that really simple spell in 5e or 6e. The build is already very complicated. So why is it necessary to cap an HKA, but not to cap any other attack? It is limited by not adding to HKAs. Everyone else's STR adds to HKAs. His does not. The HKA can still be increased by non-limited STR. It has not been limited. Apparently, the only "abuse" is arises in those rare instances when the character will need both his KA and his full STR. That seems very uncommon, and I think accepting those "abuses" is no less reasonable a compromise.

It's the volatility that made the Stun Lotto powerful. Let's say we have a 35 DEF opponent in a 12 DC game On average, 12d6 rolls 42 and does 7 STUN past defenses. The rolls won't vary a lot from the average. A 4d6 KA averages 14 BOD. It will get 0, 0, 0, 7, 21, 35 past defenses for an average of 20.5 past defenses. Let's drop defenses to 25. On average, 12d6 rolls 42 and does 17 STUN past defenses. A 4d6 KA averages 14 BOD. It will get 0, 0, 3, 17, 31, 45 past defenses for an average of 16 past defenses. A more comparable result, but I bet that 45 means a 1 in 6 chance of stunning the target (maybe even 2 in 6 from 31). The average before defenses is not as meaningful. 6e? You have a 1 in 3 chance of matching STUN from the normal attack. KA exists to do BOD.

How many remember "The moral majority is neither."

We're at 6e v2 p 99, for anyone trying to follow along. First off, that sidebar suggests inability to Taken exactly as written, that would include combat skill levels (the basis for Deadly Blow et al.), combat maneuvers (martial and otherwise - so much for all those extra Martial Arts DCs) and movement (that would hurt a lot of speedsters). I note that so any cold feet on removing the doubling rule got even colder when considering the doubling rule as a general principal. As well, Further support for HA being limited STR. So we need some more exceptions to the optional rules tacked on to what was a change endeavouring to simplify the "adding damage" rules. I note that it is also suggested for "heroic campaigns" and real weapons paid for with cash rather than CP, although the example is clearly a Super. Let's look at that example: so...the first 12 points of STR were useless, and cause no balance issue by a freebie KA adder, but the next 3 STR (if he had a 15 STR), and every point thereafter (if it's higher), were much more useful and can't add to that KA for free without unbalancing the game. What limitation could Matterhorn take on his +50 STR if it "does not increase HKAs"? In that example, Matterhorn invested 56 points, 50 for STR and 6 for that dagger. Let's strip out the Focus limitation - it's 1/2d6 AP HKA, sharp fingernails, 12 points, so a total of 62. Will you let him combine that 1d6+1 AP HKA with a 12d6 STR strike as a Combined Attack? If not, why not? A character with a 12d6 Blast and a 1d6+1 AP RKA could make a combined attack. If he buys a 1d6+1 AP RKA, No Range (a bit pricier at 17 points), now can he use a combined attack? What about a 1d6+1 AP HKA, No STR Adds (exactly the same mechanical result - how is it "balanced" for these to cost 5 more points than using an HKA with STR adders? Especially if we "need" the doubling rule for balance.) If you would not allow this, perhaps Matterhorn should also be no fool. What if he instead spends his points on: +21 STR (so now he has 31); A Multipower of two fixed slots, +34 STR and a 2d6 AP HKA. That's 37 for the pool + 3 + 4 for the two slots = 44 points + 21 for STR - 65 points rather than 62. He can have a 65 STR whenever he wants, 5 more than the non-MP build. He can have a 3 1/2d6 AP HKA. So he has added +5 STR for only 3 points AND can use that full 3 1/2d6 AP HKA that doubling would cap at 1d6+1. Lots of other + STR/Multipower combos could certainly be envisioned. Explain to me how all of this "you can add STR to HKA but only up to doubling it" is creating better balance - and go slowly this time!

Over time, the "power adds to other powers" mechanics have been removed. At one time, you added extra mental defense from Ego, if you paid for some mental defense. Many powers had an "add HTH damage" mechanic bolted on. In genre, creatures that live in molton magma or the heart of a star are not injured by heat and fire. In Hero, you pay for what you get and you get what you pay for. For Fantasy games, I would modify the build for those "buy with cash" weapons to include an STR add. But maybe it would not double for every weapon. Perhaps some would have higher maximum adds and others would be lower. Perhaps some would be enhanced by DEX instead of STR and others would go the other way. That would be more familiar to current d20 players. Maybe some would be better targeted intelligently, so INT could add, and mental attacks could be enhanced by EGO. As well, with the advent of combined attacks, a high STR character can hit harder with no KA adder. If I have a 30 STR and a 2d6 HKA, cite the rule that precludes me from doing 4d6 HKA damage + 6d6 STR strike. There is none. Remove the adder and it becomes even more clear that I can combine an STR Strike with a no range KA. Just like a character with a 6d6 Blast and a 2d6 RKA can use both at once as a combined attack, but can't add to the RKA using that Blast. Now, they can build for the same effect - they can have a Blast and an RKA in a Multipower and trade off. They could buy some RKA that is Unified with their Blast (we need a one-way Unified Power for this). And that clawed character could put KA in a Multipower with STR, or with Hand Attack, or with Drain PD (bruising punch). Hearing Flash (ThunderClap) or Explosion Double Knockback Shockwave. To me, this says STR increasing HKA falls outside the normal rules. It's not that HKA doesn't add to STR. It's that no other attack power can be enhanced by another ability - only HKA can be enhanced and only STR can enhance it. The doubling rule just caps the free HKA you can have if you have purchased STR. You don't get the extra HKA unless you also pay for STR, and you only get this benefit from your STR if you buy enough HKA. Most of these synergies have been removed. HKA/STR has not. Is it balanced? How often do you see a 15 STR character with a 3d6 HKA or a 60 STR character with a 1d6 HKA? I saw a lot of the latter in 2e - because in 1e the Bricks normally bought a 1d6 HKA to benefit from the STR adder "for free" with the minimum HKA at that time, and that 1d6 KA was not modified when the first Enemies book was updated to 2e. This was most obvious for the Monster, who supposedly relied on that KA - but it became a 2d6 KA in second edition. Years ago, I questioned those vilifying the Stun Lotto. It had never been an issue in my games. Lucius, IIRC, pushed me to look at the math. I did. The math was clear - the KA was more effective at passing STUN past defenses. Our groups had a four colour approach and didn't use KAs against living targets, just as a matter of course, so it never became visible. Meanwhile, I realized that I was gravitating to KAs for agents precisely because it stood a better chance of passing some STUN through to the Supers. But we had cruised on just fine with the Stun Lotto since 1e, right? Virtually every change has had its critics and detractors. STR adding to KAs is no different from DEX adding to SPD and/or CV, Growth or Stretching momentum boosting HTH (but not HKAs) or CON providing more stamina in the form of REC or END. Bingo. In some games, especially old, rules-lawyer/character advocacy games, maximizing the value of abilities by creative use and interpretation was part of the game. "Where does it say my Magic Missiles can't target eyebals?" "I Create Water in his lungs." Hero's "pay for the mechanics" model was very different. If it is logical that your other abilities and SFX should allow you do this other thing, and it has a significant in-game effect, then that logic justifies paying points for that other ability, not getting that other ability for free. Except for HKAs.

He's a lot like CLOWN - does what he wants; the PCs can't prevent it; readily removes control of the PCs from their players. I'm sure someone could design a spectacular campaign around him as the mastermind behind it all, but it would be much easier to (ab)use him in a highly annoying manner.

Infamous...wow, I like that! Were it not for Jimmy, I probably would have used a link as well I believe the point is that Penetrating is an NND, Impenetrable Defenses, Does BOD, incorporated into a KA. 3d6KA, Penetrating costs 67 points and will get 3 BOD average 3 BOD through every time on average, plus the regular KA. A 1d6 KA, NND, Does BOD costs 60 and will average 3.5 BOD through. Pretty comparable.

Sure - and it would be just as simple for that sword to be 4d6 KA, No Range, OAF as it is to be 2d6 HKA, OAF, add your STR, but if you are really strong, only add some of your STR. We'll get back to that STR later. DING DING - every bit as simple as any attack that normally has range, but yours does not Which one worked so well? The 1e version that had no gradations between each 15 points adding 1d6, with no doubling rule? 2e brought us the doubling rule. Did we get +1; +1/2d6/+1d6 in 2e, 3e or 4e? The STUN Lotto was an issue from 1e to 5e. Should the STUN only be reduced by rDEF or by all DEF, or by all DEF only if you have rDEF? Maybe all DEF to a maximum of 2x rDEF, since we like doubling rules. So it IS balanced if you can have 30 STR and a 2d6 HKA that gives you 4d6 HKA. And if you have a 10 STR and a 3d6+1 HKA, also 4d6 HKA, for exactly the same price? Can I have +20 STR for free if I forego the KA entirely? It's not costing any different between these two options. But it's NOT balanced if I have 45 STR and a 1d6 HKA if we let STR push that up to 4d6 HKA - we have to cap it at 2d6 HKA. Please explain to me why it's perfect to double, and problematic afterwards. Use simple words as I am clearly missing something massively obvious here! Is having 10 STR and a 4d6 KA with no range worth 50 points (3d6+1 HKA) or 40 points (4d6 RKA, No Range)? The 40 point one still does full damage after a STR drain too! Why don't we have HEntangle, HFlash, HDrain and HAid, all the same as their ranged counterparts except that they are boosted by STR? That would be like HBlast, which is just that HA costing 5 points per d6. Having a base 10 STR has nothing to do with it. And you could sell back STR, so the first 10 STR being free is only an illusion. BINGO HA is +X STR, only for normal damage (-1/2). When you buy more of something, typically it adds to the "something" you started with.

HA is extra STR, only adds to normal damage. It's not bundled with STR, it's a portion of STR unbundled, As to "why is it OK with Killing Attack", frankly it's not. If you want your punches to do more damage because you have iron fists, you buy more damage with Hand Attack. If you want more resistance against fire and cold damage because you are immune to temperature extremes, you buy a defense power that only works against fire and cold damage. You should Grab and Hold more effectively because you have six tentacles instead of two arms? Buy extra STR only to Grab and Hold. If you think your claws should slice deeper because you are so strong, buy more HKA and Unified Power it to STR so loss of STR erodes that extra claw damage. Your high STR is a justification for buying more KA, not a reason you should get a free bonus to your KA. Ditch HKA and RKA. We can just have KA, ranged by default. Want a no range KA? Put "no range" on it, just like you would on a No Range Entangle. It would make a sword build more complicated for Heroic especially. So what? We buy those weapons with cash, not CP. And they are already pretty complex builds.

Maybe I'll cross-post him here. No one will ever let him into a game, though, and he's unpublished. But in the honour of the late Jimmy Buffet, I re-present: I'm sure he could win "most annoying" if he could be bothered to put some effort into it.

OK, if we're allowing unlimited advantage stacking, I'm bringing in Margarita Man (he should be putting in an appearing in honour of the late Jimmy Buffett anyway). So, let's assume that we are not allowing unlimited advantage stacking, nor massive boosts to the typical AP/DC limits. I'll do some basic math. 12 DC is 8d6 Penetrating and 9 1/2d6 AP compared to a 12d6 unadvantaged attack. If my opponent has 25 defenses, I'll average 8 STUN penetrating, 20 STUN AP or 17 STUN normal. If the target has hardened defenses, AP drops to 8 STUN. This seems pretty comparable at average defenses. Bump AP to +1/2 and it either does 15 STUN or 3 STUN. Stick to the normal attack. If my opponent has 35 defenses, I'll average 8 STUN penetrating, 15 STUN AP or 9 STUN normal. If the target has hardened defenses, AP does no 8 STUN on average. This seems reasonable as well. Bump AP to +1/2 and it either does 10 STUN or nothing. Stick to the normal attack. If my opponent has 15 defenses, I'll average 13 STUN penetrating, 25 STUN AP or 27 STUN normal. If the target has hardened defenses, AP drops to 18 STUN. The normal attack ooutperforms at low defenses. Bump AP to +1/2 and it either does 20 STUN or 13 STUN, a bigger advantage to the normal attack. I haven't sold myself one way or the other on Penetrating, but if AP is to be useful, +1/4 is the right advantage. I think your instincts are accurate. If we dropped Penetrating to +1/4, would it matter? Now it's 9.5 STUN on average except for low defense targets (15 in my example). It lacks any volatility. However, if you want to do BOD, a Penetrating KA is much more effective than any other possibility I can think of in any game with universal resistant defenses. It's also a nice advantage for agents, as already mentioned, so they can trickle a little damage with their lower DC attacks. I'd call it a much more niche advantage.

Ultimately, it is the GM who decides how to run the villains. If you can't figure out a scenario that's not annoying to the players, maybe pick a different adversary?

Because 5 points for +1d6 HTH damage would be stupid overpriced compared to a Martial Arts DC or +5 STR. Even 6 points for +2 skill levels with 3 HTH maneuvers would be a better deal - +1 more point per DC, but you can use it for OCV or DCV instead. We've had lots of discussions over why KA is the only power that can be augmented by STR; suffice to say that I consider that the troublesome mechanic. Viewed another way, STR should not come bundled with extra KA DCs for those characters who buy an HKA (or who buy enough HKA if you keep the doubling rule).

Honestly, I don't think Penetrating was considered when AP was repriced. I agree with AP at -1/4. Pre-6e, AP attacks tended to sit, seldom used, in Swiss Army Multipowers. High defense characters typically Hardened their defenses, and low defense characters were hit harder by, say, 12d6 normal than 8d6 AP anyway. On the other hand, AP seldom results in BOD damage like Penetrating KAs do. Maybe the advantage should be higher for KAs/inflicting BOD.

I used Recoverable Charge more to establish some baseline for what "only usable after Condition X" might be worth as a limitation. While a charge recoverable every turn means it could be used multiple times in the same combat (which the RAW notes as a standard the GM can waive), a single recoverable charge could also be used as early as the first phase of combat. Assuming a pure "power bar rises over time" model, the combat has to go on for two turns for the character to get two uses (that is, power up twice). I think Recoverable Charges remains a reasonable model to base the limitation on. If you expect the average combat to run for about 5 turns, then 4 recoverable charges (which would be -1/2 IIRC) would allow use of the power after each of 4 PS 12 recoveries in a 5-turn combat. That's still more limited, since it can't be used in the first turn, much less four times in rapid succession at the start of combat. Doc, I am sure I recall a "cooldown" in the past as well, but I can't remember where.

END reserve started out as a limitation - 8x Reserve was a -0 limitation like 16 charges. It became a Power in 4e. When we're discussing, say, a 100 AP power with an END reserve, typically I see value - making that 0 END would cost another 50, which would buy a sizable END reserve. Here, we're using it as a limiting factor. One use END reserve will only cost 5, but it needs some way to recover. It starts at zero, but that limitation on 5 points won't be worth a lot. We need a Heal that has low re-use time Triggered by whatever the Trigger is. 1d6 Heal would restore 1d6 END, so it has to go off 6 times to fill the bar. We have to override the rules to make its re-use more frequent than per turn, and it needs an auto-resetting trigger. Now, if we also slap on a limitation that the power costs normal END plus battery END, there's a savings, but it still seems like average usage 1/turn or less is more limiting than those points will suggest. One option is a custom limitation. Another might be a Dependence - that can be used to set conditions on powers, but this is only one power, so I don't like a Complication rather than a Limitation. What about 1 Recoverable charge? Normally, that would be a -1 1/4 limitation (two levels down the chart), and the charge would be recovered after combat. This could recover during combat, but would not be usable until the character meets its recovery condition during the combat. That sounds like a reasonable trade-off, or at least a reasonable starting point for a limitation on the power.

That's fine for experienced Hero Gamers. Is it obvious to a new player or GM that this one 60 point attack power is massively unbalanced?

PURPLE!!! Imagine increasing the hours in the day by almost 50%!!!

A lot of people really liked that 4e Hand Attack with a base value of 3 CP/1d6 so their 12d6 Blast could be in a Multipower with a +20d6 Hand Attack. If I am relying on that Multipower for attacks, I will have other defenses and a MP slot will be for turtling up. Adding +20 PD and ED to a character whose defenses are on even the low end of campaign average seems pretty good to me - why does he need +30/+30? I'd prefer +20/+20 at 0 END if I just recovered from KO with 3 STUN and 3 END!

Now, is the annoying part that the character is hard to hit, can easily escape and requires considering new tactical options to defeat... or that the character spends his phases humiliating the PC by dumping beverages on him? You can run well past the speed of sound, and the best use you can think to put that do is dumping fast food on people? That's worse than the character who designs and builds super-scientific devices and uses them to rob jewellery stores and banks.

All good items - historically, these have not been presented so much as "campaign guidelines and dial settings" as extrapolated from sample characters - typically, characters whose expected usage (expected to go one on one against a single PC; expected to be a tough fight for a team of PCs,; etc.). I've sometimes questioned whether those "back of 1e|" characters were intended to be reasonable solo villains (tougher than any one PC, but easily taken down by the team), with the expectation that PCs, at least starting PCs, would be more like those "wimpy" Geodesics. As players, we built more towards going one on one against Shrinker, Pulsar, Dragonfly or Green Dragon.

It we think back far enough, Damage Resistance was flat cost (15 points for half defenses against KA BOD; 30 for full defenses; with either granting full defenses against KA STUN) and Armor cost 5 CP per +3 defenses. Blend with that 1 CP/defense for force fields, but they cost END. We've now got Armor that costs 3 CP per 2 defense; make it Costs END if you want an old-school force field, so repriced Armor and a higher AP force field, so pricing is consistent.

I would say those ad hoc decisions are still decisions. When you or I set up a Supers game, we have likely already set many of the dials not recognizing that we have done so. We know that: - Without Hit Locations - Standard Supers point totals (we might consider this one, depending on the game) - Equipment must be purchased with points, not cash (and looting fallen opponents won't allow you to keep their stuff) - Knockback; Knockdown is a limitation Until some poor new player who tries to read the books asks questions that are so obvious that old-school Hero players don't even recognize that there IS a question. If the entire group is new to Hero and starts with the 6e (or 5e, maybe 4e but it had Supers stuff in the back if you bought the big book - but that won't help for a different genre) and has to figure out all those dial settings, coming away believing that Hero is super-complicated is a pretty predictable result. Even though most of those dials are pre-set as "Superheroic" and "Heroic" for most of us. A quick chart setting the dials in the genre summaries could have done a lot - and putting them near the start of V2 instead of at the end might help those newer to Hero focus their read of the rules based on the game they want to play.

@Doc Democracy, pretty much any fixed cost ability has that issue. Damage Reduction is a good example - the more STUN you would otherwise take, the more Defenses effectively added by Reduction.