Hugh Neilson

How about ruling the character is off-balance if he rolls with the punch? He's not prone, but just off-balance, and needs to either spend a half phase to regain his bearings or takes a penalty on actions in his next phase. I'd probably impose more than a -1 OCV, maybe -3 penalty would work. It's a bit of a tradeoff. Doc's method leaves the penalty no matter what, but it's a fairly small penalty. This approach imposes a more serious penalty, but you have the choice of taking only a half phase next phase to eliminmate the penalty.

We've been over this. Every genre has its own atack/defense ratios. If you're going to assess "damage vs defenses", you can't just ignore all genres except one either. HERO is a universal rules system. At this point, the issue becomes not one of pricing individual advantages, but one of whether the advantage stacking rules need to change. These discussions all seem to come back to powers with stacked advantages, so that seems to be a key underlying issue. I'm not saying it should change, but I'm not experiencing any of these theoretical problems you site on various threads. Which is likely another reason that more than 2 SM bonuses "requires GM approval" (which I take to mean "Is illegal under the baseline rules, but the rule could be ignored where appropriate for a specific power construct which will not be unbalancing"]

It seems all these threads eventually come down to a problem with advantage stacking being as much, or more, the real concern. Yet we never discuss how to fixz the advantage stacking issue. To me, reduced END should be looked at pretty close - it's about the play balance. "Your character can fire off huge attacks which pretty much always hit all day without tiring. Show me the offsetting weaknesses in other areas which would persuade me that this character is balanced."

Thank you. I know you run a longstanding balanced campaign, and it's good to hear from someone who has seen the rules in use. Your experience matches my gut feel, by the way, and I think my players would see it the same way. This seems a comon problem on these "balanced/unbalanced" threads. I think (and you'll correct me if I am in error) that FREd does not outright prohibit firing more than 2-3 shots. However, I believe it cautions that such a limit would be appropriate and should not be exceeded without GM permission. I take "requires GM permission" to mean "by default this is not permitted", which would mean it is against the rules. However, it is one step lower than the book actually stating "the rule is that you can fire no morethan three shots in a rapid fire attack". The only way around the DCV penalty, in my view, is levels iwth DCV "only usable with rapid fire". Assuming an 8 CV (pretty common in a Supers campaign), that's probably 27 points (+8 DCV, only when Rapid Firing, so my DCV = 8 + 8 = 16 x 1/2 = 8 - +1/2 because you won't buy it if you don't plan on using it pretty regularly). Add 5 (is it 5 or 10?) for the Rapid Attack skill to get this down to 1/2 phase, and it costs 32 points. Seems to me Autofire would have been a lot cheaper. I also challenge how often one can capture all the opposition, and no bystanders or teammates, in the area of effect. But I would admit that 18 END isn't that big a deal, especially if you can fire it off on Segment 12 (start of combat) then take an immediate recovery.

You've missed my point. Both the 5d6 KA and the 1d6 +16 SM KA cost the same as the 15d6 EB. That's my baseline for comparisons, since the EB is the "standard attack" and a KA is built to kill instead. The straight KA does 89.0% the average STUN and 116.7% the average BOD of the EB. It will do 7" knockback on average vs 8" for the EB, so abut even (the damage won't matter, only the loss of CV and 1/2 phase to get up). The +16 SM KA averages 124.4% the STUN and 23.3% the BOD of the EB. It will virtually never do knockback. That's the tradeoff. This is 115.6% of the EB Stun, 46.7% of the EB BOD and minimal chance of knockback, though a better chance than 1d6, compared to the baseline of an ordinary attack. At 1d6, +11, we average 91.0% STUN, 23.3% the BOD and no knockback, inferior in all respects to the 15d6 EB, with the possible exception of a target lacking resistant defenses entirely. Make it 2d6 with +4 Stun Multiple and it averages 46.69 STUN (88.9% EB), 7 BOD (46.7%) and limited knockback prospects. Again, inferior in all respects. 3d6+1 with +2 averages 11.5 BOD (76.7% EB), 53.71% STUN (102.3% KA) and small KB on average, but much more likely to fail to do knockback than the EB. Under the rules as written, it costs the same as the EB. Under your modification, it costs 87.5 points, a 1/6 increase. Your problem with the level of enhanced STUN over a normal KA is fixed at the cost of making the advantage inferior to the alternative of an ordinary EB. Advantage stacking is a completely separate issue. Note the disproportionate AE attacks which are also NND (and hey, why not toss 0 END on there as well!) The defenses need not be resistant - as long as the target has any Rdef, all his defenses count against STUN. The 3d6 AP attack is, however, much more likely to do serious (BOD) injury, as is a Penerating attack. It will get through 20 rDef half the time (non-hardened, of course). But the bigger question is, if +2 SM is more effective than AP, does tis mean SM is underpriced, or AP is overpriced? AP is valuable only where average defense is quite large compared to average attacks.

You've read my posts, Gary - I'm not coming from high moral ground here, am I? I think we both like to get our poiint across, and I know I'm not overly politically sensitive to the phrasing of my points. We may disagree on some issues, but that's life. And I agree with some other posters who've indicated we definitely get a thorough analysis of the issue. If you look over the last coul=ple of threads (this one and Rapid Fire), we generally agree on a lot of the issue, but disagree with how severe the issue is, and how to deal with it. At the end of the day, neither of us would lightly allow someone to take +12 Stun M One last parting shot. A 1d6 RKA, +16 Stun Multiple (75 points) averages 3.5 BOD and 65.3 STUN. A 5d6 RKA does 17.5 BOD and 46.7 STUN. A 15d6 EB does 52.5 STUN, 15 BOD. They're very different, but not wholly unbalanced. The 1d6 KAwill basically never get knockback, and will do no damage (1 BOD) 1 time in 6, two times in 6 against high DEF targets. On the other hand, 1 time in 3, it's probably instant KO. The variability is way too high, so I'd probably allow it only if the character agreesto Standard Effect (3 BOD, 56 Stun on average). The volatility is the bigger problem, and a bit worse than a regular KA since the range is the full 1-6.. All we've done is trade a SM Lotto for a BOD Lotto. If we use +3/4 per two multiples, 1d6 gets +11 stun mult for a +4 advantage (5 x 3/4 + 1/4 = +4) averages 47.8 STUN (virtually no change from the 5d6 RKA despite loss of BOD and KB) and still has a hideous range (14 average on 1 BOD, 84 on a 6). Your approach may not ban the construct, but it might just as well - it just isn't effective. And that's the crux of my case - the present rule is not hideously unbalancing. Your fix does not restore the balance, it simply tips it the other way. I guess one could then go +3 SM for +1, or +5 for +1 1/2, but I don't see the problem being big enough to mandate such a solution.

Re: Re: JSA powers I'm working on a Johnny Thunder type character and this is the approach I'm taking. This one's a bit wonky in that "Johnny" is elderly and will generally send Bolt out to act on his own, making Bolt more the character than Johnny. As a result, the "can't do anything without orders" aspect is eliminated.

I did not say BOD and knockback are always more valuable. I said they are sometimes more valuable. The "swiss army knife" multipower remains an issue, but comes back ore to whether frameworks create problems than whether KA stun multiples are accurately priced. I could make the same case that NND's are too cheap since the SAKMP gets swapped for a straight attack on anyone who looks like he has the defense. Here, I must disagree with your design philosophy. I do so carefully because, in general, I agree with your comment. However, HERO has the philosophy of "anything is possible". Balancing this, the bok indicates where the GM should carefully consider whether a power should be allowed using caution signs, stop signs and "requires GM permission" notes. The last is, in my opinion, the highest level of caution the rules give. And more tha none bonus stun multiple is, by the books, a "requires GM permission" ability. Many "usable as an attack" items are hugely unbalancing. That is why the advantage has a stop sign. Should the advantage be removed from the books, or the combinations which cause real issues (eg. megascale movement powers, EDM) be elimninated from the rules? They are commonly disallowed by GM's, so tyhey are normally house ruled away, as you put it. But deleting the option deletes any means of constructing some abilities. I probably wouldn's miss "+1 Stun Multiple". If you want an attack that knocks people out, buy an EB. But at reasonable levels, it is a reasonable means of creating a KA that brings STUN and BOD averages closer to a normal attack. The cost of HERO's flexibility is a need for players and GM's to be vigilant for potential abuses of that flexibility. The regularly recurring "abusive power" threads highlight that quite well. Finally, if you feel I'm "jumping down your throat", then I apologize. That's not my intention. Perhaps you kight cnsider posting as though the ideas of others may have some merit, even when they do not agree with your own.

Actually, they average the same at the 105 AP level (21 d6 EB - 7 = 14; 7d6 KA x 3.5 = 24.5 - 10.5 = 14"). Below, the EB will do more knockback, and above the KA wins. The point, however, was that a bonus SM KA will lose out on knockback. A 21d6 EB averages 73.5 STUN, and our 7d6 KA averages a bit lower at 65.4. Add one SM and get 5 1/2 d6 KA for 106 points and STUN averages 71.6. Buy a lot of extra stun multiples, and the KA rapidly surpasses the EB. If not for the -1, the KA would do grerater STUN from the outset, clearly the wrong result. Plus the fact that half of KA's will inflict minimal STUN counterbalances the fact that some KA hits inflict a ton of STUN. Fixed Stun Multiples A fixed 3x multiple equalizes KA and EB average STUN. The KA does a bit more BOD, has the Res Def advantage (for what it's worth) and at standard point levels does less KB. Shouldn't the standard be 2.5 (a bit less than the average) to be consistent with other standard effects (considered to roll 3, not 3.5)? This would still leave the KA at a STUN disadvantage of about 20% (eg. 35 vs 42 at 60 AP), It would, however, guarantee te KS doesn't get that dreaded "1x" effect.

1. "Clearly Superior" OK, first off +3 SM (example above) results in 21% more STUN, but 43% less BOD and a commensurate reduction in the likelihood of knockback. STUN is important, but it's not everything. For some examples, consider: - "takes no STUN" automotons such as robots and golems - objects - which power would you prefer if you need to damage a 20 DEF wall, or get through a 1 DEF 50 BOD obstruction quickly? - How about a 20 DEF force wall (not that unreasonable iof we have 105 point attack powers flying around) - I need to move my target (maybe he's radioactive and standing awfully close to sensitive chemicals, or sensitive normals) - sometimes, one shot won't KO, or it's too late by the time I get my following action. A little time and creativity will build lots more examples where STUN is not the key item. As such, I challenge whether having a STUN advantage is always "clearly superior". If it were, why would anyone buy a KA - normal attacks do more STUN for the points anyway. 21d6 EB does 73.5 STUN, 21 BOD and way more knockback than either KA example. 2. The Rules as Written +1/4 per +1 SM creates a real concern only when purchased multiple times. Gary implicitly accepts this as he allows the first +1 for a +1/4 advantage. Go back to FREd and read the description. More than one +1 requires GM permission. I'm not inclined to grant it, not so much for game balance but because killing attacks should bbe used to model attacks that kill, rather than ko. Enhancing STUN without enhancing BOD doesn't fit that model. 3. The KA Lotto Equalizer Want the Wolverine clones to hate your character? Buy the KLE. Damage Reduction, Stun Only, 1/4 vs KA's with SM 4+; 1/2 vs KA's with SM 5+; 3/4 vs KA's with 6+ SM. This blunts the lotto quite effectively. It's not cheap, but there are some pretty hefty limitations. -1/2 for "Stun Only" seems right. "Only vs KA's" should be -1/2 or -1 by itself. Base the SM limitation similar to "activation". A 4+ happens 1 in 3 on normal KA's, and 9 or less is a 37.5% chance. A 5+ occurs 1 in 6, so say 8 or less (7 or less is 16.2%). Activation rolls don't go low enough to describe a 6+ multiple!

I would look at the specific character to assess whether itr's reasonable. If he inflicts 2d6 KA, it's likely reasonable - he'll roll low enough to get no BOD on occasion. If he does 4d6 KA (how? You tell me! Deadly Blow + high STR/skill levels + big weapon?), it probably isn't worth -1/2. If he has a nakled advantage of Penetrating to apply to any weapon, I wouldn't give him a limitation. In other words, I would base the limit on how often the specific character buying the power will likely fail to inflict BOD damage.

From your other comments, I'd say it seems reasonable for your campaign. It's also noteworthy that many of the defenses you note are "invisible", so he's likely to use this on a few people who are immune. That leaves the big question whether to allow -1/2 for "only if weapon does BOD". Not a big deal if it's in a multipower, but I'd say this merits a limitation - it means the power woh';t have its effect at times. How great a limitation depends on how often you expect his attack won't do BOD. Since Act 14- (also -1/2) works about 83.8% of the time [iIRC], I would expect the character to fail to inflict BOD maybe 1 time in 6 at a -1/2 level.

Once the target falls under 0 PRE, he has to make PRE rlls (and these are now 9- or worse, remember) to take any offensive action. Get him down to -30, and he pretty much just cowers, I believe. You need quite a bit of Drain to get that efect, of course, but once he's down there, he stays there for a while. And the Drain doesn't lose efectiveness as the victim becomes familiar with you, nor is it less effective when he has no reason to be frightened (eg. he's backed up by teammates). And it tends to be really effective on egoists who just rely on their high EGO for defense from PRE attacks (or from anyone who bought PRE "only to defend vs PRE attacks, I suppose, since this isn't a PRE attack). Whether it's worth the cost is a good question, though.

Let's turn it around - would you feel you jhad been unfairly treated if your GM introduced a character with an identical power which was used against you? I find that's a great way of identifying abilities which should not be allowed.

Yeah, but this still doesn't align wilth Wolvie. Magnetism is generaly TK , metal only. Why would Wolvie's metal be more magnetic? The metal skeleton is a special effect for some of his durability. Turning to organic steel was a special effect for Colossus' powers. That has advantages against some opponents (Proteus, for example) and drawbacks against others (such as Magneto). I don't see these going beyond the usual minor advantages/drawbacks of most SFX.

I don't see this as a vulnerability (see above) as Wolvie doesn't seem to take extra damage from this. A phys lim seems appropriate if anything is. I'm inclined to chalk it up to special effects and not award any points. After all, a robot, Iron Man, a swordsman and any number of other characters with metal special effects have a similar issue. Maybe give him +5 on his Hunted sicne this provides Magneto with an advantage, making him comparably more powerful?

I'd be inclined to treat poison as equipment - find someone who makes it and go purchase it. Alternatively, the character culd take a skill enabling manufacture of poisons, but they would still need appropriate raw materials. That skill would likely assist in knowing where to locate such materials. While this carries no character point cost, the GM keeps the hammer of price and availability of materials. It also permits the GM, if desired, to decide what poisons are actually available, much like deciding what spells can be learned by a wizard in some campaigns. And I wouldn't want to be the guy who rolls an 18 using his poisoned weapon... If the character wants greater certainty of a poison supply, perhaps he could be permitted to buy a VPP for this purpose - but that's pretty point-prohibitive. Perhaps he could purchase a Contact who has access to, and will sell, poisons.

A nice summary. I would just clarify that only the BOD goes against resistant defenses assuming the character has any resistant defenses. However, there is the advantage of potentially mush higher STUN on a good SM roll (offset by the drawback of piotentially much lower STUN). As we add more multiples, the avreage STUN does go up, but the BOD, and Knockback come down. As well, the range of damage becomes more erratic since, with less dice of BOD, rolling minimum damage becomes much more likely - when's the last time a 15d6 EB came up all 1's?

Re: Multiple Distinctive Features Some of my comments may be a bit off, as I'm going from Wolvie Classic Legit disadvantage, in my opinion. "Extreme Reaction" is dependent on the campaign setting, but MU and Ult both have a prejudice against mutants. No disadvantage here, just the effects of HKA having a visible power effect. It saved him a +1 advantage on his KA for fully invisipbe power effects. Similarly, the Human Torch doesn't get Dist Features: On Fire I'd probably allow this but it's worth, at best, 5 points. It has been established in MU that Wolvie has documents explaining metal implants so he can walk through a metal detector in an airport, show these documents and get on the plane, so he doesn't suffer much. Argyuably, this is also a special effect, but one fior effects which would normally be invisible, so if he can squeeze 5 points, I'd let him have it (of course, this is the same disad that says "can be picked up by magnetic powers", so he has suffered real consequences for this). Uniforms have been covered pretty much below. Wolvie regularly goes incognito in street clothes, soi he doesn't wear it all the time. Perhaps a Reputation which applies only while in costume might be more approporiate. As to the "overlap" question, I would suggest that adding more sight-based distinctiveness only makes the feature harder to conceal and/or cause a greater reaction. Let's look at Godzilla - DF Giant Monster Reptile *(not concealable, extreme reaction). Are you going to give Gollyzilla more more points for a second DF: Purple Polka Dots (always noticed)? Probably not - he's no more distinctive for it.

To me, the Jack of Hearts overlaps with either focus limitation or some other disadvantage, perhaps a dependence, physical limitation, etc. reflecting the negative consequences of removing the uniform. A social limitation for the fact he canot safely remove the armor and is therefore easy to locate would also seem more appropriate than distinctive features (especially in the Marvel Universe where there's such a large number of supers running around).

That describes a fair chunk of Champions villains, doesn't it?

Adding 25% to the cost of something already balanced and making it 37.5% more effective across the board would be unbalanced. Let's assume that KA and other attacks, all without advantages, are balanced. Adding 37.5% STUN damage for 25% does not increase knockback or body damage, does it? Perhaps these are valueless in your campaign. They are not in mine. Frankly, as a player, I would much rather my character be knocked out by an attack that does lots of stun than killed by an attack that does lots of body. Apply your logic to NND's (a comment made previously which you have chosen to ignore). AYou use the example of a 15d6 EB getting 27.5, 22.5 or 17.5 STUN past various defense levels. A 15d6 NND costs twice as much, and gets 52.5 damage through. 100% increase in cost. Damage increases by 90%, 133% or 200%. What should we change the advantage to in order to balance the NND? The average of the three increases, by the way, is 141% - that implies somewhere between +1 1/4 and +1 1/2. If we make that change, do we change the AVLD cost? Using a 7 1/2 d6 NND (same cost), we inflict 26.5 STUN across the board. It's a bit closer now, although still superior against all but the lightest defended target. By that logic, it is probably "balanced" (since it won';t work on everyone), but only with 75 AP attacks and defenses ranging from 25 to 35. Let's look at Penetrating. A 10d6 Penetrating EB costs the same, and inflicts 10, 10, and 10 STUN, on average. Should we reduce the price of Penetrating? The results are worse across the board. Make it armor piercing instead. Now it inflicts 22, 20 or 17 - again, worse at al average defense levels. Clearly it must also be overpriced, right? And this is before considering the possibility of hardened defenses - perhaps these should be removed to make Penetrating and AP have at least some value! Or do we need to adjust only those items you perceive as providing a benefit at your campaign levels of defenses? Which advantages are "balanced" by your definition? Looking solely at STUN that gets through on an average attack with an arbitrary level of active points and an arbitrary range of defenses does not show the whole picture. It looks like classic "determine test data from conclusions desired" research. For me, the Hero System is sufficiently balanced - without me tinkering with it - to be effective. Where it does not balance, it is generally due to a pretty "out there" construct which is pretty easy to identify and rule against.

Which is it, Gary? Are you saying your fix (or some other fix) should be the rule, or aren't you? Either the present rule (+1 SM is a +1/4 advantage) is unbalanced and should be fixed, or it isn't.

Competent enough to potentially succeed (maybe even survive). Less downside if they do die than if we send a more stable operative. Sounds like the ideal candidate for a high risk mission. Note that (at least in adventure fiction) a "suicide mission" does not mean "you go out, you die and you accomplish nothing". It means "you may accomplish the objective, but making it back alive isn't likely". For example, the rebel attack on the Death Star was a suicide mission. Slim odds of success, and slimmer odds of getting out alive, but a very important objective. If the Death Adders in this role worked for the good guys, they'd be classic heroic figures, actually.

When you said: "The "balanced" price for increased stun multiple for killing attacks should be +3/4 for every +2 stun multiple, with each odd stun multiple costing +1/2 and each even stun multiple costing +1/4." implying that +1/4 is an unbalanced price. Your focus on "how much damage gets through average defenses assuming the target is struck" seems to result in tunnel vision. A 2d6 EB will get no damage through in most campaigns. A 1d6 NND will average 3.5, infinitely greater! Is NND unbalanced? Using 60 points and 25 defenses, 12d6 gets gets 17 STUN but 6d6 NND gets 21 (35% more!) Ban the NND? Reprice it to +1 1/4 where 56 points gets 17.5 damage (leaving some leeway for the fact some will take no damage)? Note that we have to reprice the advantage for every variance in average attacks and/or defenses, which basically means rewriting the rules for every genre, subgenre and even power level. Kind of defeats the purpose of a universal game system, at least in my opinion. Take anything to a ludicrous extreme, and the results will be ludicrous. My simple answer to the player is "go back to FEREd and read the note that Killing Attacks are intended to kill. This attack clearly is not intended to kill, but to inflict STUN. It is therefore outside the intent of the mechanic, and thus the spirit of the rules. DENIED - find a more apropriate mechanic I agree there is a problem if you buy ridiculous amounts of the advantage. I do not agree that, if used for its intended purpose, the ability is mispriced. If you buy ridiculous levels of Force Field, it also becomes unbalanced (very quickly in somke genres, such as Fantasy Hero). Should we make it more expensive at all levels, or simply cap the amount (whether a guideline or an absolute resriction) which can be purchased? I prefer the latter approach to changing the rules for everyone to stop abuses by rules rapists. A rules rapist will find a way to manipulate any rules system. One strength of Hero is the explicit counsel that GM's deny any contruct which is unreasonable and would thus be unbalancing. I prefer to use that meta rule to curb abuses rather than propose changes to the system as a whole. Similar to prior threads, I'll ask the open question of anyone reading - despite the POTENTIAL for abuse, has anyone seen large bonus stun multiples ACTUALLY used to unbalance the game?