Hugh Neilson

If the target has 60 defenses, and the roll on the AP attack is 28 STUN, instead of halving the defenses (unlimited AP) to 30, the attack can only reduce them by the 28 damage rolled. Under the current rules, halving the defenses, 28 - 30 = 0 STUN. Under the new rules, 28 - [60-28 = 32] = 0 stun, but now the size of the attack sets a cap on the reduction in the target's defenses. I'll just stick to "AP halves defenses". That works fine for me.

What if we added a note that the reduction in defenses can never exceed the amount rolled on the AP attack? Alternatively, AP could subtract the amount rolled on the dice from the target's defenses, with the reduction limited to half of the target's defenses.

If we dig into the history, 1e had only Regeneration - no Healing. By 2e, Hero made a fantasy game - that needed a Healing power, and an Aid power (neither of which were in Supers yet). It stayed that way, I think, in 3e. 4e combined everything. Aid also healed, unless you limited it to only Healing. Anything in any of the old games made it into the new system [NOTE: 3e and prior, Hero published games; 4e, Hero published a system and games built using the system; 5e+, Hero published a game system and advice on how you could use it to design your own games.] 5e looked to do some streamlining. Some of it worked. Regen did not, in part because they had to tone down Healing, and that required Regen to have a handwave for the re-use period required to balance Healing better. 6e put Regen back, but its cost was higher, consistent with trying to build per-turn Healing. I recall the 1e "Characteristic Drain/Transfer". While you did not Drain CP directly, it worked that way indirectly as a STR Drain cost 10 points per 1d6, but a SPD drain cost 100 points per 1d6. 2e's broadening of Drain and Transfer required the direct use of CP to measure. I had forgotten Regen was per recovery! Maybe 5e should have built Regen as 1 REC, BOD only, moved up the time chart

I'm not sold on the universality this would require. It suggests that Damage Reduction should have a cap on the damage reduced, or even that Desolidification should cap just how Desolid you really are. The cost of AP scales with the size of the attack. If you have 70 defenses, an 8d6 AP attack is just as worthless as a 10d6 attack. That, to me, is adequate scaling. If you did not make those defenses Resistant, KAs can cut through them. There is no limit to how many points of nonresistant defenses a KA can ignore either.

I would also start with the basic rule that, if you can do it, the bad guys can do it with similar frequency. Are you OK with the typical villain team having one or two members who can reliably hit every PC with NNDs?

True. This comes down to how fast we are prepared to allow healing in our game. Regen had no costing issues in early editions - back me up, @Duke Bushido - because you paid a flat cost per BOD healed per turn. No moving up or down the time chart, Regen worked per turn. And it healed BOD. Slowing it down is not cost-efficient as it was not designed to be slowed down, nor redesigned to balance slowing it down. To toss in another option, maybe it is 1 CP to restore 1 DEX or to restore 2 INT because we apply the adjustment power halving rule for defensive stats. I lean toward treating Regen as an adjustment power in this regard. Agreed. It's a character sheet, not a tax return (where have I heard that before?). Anyone trying to assert binding precedent against the GM shall suffer the fate of all Rules Lawyers. Not sold. Both make recovery of something way faster. Neither is "unbalanced" in isolation. Do I expect the characters to take a lot of BOD damage, or am I playing a four-colour game and don't care if a character can recover 6 BOD a turn because they aren't likely to take enough BOD for it to matter. Similarly, am I OK that this character has a massive advantage against a Drain-based opponent, especially one with delayed recovery rates? Maybe "sure, no problem". Maybe "sure to be a problem; no way". Maybe "OK for this character but not for that one" due to other aspects of the two characters. If I'm allowing per segment Regen, I have to do so knowing that this character will recover fast enough to trivialize these attacks. But I also need to consider how this compares to 20 points invested in extra defenses, BOD only. Investing that 30 points into Power Defense wouldn't leave much likelihood of being Drained in the first place. These abilities massively mitigate certain damage types. Will it hurt my game to have them mitigated? If not, who cares what mechanic they use to get there. If you want me to spend 24 CP to recover 1 more point per turn from a Drain, I think I'll just buy Power Defense instead. That's also pretty effective against delayed recovery drains.

Who says we have to allow the APG reductions below once per turn? How much for 1 CP Regeneration, once per phase? How much REC could be purchased for that same price, if we made it END Only - which should be about -1? I have no problem telling a player who thinks they can manipulate the rules to get UberRec on the cheap "no, these powers are for things lacking an existing rapid recovery mechanism - use the normal recovery rules for END and STUN". Did that using continuous Aid back in 4e, but it was all stats below maximum. We eventually modified it to align with the "below zero" recovery time chart. Still very hard to keep down. Here again, not allowing "per phase" solves a lot of the problem. Or just removing STUN and END from the list that can be recovered.

When the rules get in the way of the fun, change the rules. The easiest approach feels like either allowing Continuous on Healing (the reduced re-use time cost will still keep the recovery rate down). Alternatively, what about a "time delay" limitation on Power Defense? It doesn't take Extra Time to activate, just Extra Time to reduce the Adjustment taken. That relies on the attack applying against Power Defense, though. If it were my game, I'd look for a way to keep the cost down, even if it's handwavy, as I don't think this would come up all that often. If these effects could be avoided entirely with 25 points of power defense, recovering faster should cost less than the 25 point cost of full immunity.

The issue is exactly as you say - an attack that is blocked entirely by any defense is less advantageous than one reduced by that defense. How much less so is open to debate. 20 defense is pretty secure that 4d6 won't do any damage anyway. This doesn't fix the ability to switch the NND to "LS - High Heat" or "LS - Need not Breathe". The versatility of the VPP greatly facilitates targeting any opponent's weaknesses. That needs to be a consideration in how they are managed, or even whether they are allowed, in-game.

If I am reading this correctly, dmjalund is suggesting that a power that is stopped by one specific ability or SFX (NND being blocked entirely; Desolid being affected by something) be costed in a VPP with the Variable Special Effect advantage because the VPP user can change the ability or SFX that stops the power. That's worth considering. Or price the NND based on the ability to change the defense making the defense extremely rare.

It's really the action movie trope of massive firepower stunning the room. It should not need to be a maneuver. I'd at least relegate body/soul/mind and mental power classes of mind to "optional", with mental powers that affect machines also relegated to optional. Damage Negation also allows a game where characters have high resistance to damage, but get bloody if faced wih credible opponents. An Iron Age supers game with a standard of, say, 12 DC attacks, 8 DC Negation and 4 defenses would see an average of 10 STUN past defenses, but an above-average roll would draw blood. Actually, it might make more sense to ditch Damage Reduction, which basically just multiplies the character's STUN and CON to resist being Stunned.

I remember Blazing Away! The description noted that, while it was not effective at hitting targets, it counted as an extremely violent action for, IIRC, +4d6 to a PRE attack. I didn't remember this thread, though

A fine descriptor - they are full groan.

Let's assume I want up to 60 AP, one spell at a time, all spells with -1/2 Requires a Skill Roll. I need a 40 point pool (60 AP/1.5 = 40 real points) and a 30 x 3 /1.5 = 60 point control cost = 100 points total. I can cast any spell I want as long as I make my skill roll. If I want to cast another spell next phase (whether the same one or a different one), I need to make my skill roll again. That sounds identical to what you are describing. We had a new player some years back with an "attacks only" VPP. She had a chart for dice and DCs at various advantage levels and a list of advantages, and had no problems picking attacks on the fly.

Play a character with a heroic personality in a game of heroic fantasy? That's just crazy talk!

When AP dropped from +1/2 to +1/4, I recall being initially surprised (it's been +1/2 forever; no real push to change it). Then I assessed its use in my games - it was seldom taken, pretty much only as a Multipower slot that rarely, if ever, got used. +1/4 made it workable. I apply it to Supers Claws as an alternative to the now much more niche KA. I have not seen much use of Penetrating in games either, except for that occasional "get BOD through" KA. That seems to support the CP economics of reducing the advantage to +1/4 much like AP. Should it be higher for a KA? Maybe. Or maybe when we are playing a 4-colour, low-lethality game, we should just reject Penetrating KAs outright. I would also consider making Impenetrable defenses block 1 point of Penetrating damage per point of Impenetrable defenses to mitigate (a bit, at least) unclevlad's exploit. Or I might just have a discussion with my players. If minor Impenetrable defenses are OK for the players, they are OK for the villains. So do we want to disallow that "get out of penetrating free" (in which case the points are likely wasted - why have Penetrating attacks if they are just disregarded?); do we want to disallow Penetrating (either in general or only on KAs); do we want some other fix? The game would not collapse if we removed Penetrating and Impenetrable entirely - most games would likely not even notice.

I referenced the old 2e character as an example - Autofire has changed considerably since then. While I disagree with "1 pip penetrating KA means 1 BOD penetrates", it has been a consistent ruling. One I would not follow in my own games, though.

Back when Penetrating first came out, I was making an alien CatMan warrior. He was agile, had claws, etc. He came in under-budget, so I thought "let's give him a sidearm". That will give him something he can do if he's too far away to close in and attack. I wanted it to be different, so I built the Needler. A small RKA, with that new Penetrating attack and Autofire. Yeah, the Autofire @Duke Bushido still uses - 10 shots, bundled with a +4 OCV. On a character with 33 DEX. And every hit got 1 BOD through unless the target had hardened defenses. That sidearm got rewritten pretty quickly after its first couple of uses!

If we are playing in a campaign where 37 DC attacks are the norm, then I probably would have well over 40 rDEF. Even 60 rDEF is only 2 points per DC. In a 12 DC game, 20 - 25 rDEF is not uncommon. You're tripling that 12 DCs. Make that more like 60 - 75 defenses, 40 - 50 resistant, which is a bit light (37 DCs more than triples 12, but not by much), and we're back to "that 12 1/2d6 KA needs a super-high roll to do BOD but Penetratig gets 10 BOD through at a time, on average". A lot depends on how common accelerated healing is. If you take huge STUN and are KOd, next combat you will virtually always be fully recovered. If you get knocked down below 0 BOD, how long will that take to heal? All we need is 1 BOD through to drop a classic force wall barrier or break a focus. A lot depends on the game, of course. If you are playing in a game where rDEF is constrained so that, typically, a KA will get 1 BOD per die past defenses, Penetrating isn't very useful. But in a 12 DC game, for example, that's 10 rDEF. Most characters I see for 12 DC games have a lot more than 10 rDEF. At 15 rDEF, a 4d6 KA still has a shot at getting some BOD past on a high roll, but it won't do so consistently. The penetrating attack will trickle a little BOD through on each hit. At +1/2, we get 2 1/2d6 for 60 AP/12 DCs so 2.5 BOD on average. AP at +1/4 leaves a 3d6 KA (3d6+1 if we get a bit over 60 AP), which will get 3-4 BOD past that 15 rDEF, doing better than the Penetrating HKA. Higher defenses will block more of the AP attack. They won't block more of the penetrating attack. Average defenses make a lot of difference to the comparison.

Equal can never be achieved. Equating +5 PD with breathing underwater can't be done. But I do know that the ability to breathe underwater is situational enough that it should not cost 75 points, nor should +75 PD be reduced to a cost of 5 points. And I know that when the exact same points spent one way generate the exact same mechanical benefits as a different spend, and gets something else as well, that is unbalanced.

While I find "perfect balance" elusive, when you can buy the exact same mechanical effect in multiple different ways, for multiple different costs, that is clearly "not balanced" in my view.

Sad but true. And far from the most extreme example of "When you folks do it, you should get a condemnation. When our folks do it, they should get a commendation." politics.

In play, it seems like exactly what I have to do now. Do I meet the STR min? If yes, start with base DC and full OCV. If no, subtract 1 OCV and 1 DC for every 5 STR (or fraction thereof) short. If STR - STR MIn is 5 or more, add 1 DC for 5, and one more DC for every additional 5, capping at doubling the DCs. How is that different from the current play experience? I note that: I am not sure I have ever seen a fantasy game where the average character has 10-13 STR (especially those using melee weapons), but who cares when the equipment is purchased for cash instead of CP? When I look at the weapons on p 204 6e V2, specifically their Active and Real costs, I realize pretty quickly that these builds are already quite complicated. I also realize how seldom they have any actual impact on the game. I am also reminded that most have 1 meter of Stretching built in. Finally, I will note that the changes to adding damage, including the potential removal of the doubling rule, was intended to simplify those rules. Not sure we got there... In Supers, the STR Min is still a limitation. We just don't use it. Maybe we should. 4d6 HKA, STR Min 20 (-1), Can't Add Damage (-1/2) drops that KA down to 24 points, cheaper than a 2d6 HKA, even if the character has a 30 STR. But that's why STR Min shouldn't be used in a Supers game. As I said, "allow STR adds" does not have to mean "allow unlimited STR adds". I'm not sure anyone is suggesting unlimited adds, although that's not a lot cheaper than STR and KA in a Multipower. hmmm... 15 STR (5 points) 75 Multipower Pool 7 f +75 STR 7 f 5d6 HKA Total cost 94 points. A bit more than 90 STR (80) and a 1 pip HKA (5). 45 STR (35 points) 45 Multipower Pool 4 f +45 STR 4 f 3d6 HKA 88 points. That's a lot closer. And the HKA can be combined with a 9d6 STR strike. So, is 8 points the fair price for adding a 6d6 HKA to Grond's repertoire? I guess it must be, because the doubling rules are a reasonable compromise, right? "Grond can use his mighty fists to strike powerful blows (Normal; STR slot), or to rend his targets (Killing; HKA slot)."

toe may toe, toe mat toe poe tay toe, poe tat toe

With that in mind, I'll move the chain back to its initial distractor... My proposal is not to remove STR adds from Heroic games. It is to shift that "extra dice requiring STR" to be a function of the specific HKA, just like a spear does not become Armor Piercing because it is pointy, but because it is purchased as armor piercing. That knife would be constructed as 1/2d6 KA, No range (STR min to get that 1/2d6 without penalty) + 1/2d6 KA, No range, requires 5 additional STR per additional DC. So the weak halfling is still doing less damage than the average human, who does less damage than that above-average human. Just the same as it always has. And the damage caps out at about that above-average human level, because the knife build has 2 extra DCs requiring STR, so no matter how strong you are, you can't access any more HKA DCs - the knife doesn't have any more HKA DCs. But you could do a Combined Attack with the knife and your raw STR, which that Troll would logically do, inflicting 1d6+1 KA with the knife and 7d6 Normal from its raw STR - so the massively strong 35 STR Troll will do more damage with a strike than that 15 STR human. For a Supers character, if they want a 1d6+1 KA, they buy a 1d6+1 KA, No Range. If they want it to have a STR minimum (how come the Super's sword never has an STR min, only an adder?), they take a limitation. If they want it to do more damage from STR, then they buy more DCs limited to require STR (may not be much of a limitation if their STR maxes it, but I'd at least give -1/4 since they can be drained - and they can expect it will happen when they take the limitation). If they only want the +6DCs from 30 STR, great - don't put the STR Min on there. Just as you saying "I believe STR should add" need not mean "I think Grond should do 9 1/2d6 KA with a knife", my saying "I believe more KA DCs for extra STR should be paid for" does not mean "I think fantasy weapons should not have added damage for STR". We both seem to agree that verisimilitude suggests that STR augment the damage from those weapons. Where we seem to disagree is whether that verisimilitude should be a mechanic provided due to SFX, or a mechanic paid for because the SFX require that mechanic.