Hugh Neilson

4 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 

That's why I always utilized the double rule. You can only double a HKA, so that knife at 1/2d6 can only do a maximum of 1d6+1. And I was only using a Troll to show a major difference. What about the character with a 15 STR or a 10 STR, they still easily could be using a knife but still only doing as much damage as that weak halfling. Plus, considering how reduced many FH characters can be, they can't afford to purchase a whole bunch of additional damage bonuses, they need it for skills.

 

But this may just be something to state that we agree to disagree.

 

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.

21 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Thanks for the clarification, please forgive my own assumption. 

Nothing to forgive - if I'm misread, it's because I was unclear.  Thanks for letting me clarify my comment.

10 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Ahem! Six years ago, not sixteen.

 

I thought that made me feel older than I was (no mean feat!).

10 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 

Problem I have is that not allowing STR to increase HKA makes STR pretty much useless in Heroic games. A halfling with a 5 STR does as much damage with a knife as does a Troll with a 35 STR. Just doesn't make any sense. I think it might be a better idea to allow other characteristics add things so that STR isn't the only characteristic doing so. Perhaps allowing EGO to increase your mental attack, and perhaps even allowing DEX to increase your Ranged Attack.

 

Now if you go with the argument that the 35 STR Troll shouldn't be doing 2-1/2d6 Damage with a little knife, I agree with you, that is why I think the doubling rule is a good thing. But stating that someone with 129 times the lifting capacity will do the same damage, just doesn't make sense. 

 

But as I have said before: I love that this game keeps older version usable. So in the case that the new version is something myself and my players truly hate, we can stay with an earlier version without repercussions. I like that this game thinks of all its players, not just the new ones.

 

If the Troll uses that puny knife, he drops from 7 DC to 4 DC.  The use of the dagger renders much of his STR useless already.  In fact, I think I should build a character with the BrickBuster - 1 pip HKA, Usable as an Attack.  He magically covers the target's fists with tin knuckles - a sharp, pointy 1 pip HKA.  Since the troll is (for reasons not explained by RAW - if you feel they are, point me to it) perceived as unable to use that 1 pip HKA (1/2d6 w/ STR) in a combined attack with a 7d6 STR strike, being forced to use that puny HKA puts paid to him!

 

In any case, in Heroic, that sword is a piece of equipment purchased with cash instead of points.  It can have any stats we wish to place on it.  The build is already pretty complex.  That knife would be 1/2d6 HKA, +2 DC (requires STR over STR min to access extra DCs), resulting in the same construction we have at present. As @Duke Bushido suggests, the equipment leverages your STR.  This approach applies the point cost of leveraging your STR to that HKA.

 

Now, I said "like it is now".  That's true unless we want to change those builds by having weapons modified by DEX, or EGO, or the greater of multiple stats.  Or we want some weapons to be especially good at leveraging STR (+1 DC per 3 STR over STR minimum) or not quite so good (+1 DC per 6 STR over STR min).

 

4 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

You missed one.  You could buy 4D6 Killing Attack, no range.  That costs 40 points.  This almost wrecks the "free STR" argument as, for lower values, it is cheaper to buy the power direct.

 

It is not the big thing when you are talking weapons though as that 1/2 limitation gets a bit lost among all the others.  I thought it was worth mentioning though, in the interests of honest debate. 🙂

 

 

Two points to this.  35 STR will never be useless in a Fantasy HERO game, or any heroic setting.  The ability to wield that power gives you huge advantage over those limited to 20 STR.

 

Also, if you think your troll should be doing more damage with weapons, buy them +xD6 HKA with weapons.  In HERO you should be paying for what you get.

 

What I never understood was why, if they kept adding damage due to STR, why they got rid of over-applying STR to a tool, damaged the tool.  So adding 3D6 ka to a dagger, applied that damage to the dagger as well.  You troll could use it to punch through a wall but neither the wall or the dagger are much use after it.  🙂

 

Doc

 

I can buy it as "no STR adds" as well.  From that perspective, I suppose you are paying 10 STR to get +20 STR.  This assumes we do not apply the "no, you must find the most expensive way to buy the power, unless the most expensive way would be to buy an HKA your STR is effective at augmenting" logic presented in some cases.  If I am able to combine KA, STR and these limitations to maximum effect, I should buy a 2 DC (1/2d6) HKA (10 points), plus 8 DC (2 1/2 d6), no STR addition(-1/2; 27 points) and only pay 37 points.  But I am told this is so cheesy that, when noticed, the character sheet should be shredded, I should be booted from the gaming group and the Pope of RPGs should excommunicate me, or some such.

 

But it's not cheesy to change my character concept from "scrawny little guy with great gnarly claws" to "huge brute with smaller claws" to get that extra STR at no extra cost.  Big, brawny guys are the only concept allowed to build an HKA on a cost-effective basis.  Because in Hero, you get what you pay for and pay for what you get!

 

The over-add STR and damage the weapon model is, I believe, still presented as an option.  But how do we apply it to the CatMan whose 1/2d6 HKA comes from natural claws rather than a metal dagger?

 

At least we have Real Weapon to make that dagger less effective at punching through a wall, I suppose.

23 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I would't say it's fixed, either. I did say that they put in safeguards to prevent the blatant racism mention in the quote from the article. Please refrain from making any further assumptions about my motives.

 

I don't suggest that's your motive.  Too often, it is the creator/seller's motive.  Facebook, for example, wasn't exactly forthcoming about selling all its user data - people had to figure that out. Then it became important for them to fix it.

8 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 

But you are paying for it, you have to pay for the STR.

 

Assume that I want a 4d6 HKA.  I can achieve this with a 10 STR and a 3d6+1 HKA - cost 50 points.

 

Or I can achieve this with a 30 STR and a 2d6 HKA - cost 20 points + 30 points = 50 points.

 

If we remove doubling, I can achieve this with 55 STR and 1 pip HKA - cost 45 points + 5 points = 50 points.

 

Under any of these options, I have spent 50 points.  Some options give me more STR, for the same points. It does not seem like I am paying for the STR.  The doubling rule limits the free STR my HKA-using character can have, but does not eliminate it.

 

7 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

You get the benefits of having the STR by buying the STR.  Why should that purchasing get you free HKA as well??  There is already a case that STR should be 2 points per point, if you are adding in free HKA then that becomes much stronger. No?

 

That way lies madness!   If part of the value of STR is that it enhances HKA, then either we need some way for a character lacking an HKA to recoup that portion of the cost of STR, or all characters without an HKA are forced to overpay for STR.

 

6 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 

So I take you are of the opinion that STR should only give you a lifting capacity and not damage.

 

As for not allowing STR to add to HKA, I can understand that in a Superheroic campaign (though I do not agree with it), but definitely not a heroic one such as Fantasy Hero.

 

I would be more online with increasing the cost of STR as I do believe that even in 6th edition it gives you more than it's cost. Perhaps 3 points for every two points of STR?

 

The alternative is to change the build on the weapon, adding extra KA DCs only when weilded by a user with sufficient STR. This could be extra HKA DCs with a limitation or could be broadened out into a much broader advantage which would allow Bruiser to have his 2d6 PD drain (hitting so hard you bruise and are more injured by later physical attacks) enhanced by his STR, to pick one example.

 

Other possible approaches certainly exist.  All attack powers could be like KA, with a ranged version and an HTH version augmented by STR. If yours is neither ranged nor augmented by STR, take a -1/2 limitation instead.  If it is both ranged and augmented by STR, add a +1/2 advantage.

 

However, when you get more of Power X because you have Characteristic Y, this makes Characteristic Y more valuable to any character who is buying Power X then it is to characters not buying Power X.

12 hours ago, Grailknight said:

A lot of words that don't address the main problem of why your solution is incplete. You do an excellent job of finding balance in the rules, but you cannot express it in a manner that makes me accept that STR does not add to HTH Combat. I told you that if you could, I'd switch my position and you didn't even try.

 

You asked for a fix.  To me, a fix is mechanical. The cognitive dissonance is part of game philosophy.  That's more linked to the Hero Maxim that you get what you pay for and pay for what you get, and that mechanics are separate from SFX. Doc nails it, but there is a simple answer that was clarified in 4e.  Depending on who one believes, it was RAI from 1e.

 

3 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

The system is not built on verisimilitude.  The essence of any build question that people come to the boards with is, "describe what you want to happen, then buy the game effects that happen in game".  Verisimilitude is not built in.

 

I can buy Flash, no range, to simulate hitting someone so hard they briefly lose their ability to see/hear.  Common sense says the stronger they are the more effective this should be.

 

I can buy Blast (Phys), to simulate throwing rocks, or other weapons. Common sense says the stronger you are, the more damage these should do.

 

I can buy RKA as above.

 

I can buy Tunnelling, using my immense strength to tear through walls etc.  Surely as I increase my STR that should also increase, for the sake of verisimilitude.

 

Ultimately, STR adds in these ways for historic reasons, possibly even because other games did it and it "made sense" to do it.  It is however an orphan mechanic that is not there to accomplish something that could not be done (I would love an orphan mechanic that facilitated possession). 

 

It even works against the maxim being used to argue for it, the one saying the most expensive way to accomplish an outcome is the valid way (something I don't 100% buy into). As the most expensive way to get 30 STR and 4D6 HKA is to buy them separately. 

 

My key argument is that we do not do this anywhere else it would make sense.  We do not advantage any other characteristics to increase the effectiveness of defences, movement, or anything else: only for STR.

 

There is also the dissonance which arises from comparing to d20.  Yet many gamers express a problem with STR, rather than DEX, improving the chance of hitting in melee, and with armor making the target harder to hit instead of harder to damage.  And the doubling cap also carries cognitive dissonance and d20 deviation.

 

The simple answer to cognitive dissonance in this regard is "Combined Attack".  If you have a 30 STR and a 2d6 HKA, you can currently combine a 4d6 HKA and a 6d6 Strike.  Remove HKA boosts from STR, and you get what you paid for from each element - 2d6 HKA + 6d6 Strike combined attack.  That means that the 10 STR, 3d6+1 HKA character gets what he paid for (3d6+1 HKA and 2d6 Strike combined attack) as does Matterhorn (10d6 Strike + 1/2d6 AP KA) and Grond with a hatpin (18d6 Strike + 1 pip HKA). The d20 system adds an STR add to your damage.  The Hero System permits combination of the two attacks.  In both cases, the high STR character can do more damage than the low STR character.

 

12 hours ago, Grailknight said:

That's a glass is half empty way of looking at a functioning compromise.  It's also incorrect.  Doubling is a limit to the extreme abuse that can occur without it but not a perfect solution. Not buying matching STR is a choice that can be made because the concept doesn't call for it, not an unholy heresy against the gaming gods.

 

One might say that rejecting a balanced fix consistent with Hero maxims because "cognitive dissonance" is a half empty way of looking at a functional fix to an imbalance.

 

12 hours ago, Grailknight said:

As long as the choices have the same cost, what's the problem? Why do you insist that any nonoptimized build is badwrongfun even if it's what the player wants? What about a player who wants to start with a smaller HKA and wants to buy it up with XP?  Or one that starts with an HKA as a slot in Multipower and only needs 1 or 2 XP to bring it up the campaign standard without increasing STR?

 

If choices have the same cost but different benefits, this is a clear and objective balance problem.  It moves us from the Hero maxim of "get what you pay for and pay for what you get" to "pore the rules and splatbooks to find the most effective character optimization choices - don't fall into character traps - model of the d20 system.  I find very few players who will express the desire to play the sub-optimal comic relief sidekick. Many will accept a sub-optimal character in the interests of achieving their character concept. To me, a game which markets playing any concept you can imagine should strive to make all of those concepts playable, not require players of some concepts to be less effective in-game.

 

12 hours ago, Grailknight said:

Again, you use your definition to debate my point. In my version of HA it still adds STR just as an HKA does. It's just normal damage instead of killing. It's a needed power for defining Normal damage weapons but it's application outside of Heroic games is limited.

 

Daredevil uses a billy club.  DCAU Batman uses electric brass knuckles.  That's two micro examples of HA in a superheroic setting. Captain America's shield is an HA. Green Arrow strikes with his bow. Robotman has metal fists. So does Colossus.  Hand Attack - STR damage providing no other elements of STR - is a necessary construction in all games. It needs to be a "power" only in the sense that we define a characteristic with a limitation as a "power".  It is one element of STR, like Lightning Reflexes is one element of DEX.  As it provides only a portion of STR, it should cost less than STR.

 

Your approach causes me cognitive dissonance. Persuade me that doing more damage with STR is not a limited form of STR.  And tell me how to use your system to also enhance Disarm, Grab, etc. without all the benefits of STR, and without Martial Arts.

 

12 hours ago, Grailknight said:

Except that metarule of the system clearly states that only the more expensive options are valid for use. 

 

That metarule is mis-applied routinely. For a character with 30 STR, a 2d6 HKA costs 30 points, but a 4d6 HKA (no STR Add) or a 4d6 RKA (no range) each cost 40.  Should the more expensive build be required?

 

Try building a mental attack using Blast and advantages - you will pay much more than 10 points per 1d6.

 

That rule means "finding a super-cheap mechanic to achieve a highly effective result is very clever, but should be denied in the interest of balance", not "we must seek out the most expensive possible way to buy the effect".

 

11 hours ago, dmjalund said:

STR and HKA (Phys) share an overarching special affect "Physical" this contains the everyday experience that if you apply STR to a sharp object it will do more damage. taking that away may be more 'balanced' but costs verisimilitude

 

Why should this be the one and only exception from the separation of mechanics and special effects, and the maxim "you get what you pay for and pay for what you get" that defines Hero.  1 pip HKA + 90 STR seems much more consistent with your statement when used as a Combined Attack than when used as a 1/2d6 HKA.  Quick - hand Grond a thumbtack - as long as he strikes with that, we're safe!"

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

The point you consistently miss is what the limits of "safe environment" should be.  You go "well no one's ever gonna be expected to fly through a star" and then use that totally circular argument to say that it should be cheap to do so.  No one even considers passing through a star in any sane, even gaming, context, because we realize the defenses you need are literally astronomical. 

 

Not "it never happens" whether in source material or in games, but "it never actually matters" because either all involved have this life support or nothing happens inside the star, to take the most extreme example. In order to fly into a star, one already needs protection from the vacuum, cold and lack of air in space. How much more should it cost to survive in the heat of a star? The whole point of Life Support is that the defenses needed for complete immunity from the damage these environments would cause are far too high to be realistically paid, or realistically allowed, in virtually any game, but we see it in the source material.

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

You cite characters...but how many of them are have insane defenses or something seriously special to let them?  Those characters DON'T HAVE POINTS...so if we want them to have 200/200 rDEF and 75% DR, FINE.  You even concede that lava is OUT...but the sun's heat is MUCH, MUCH higher, and you allow that. 

 

Many characters to which we pay homage in-game.  Superman, the Silver Surfer and Firelord (and Terrax and Gabriel the Air Walker) all come to mind.  Superman interacts with other supers and, while high-powered, is competitive to high-powered Supers, not utterly overwhelming.  The Surfer is staggered by the Human Torch. Does he burn as hot as the sun? Should he, in-game?  Do we need Hero Supers to have attacks that can get past 200 defenses and 75% DR so we can emulate the source material? Or do we accept that "safe environments" are not "safe from damage by attacks with similar SFX"?  Because having Firelord put "only for flying through stars" on his extra ED doesn't seem to require any less suspension of disbelief - it only changes the cost of an ability that will rarely have any significant in-game effect.

 

Lava is out by RAW.  For my games, it is right back in.  But can you move in molten rock?  Its not like running in air or swimming in water. Presumably you don't need to breathe and have some enhanced senses to get around.

 

Similarly, I would use Life Support for a Fantasy Hero spell enabling survival on the Elemental Plane of Fire.

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Lava's only out because it's explicit?  How about examining WHY it's out, and using that to define what "safe environment" means *in game terms*?  I'm not demanding real-world science, I'm using it in conjunction with the rules language to understand how to properly apply the rules.  

 

You also refuse to go the other way:  If the character takes no damage from the photosphere of the sun, then what does it take to actually do damage?  The statement that someone can tap dance on the photosphere logically has implications *within the context of the game.*  Because that much heat has a massive damage rating.  A blast furnace is given 6d6 K;  they're listed as maxing out at around 4000 F.  Not even half.  "Safe in extreme heat" just does not cover it by itself.

 

My simple litmus test would be "environmental damage" and "environmental effect".  A fire does 1 pip to 3d6 KA. Ambient heat does a portion of this damage - for every meter passed through, in both cases.  So a fire that does 1/2d6 KA would generate considerably less damage than the ambient heat from a 3d6 KA fire when one passes through that area. Which effects will Life Support resist?  "All environmental damage" carries the game-simplicity result of "all of it", albeit requiring the suspension of disbelief when the character unharmed by passing through the molten rock is nonetheless subject to damage from the FireBlaster's Blast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Opal said:

Combined attack is after my time, I guess, but, if you can apply your STR twice in a combined attack, does that mean you can do 12d twice? If not, why can you apply it to both the strike and the hka?

 

I suppose that's rhetorical.  

I'm trying to remember the great linked debate, now (which I don't appreciate), because it seems like combined attack may have been rooted in it.

 

Simple summary - if you have multiple attack powers which could be used at the same time, you can combine them into a single attack against a single target as a single attack. So, if they are in a Multipower, you would need enough reserve for both attacks at the same time.  You can't use multiple combat maneuvers, nor can the same attack be used more than once in a combined attack.  So, if you pay for both attacks separately, there is at least some benefit in doing so.

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

I'm willing to compromise on the limits of safe environment...but not indefinitely.  If molten lava, which is around 700 to 1200 C, is out...then 5000 C, which is the surface temp of the sun, is totally out.  I'm also willing to say that if you have enough DEF to bounce the BODY, then the LS lets you completely ignore the secondary issues.  I think that's what the text (on 150, in my PDF) is driving at...safe environment deals with the slow effects, not the fast ones.  That respects the boundaries of each.

 

 

HECK NO, that's NOT my point.  It has NOTHING to do with "real-world science."  It's about interpreting the characters we see in the source material, within the context of the game system, with its limitations.

 

You're also making things completely binary...either go with "real world science" all the time, or never.  That's ludicrous.  

 

 

By RAW, the lava is out.  For me, the "environmental effect" descriptor is sufficient to allow Life Support to work, just like it does on the per-phase damage of heat from a fire. Maybe my campaigns over the years have been weird, but I have not found either molten lava or the interior (or even surface) of a star to be sufficiently common locations to worry about the massive imbalance of allowing Life Support - Safe Environment to protect against them.  How much effort I want to expend on applying real-world science in-game is proportional to how often I expect the issue to be game-relevant.

 

OK, just a note here - you're OK with a really cheap way to prevent all falling damage (you and I are both posting there) because it's not all that frequent, but a low-cost ability to avoid damage from lava or fly through a star is problematic for you.

13 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

I was rebuilding a notional character...HTH fighter, with teleport for his movement...using some expansions I'm playing with.

 

What I finally noticed?

 

Teleport adder:  No Relative Velocity.  6E1, p. 302:

 

 

BINGO!  Throw in a custom limitation to tailor it to falling only, and you're good.  Not complicated.  No distortion of the rules, just a pretty normal need to define a situational limitation.  It's easy to apply, unlike things like "flight only to slow down from falling" that suggest the fall takes far longer...you stop on a dime.  If you don't want there to be a short *blink* to say you teleport?  Fine, that's SFX.

 

Even if you want it completely undetectable, it's inexpensive enough for IPE. 

2 minutes ago, Opal said:

4d RKA no range is 40 pts.

 

30 STR + 2d HKA is 50 pts.

 

 

 

4d6 RKA no Range (or 4d6 HKA, no STR add) is 40 points.

 

30 STR + 2d6 HKA  is 50 points.

 

10 STR + 3d6+1 HKA is 50 points.

 

Which one should we pick?

 

Well, that depends - do you want the STR?  Were you buying it anyway?  If I am a 60 STR Brick, an RKA, no Range is pretty stupid.

 

If I'm taking a 4d6 RKA, No Range, I can sell back STR as well. If I'm a 5 STR elderly fellow with sharp claws and pointy fangs, that RKA No Range is looking pretty good.

 

If I already have a 60 STR, I can get a 4d6 HKA for 30 points, and make a Combined Attack of 12d6 Strike and 4d6 HKA..

 

Why can't I add a 2d6 RKA on to my Blaster with a 12d6 FireBlast and get 4d6, instead of 2d6, RKA?

Agreed that pre-fabs are essential for a Con Game. The variability works against players too - I don't want a character reliant on influencing the minds of the enemy in a con game focused around battling undead hordes, nor do I want a Ranger with the favoured enemies of Giants and Magical Beasts and the Favoured Terrain of Swamp when the game will be set in the desert and focus on the aforementioned Undead.  We don't want a game-breaking character, nor do we want a game-irrelevant character.

 

For regular games, or even a Con-type game with one player group, the game can be designed around the characters, but that requires advance review and advance planning.  That could work with a good GM, a couple of months to prepare (with player input) and a three-day gaming schedule.  It's not going to work with a random group that shows up 5 minutes before the 3-hour game session.

36 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

They didn't spend points...because they don't HAVE points.  Or, if you prefer, they have as many points as the writers want them to have.

 

The objective of the game is to simulate the source material. If a character who can fly through a star needs to spend 1,000 points, the character who cannot fly through the heart of a star becomes WAY more powerful.

 

36 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

Utility in a game environment?  By that argument, the character can walk on lava, or walk through a burning building.  Aren't those just "hot environments"?  The utility isn't "fly through the sun"...which is also darn near PHYSICALLY impossible, if you know something about stellar physics, as in the inner layers, the density increases to about 150 (8 times more than gold)...the utility you're suggesting is "ignore heat, no matter how intense, whenever it's not defined as an actual attack."  Suddenly, that's a LOT!!! more common. 

*******

What is the limit of "safe environment"?  The rules state, safe in hot environments does not provide any defense from a heat-based blast...ergo, a decent starting point is, if it does 1d6 in a phase?  It's not environmental any more.

 

Starting to justify paying points for it, anyway.  While Life Support indicates molton lava is out, V2 p 151 states that the extreme heat of a fire does not damage a character with Life Support: Extreme Heat.  That's typically a lot more than 1 DC in a phase.

 

If we apply physics, at even a basic level, most cinematic source material fails.  People do not get knocked out repeatedly with no long-term damage. Near-death injuries leave lasting disabilities. I don't recommend crashing through a plate glass window either.  And these are things we expect "heroic normal human" action heroes to achieve.

 

36 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

I will ALWAYS take rules logic over trying to force an interpretation of source material that can never be supported...because the source material has no connection to rules, to system, or to anything but the caprice of the writers.  I am perfectly willing to try to construct a rules interpretation for those caprices...but with the understanding that The Points Do Not Matter, EVER.  We had this argument with skill rolls...Doc Strange never rolls a magic skill, so obviously his magic VPP has No Skill Roll.  Yeah, well, because he doesn't have to account for the points.  If he comes out at 1500 points, due to the cost of a large Cosmic VPP, so what?  WE have to work within a gaming framework.  Rules logic is more important.

 

So...you are arguing for the application of real-world scientific principals to the cinematic gaming rules set, and your example is the Master of the Mystic Arts and Sorcerer Supreme. 

 

Maybe Doc does have a skill roll. He's just that good that he never fails it. Maybe he's so good that he doesn't need a skill roll.  I am unfamiliar with the research in the area of whether casting magic spells, so I can;t really engage from an informed perspective. Once we get into discussing "realistic magic", I have trouble seeing the connections.

 

I don't want a rules set that accurately mimics real life. I see enough of that outside my gaming, and frankly the real world is too variable to accurately simulate anyway. People fall out of an airplane and survive, only to slip on their sidewalk and die from that fall.  I can only assume it is magic, I suppose.

 

In fairness, different people can suspend disbelief to different levels in different ways. I have a fairly decent example what would happen at my workplace if I disappeared for a few weeks to fight the alien forces massing at the orbit of Pluto, but I accept that, somehow, Clark Kent can still hold a job.

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

I understand actually mostly agree with your stance in principle. But you need to come up with a complete fix before you impose your change. Doubling is a provably workable compromise for STR adds issue not because it is perfectly balanced but because it incorporates the very real fact that STR does enhance HTH weapons and combat while reducing the worst abuses of not having it.

 

This depends a lot on what one considers a “complete fix” to encompass.  My “complete fix” encompasses only killing attacks.  It would include the following:

 

·         One Killing Attack power, which simply renames “RKA” to “KA”.

 

·         Example powers would include Claws (KA, No Range), “Sword” (1d6 + 1 KA No Range + 1d6 + 1 KA, No Range, STR Minimum).  Maybe even a “Rapier” (1d6 + 1 KA No Range + 1d6 + 1 KA, No Range, DEX minimum). Perhaps a “Cutting Words” spell that has a PRE minimum.

 

·         STR Minimum would become Characteristic Minimum. Let’s break that out below.

 

·         The Weapons Chart would include numerous uses of Characteristic Minimum limited KAs, HAs, etc. It would include some ranged weapons (why do we not shriek about the disconnect of being unable to have a Strength Bow like d20?) and some weapons linked to characteristics other than STR (what?  There’s no Weapon Finesse in Fantasy Hero?).  Genre books could expand on this with weapons like Doc’s Ego Whip, more powerful with EGO or an Illusion spell that becomes more powerful for high INT characters better able to craft a convincing illusion.

 

6e V2 p 199  would form the basis (but it would move to the same place all the other Limitations are presented).  The limitation would apply based on the STR (or other characteristic) required to get the full DCs from the power. For example, my partially limited Sword above is a Champions sword. It would have a 20 STR minimum applied to the limited portion of the power.  For every 5 STR below 20, it would suffer -1 OCV and -1 DC.  This would be a -1 limitation.  That sounds pretty high, unless one considers the alternatives of:

 

·         Current rules – just take more of the characteristic since it’s effectively free.

·         Put the characteristic and the power in a Multipower.

·         Current rules – you get the same limitation AND the potential to double the damage output.

 

The characteristic dedicated to the CHAR Min could be applied to only one ability with that limitation per phase.  So, if you have a Rapier in your right hand and a dagger in your left, you need to dedicate STR to both in order to maximize their damage, and that STR cannot also be used for an STR strike.

 

The limitation would be made more granular. It would need a “no OCV penalty” option to simulate the current STR minimum (so most weapons would limit some dice with an OCV penalty and others with none).  It might vary with the characteristic (STR costs 1 point; the limitation could be higher for characteristics that cost 2 points).  It would vary by working in different increments – every 3 STR, or every 7 INT, for example. It could be possible to pick the best of 2 (or more) characteristics, or be stuck with the worst. Some of these could be flagged as “at the GM’s Option” rules.

 

This is a “KA only” fix, except that the “Char Min” could apply to any attack.  It could even apply to a Hand Attack (which is just extra STR with a limitation, so this would likely only be done for weapons purchased for cash instead of CP). GMs could certainly outlaw the limitation in Supers games. It’s intended for games where purchased equipment would often be used by characters lacking the characteristics to maximize the weapon’s DCs.

 

It could be embedded in the weapons without presenting the limitations. It could be “heroic only” – in games where gear is purchased in CP, gear is generally customized for the character, so they would virtually never lack the characteristic required to fully benefit from the gear. This would be no different than the 1 – 3 Stun Multiple that typically applies in Superheroic versus the hit location table that normally applies in Heroic.

 

A significant change? Sure – we have 6 editions and over 40 years of history.  Would it have felt so significant if we had always had one KA power, and adapted to mechanics that enhanced claws and swords for STR in other ways over those years?  Probably not.

 

Removal of COM and Figureds, a 1d3 Stun Multiple, Adjustment Powers becoming ranged by default (and Aid costing END), implementation of the doubling rule way back in 2e (see those Enemies books), streamlining RDEF over the years and the removal of “plus EGO/5” when you bought mental defense felt really significant too.  We take Combat Luck for granted now, but many of us had different fixes to avoid agile, non-bulletproof heroes from dying every time a KA showed up. That was pretty revolutionary, and still attracts its detractors.

 

Part of that challenge is that Hero chose reverse-compatibility over the d20 model of “that was last edition – here is the brand-new game we’re calling X+1 Edition”.

 

If I were trying to fix Hand Attack, it would probably be a Limited STR fix, incorporating Martial Arts DCs, the ability to retain non-direct damage DCs (like Grab and Escape) and maybe even the “floating DCs” conundrum of Deadly Blow and its cousins.  That would be a separate project.

 

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

But I need it to work better for everyone but especially new GM's and players. Without doubling or a completed version of your substitution, tiny HKA and massive STR is not only RAW but the best build by far. The only argument otherwise for high HKA and low STR or even balanced HKA and STR is concept. Doubling keeps those builds in shouting distance on both the points and the concept fronts so i can accept the imperfect balance.

 

Doubling is simply a "abuse is OK but only some abuse is OK". As an alternative, we could have unlimited adders of +1 DC HKA per 10 STR so that not buying the STR to maximize the adder isn't automatically stupid.

 

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

Because it's unnecessary to a build.  If your character concept is an HKA that cannot be boosted with STR. buy an RKA with No Range. I realize that this doesn't fix your issue with the rules, but you've got to find a way to bridge that disconnect before the change is better.

 

"It's not an RKA if it has no range" seems as easy a cognitive disconnect to fall into.  "No STR or Movement Addition" is part of the core rules (6e v1 p 242), with the example of a lightsaber (excuse me, laser sword). Partially limited powers are defined as part of the core rules. If STR did not add to KAs, we would not have the issue at all.

 

Ratcheting my STR up from 10 to 30 (to take advantage of the free STR since I want that 4d6 KA anyway; taking a 4d6 RKA no Range to shave 10 points off the concept; using a multipower to trade off STR and HKA; or partially limiting my HKA to avoid paying for the ability to add STR I don't have (we're not supposed to pay for things with no significant in-game benefit, remember) can all be viewed as cheesy.  The real problem, however, is that various different costs for buying (other than the MP) the exact same game mechanics is a poor approach.  That's why rDEF evolved from different costs to various "1 CP makes 2 defense resistant" models.

 

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

I debate you accepting your rules changes, you debate me without accepting mine. To me, HA is a unique power that is not associated with STR in any way.

 

If it is not associated with STR in any way, why would it enhance, or be enhanced by, STR? Brass knuckles or steel-hard fists add normal damage from STR. They do not provide anything that buying more STR would not provide. That's a Hand Attack.  Conversion of STR to energy damage is a +0 advantage, and making STR 0 BOD is a -0 limitation. Nothing that STR could not have done anyway.  Tacking on advantages makes it a little more challenging, and the system has grappled with various means of addressing that over the years. If you have a more elegant solution than pro rating it down, I'm open to hearing it. But it's not related to the completely separate mechanic of Killing Damage.

 

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

The part I saw as a near personal attack was " Find a semi-literate GM". There are better ways to make your point than an implied insult. Like bolding.

 

If you see my use of "disingenuous" as an attack on you personally then I hereby apologize. It was not intentional, and I will refrain from further use of the word.

 

 

I'm pretty challenging to offend.  Perhaps we simply replace my comment with"Try encountering a GM who opens 6e V1 to page 366, reads the rules for partially limited powers and interprets it in a non-disingenuous manner."  Now we're both using the same term.

 

56 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 

Yes, in a choice between game balance and game utility, game balance should always be given higher priority. And you're ignoring the fact that the example characters you're using that fly through stars and across space all would laugh at that 9d6 Blast anyway.

 

The same logic applies if the attack is 15d6.  Let's make it a 2d6 Fire RKA flamethrower - if the "flies  through the blazing sun" character wants any defenses at all against that attack, she needs resistant defenses.  If she bought none, she takes all of the STUN and BOD.  The "Free HKA if you buy STR" (or "may as well take the free STR - I'm buying the campaign limit HKA") model is just as much a sacrifice of balance for "common sense says".

 

56 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

I would guess that they wanted it to not have it initially add to STR. They wanted something to simulate Normal damage weapons but couldn't decide how to make the new power. At 5 points per DC, it's a niche power for Supers as buying more STR is just better. But it filled a large hole in the powerset for Heroic level campaigns.

 

The cynic in me says it was reverse-engineered from weapons purchased with CP instead of STR. It could not be too cheap, and STR no Figured would have already been -1/2. 5 AP with appropriate limitations seems fine from my perspective.  But I would probably use -1/2 for "only normal damage" and -1/4 for "all forms of STR-effect damage" so including disarms, graps, escapes, etc.  MA gets all effects and 0 END for free (or gets -1/2 for "only for MA maneuvers" offsetting 0 END).

 

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

The Limited Range example at least does have some tiny loss of utility, the 1/2 STR added and 1/2 no STR does not. Both of these should be struck down by the GM.

 

First, the easiest way to strike down "no STR adder" (or "does not increase HKA" on STR) is to remove the link between STR and HKA entirely. Second, RKA can be spread (although I see some argument that it is no longer "a ranged power). Third, RAW says that a No Range power need not require the use to touch the target (so that shows aspects of "ranged" remain, supporting the ability to Spread) - it's pretty clear that an HKA needs to touch the target.

 

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

People tend to ignore the " If there are two valid options to achieve the exact same result then the more expensive option is the valid one" metarule all the time. Under doubling, all the combinations are equal in cost, so equally valid. The proposed versions with No Range violate the metarule when compared with them.

 

Buying 4d6 HKA, no STR Add and buying 2d6 HKA to allow your 30 STR to add 2d6 are both valid options to achieve the exact same result.  Buying 4d6 RKA no range is almost the exact same result.  When the system presents three mechanical ways to get the exact same result, it suggests that all three are valid.  The Laser Sword example does not mention tying the option to the character's STR.  Voltaic Touch (6e v1 p 389) does not suggest this option be denied to a character with low STR.

 

21 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Apologies, Hugh:

 

I sat down and logged on with the intent of making an effort to review the offered maths and enjoy the conversation, having finally xome as close as I am going to get with "terms" over my recent loss.

 

Alas, we have reached page 5 on a "points must balance" discussion, and I have found that historically- no matter how civil the discussion might remain--  it tends to get a bit eclesiastic after page 5, and honestly, it is not a religion to which I subscribe.

 

I have enjoyed what has gone on thus far, however, and hope to some more interesting thoughts before the thread is abandoned or degrades.

 

 

 

No issue, @Duke Bushido - I was only surprised to see your reply pop up as I was typing one where I wondered whether anyone else was reading the Text Walls - I thought of you because we both post lengthy commentary, but I did not expect you would weigh in on a "points balance and changes from 5e to 6e" discussion, for reasons obvious to anyone familiar with your game or your style.

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

That assumes you accept that flying through the heart of the sun is allowed just because you have LS: Heat and presumably LS: High Pressure.  If it can be expressed in 1d6 per PHASE or more?  LS doesn't apply, IMO.  Environmental issues are those that are slow.  Flying through space with LS: Cold and LS: Vacuum and the breathing covered?  Yes, because freezing to death in space IS slow.

 

Yes, it assumes that. It assumes that the characters in the source material who possess these abilities  did  not spend dozens or hundreds of points on the ability to have the artist draw a cool picture of them flying through a star, unharmed. It assumes that the point cost of such an ability would largely align with its utility in game. Perhaps your games differ, and situations set in the heart of a star are frequent, while scenarios set in the depths of space are rare. Regardless, if you prefer to only look to the depths of space, then should that character not have a natural resistance to a 9d6 Arctic Wind Cold Blast?

 

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Why were HKAs limited in the manner they were, through 5E?

1.  FIGURED CHARACTERISTICS!!!!!  STR is grossly underpriced due to this.

2.  1d-1 STUN multiplier made KAs grossly overpowered...especially when the game isn't supposed to be about killing.  Champions, anyway. 

 

Actually, the free Figured and 10 base STR were the reason EBs got Spreading. An article in Different World (27?  The X-Men one) with the game designers said that flat-out. Spreading was supposed to be in 1e.

 

Neither STR nor stun multiples explain why HKA got a special rule when RKA did not, so the broader questions remain.  Further, even if I accept all of these reasons, they do not explain why "up to but not exceeding doubling" was a balanced freebie. I would say, rather, that 6e recognized that several characteristics, including STR, were grossly underpriced (DEX, not STR, was the worst culprit) due to figured characteristics, in part because many of those figured characteristics were overpriced.  It recognized that the Stun Lotto was unbalancing, at least in superheroic games. These were fixed.

 

From discussions at the time with Steve Long, the fact that HKA/STR provided a freebie was also recognized, but a conscious decision was made not to address it, mainly if not entirely due to the "cognitive dissonance" element.

 

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

With KAs, you get 1 DC for 5 points.  With STR, you get 1 DC for 5 points...and quite a few other things.  This is bad enough...but that argues for limiting HAs too, right?  That's why HAs get that implicit -1/2 limitation...which basically is equivalent to No Figured Characteristics.  When you couple that with the high frequency of obscene STUN from a KA, tho...it's untenable to add as much STR as you want to a KA.

 

For reasons unclear to me, HA was initially based on "Blast, No Range" rather than "STR, remove some effects".  The -1/2 limitation was No Range. Practically, why did anyone buy HA in 4e or 5e?  STR No Figured would provide the same damage bonus, plus bonuses to Grab, Escape, Lift, HKAs and so on. That issue, at least, has been resolved. Now we get to ask why +1d6 normal STR damage that costs END is worth 4 points, and a Martial Arts DC that enhances far more effects and costs no END is also worth 4 points.

 

To be clear, my primary assertion is that STR should not add to HKAs at all, not that it should add to HKAs on an unlimited basis.  So why is it perfectly reasonable for a character  with 30 STR to add 2d6 to a 2d6 HKA, but not reasonable for a character with 45 STR tro add 3d6 to a 2d6 HKA?  Please focus any reasoning on why the former IS reasonable, rather than why the latter is not.

 

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Hugh gave this example, so I'm gonna borrow it to illustrate my point:

 

So, our net is a 4d6 AP HKA.  That's 75 total points, however we account for it.

Option 1:  19 STR, the rest HKA.  He also gets 25 STUN, 4 PD, 6 REC, and 3 Leap.

Option 2:  38 STR, 2d6 HKA, the balanced form.  34 STUN, 8 PD, 10 REC, and 7 Leap.

Option 3:  1d6 AP HKA, 56 STR.  Note that he's getting an 11d6 punch, if he can't use the KA...that's not nothing.  11 PD, 13 REC, 43 STUN, and 11 Leap...even if you don't want it, sell some back.

 

I regret that example at this stage, but only because AP muddies the water.  That flowed from the Matterhorn example.  Your version of the example is not correct as it uses the +1/4 6e version of AP, rather than the +1/2 5e cost, but allows the 5e Figureds.  Let's change the example to carve out some of those issues.

 

So, our net is a 4d6 HKA.  That's 60 total points, however we account for it.  In 5e

 

Option 1:  15 STR, the rest HKA.  He also gets +7.5 STUN, +3 PD, +3 REC, and 3" Leap.

 

Option 2:  30 STR, 2d6 HKA, the balanced form.  Hen also gets (compared to 15 STR) +7.5 STUN, +3 PD, +3 REC, +3" leap, extra Lift and +3d6/3 DC for all STR-related attacks, bracing for knockback, combined attack with the HKA, etc.

 

Option 3:  1 pip HKA, 55 STR.  Note that he's getting an 11d6 punch, if he can't use the KA...that's not nothing.  +8 PD, +8 REC, +20 STUN, and +8" Leap over that 15 STR...even if you don't want it, sell one back.

 

The issue of Figured was always that +15 STUN (15 CP), +6 PD (6 CP) and +6 REC (12 CP) was already 10% more than the 30 points paid for +30 STR. That's why you could only sell back one figured characteristic - otherwise, you could generate infinite points by buying up STR and CON and selling back all of the Figureds.

 

Moving on to 6e, while you don't get the figured characteristics, you get extra lift, HTH damage, Escape, Brace, Grab, etc. for free as long as you can buy extra STR. There is no mechanical reason to ever buy more HKA than your STR can augment - all the extra benefits of STR can be obtained at the low, low cost of making your HKA be Drained with STR.  The advantage was greater with Figured but remains without them.

 

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

If the STR you could apply to a KA wasn't sharply limited, there would simply be no reason to buy them past the bare minimum.  Even if it's a KA on a focus, the cost reduction from the focus doesn't make up for the loss in figureds.  (Remember that the cost break for the focus only applies, for point cost purposes, to the amount OVER the min you bought.  Likewise, the figured characteristics you gain only count the amount from the greater STR...but from that 19 to 38, that's 9 STUN, 4 PD, 4 REC, and 4 Leap.  In 5E, too, the figured stats are seriously overpriced;  you get 25 points' worth.)

 

True.  However, even with the doubling cap, to the extent of STR you could apply to a KA, there is simply no reason to buy more than half of HKA's - the rest is always better purchased indirectly as STR.

 

If you really want to play to concept, either limit the extra HKA dice to "no STR additions" (no more cheesy than putting Limited Range on every ranged attack because I can't hit that far away and even if I could, combat never takes place at those distances) or buy the entire KA as an RKA, No Range.

 

7 hours ago, Opal said:

Yes, and the example of 4d RKA, no range vs 30 STR +2d HKA, the latter costs 10 more points, that's not getting anything for free, that's spending 10 more points to still do 4dK.

With the campaign limit multipower, the 30 STR+HKA character is spending 19 points more than the RKA/no range character, for the same campaign-limit attack options... he can also do a 6d punch...

 

Exactly - there is no reason to use the RKA no Range (or HKA no STR Adds) if you game the system by purchasing half your HKA as STR.

 

If you have 30 STR, the limited KA model costs 10 points to avoid having your KA reduced if your STR is reduced.  Save the 10 points and buy Power Defense.

 

If you have 10 STR, the limited KA model costs 33 and a 3d6+1 HKA costs 50.  Save the 10 points if you aren't going to use the free STR add.  Now, how cheesy is it to just take "No STR Adds" and rub the GM's nose in the fact that you are only doing that because it's cheaper than buying less HKA with a STR adder.  And yet we would NOT suggest that buying the extra 20 STR and a 2d6 HKA is cheesy at all.  Just like we never criticized lumbering rock monster Bricks buying a Legendary 23 DEX to get CV.

The article notes the timing - she noticed these things before she worked at Google, and worked on improvements.  From the article, “I’ve been yelling about this for a long time,” Gebru says. “This is a movement that’s been more than a decade in the making.”

 

Do you think it is now perfect?

 

The facial recognition discussion is pretty scary (not for me directly, as a white male*, but still pretty scary).   AI on social media favours conservative politics. Should that be a concern?  I wonder whether the first few people who raised the issue of subliminal messaging in television faced a similar "oh, it's no big deal; oh, we fixed that one aspect a couple of years ago" (after it got publicity and we had on choice typically not stated out loud).

 

* Frankly, as a white male, and a pretty oblivious one at that, it's really easy for me to overlook subtle discrimination and biases, or dismiss them as trivial when they are raised.  I'm inclined to give the minority group the benefit of the doubt that issues which may not trouble me are troubling to them for good reasons.  On the other hand, assuming those facial recognition issues (as an example) remain, knowing that I were likely to be misclassified might lead me to consider how much harder I would be to identify if I were to be inclined to an anti-social or criminal act.  If my gender is likely to be misclassified, for example, then the authorities are less likely to look for the right person.

3 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

So what you are saying is that the person who is small and has trouble picking up a plastic stool will do as much damage with a sword as that giant that can throw cars at you?

 

Doc covers a lot of this above.

 

The game already says that a skilled warrior with a 23 STR and a Martial Strike with his sword does the same damage as an 80 STR Giant. Your example is one of scale.

 

"Who should do more damage" is a question of spending points, not granting freebies.  If a character can comfortably fly through the depths of space and the heart of the sun, I'd expect him to have more than 2 ED against fire and cold attacks. But I expect him to pay for it - it's not free because he bought life support.

 

In making that determination, I would treat the sword as a "real weapon" sword. I would envision those being constructed to similar mechanics to what we have now.

 

If Tom Thumb pays for a 1d6 KA with no range, and that giant spends the same points for the same 1d6 KA with no range, I do not think the giant should get more than he paid for.  Paying for what you get is a core Hero philosophy.

1 hour ago, Opal said:

🤔 15 pts was 1/4 the Apts of a 60 STR, 1/5 that of a 5d KA.

Multipower slots were 1/5th the Apts of the powers in them, 1/10th for an ultra. (And it was unclear how limitations interacted with that. Iirc)

 

By the rough, not exactly vigilant for optimization shinnanigans, standards of the day (with the figured char loopholes wide open), doesn't sound insane.

 

So that's 6th, which 🤷‍♂️ idk?

But say in an ed I do know, you had a character in a 60apt limit game, with 10 STR and 3d+1 hka vs one with 30 STR and a 2d hka? 20 pts free STR.

 

The only thing specifically 6e was armor piercing at +1/4.  Your example illustrates the 20 points of free STR exactly the same way.

 

As you note, for some it is better to buy an RKA, No Range (or an HKA, no STR adds).  If all the characters end up with the same STR and the same 4d6 non-ranged killing attack, why should the costs be different?

 

A Multipower is an option available for all characters. It would not allow the HKA Brick to use STR and KA at the same time, just as the Blaster can't use the Energy Blast and RKA slots at the same time.  That becomes more relevant with the advent of combined attacks - nothing in the rules prevents that 30 STR character with a 2d6 HKA from Combining 4d6 HKA damage with a 6d6 Strike, although in most cases the Strike will do little past standard defenses.  Another chance for Knockdown, though.

3 hours ago, Opal said:

I never saw why HA & EB shouldn't both be 5pts/die, when HKA & RKA are both 15pts/die.  Of course, I'd also expect to be able to do energy or stun-only with an HA and add STR to it, so I may just be weird

 

The problem then becomes why anyone would buy 1d6 HA (add a die of normal damage to STR) rather than +5 STR (get that 1d6 normal damage, Grab, Escape, Lift, Carry, Throw...). Hand Attack, at least in my view, is limited STR.

 

Why couldn't your STR be STUN only?  That's a -0 limitation.  Switching from PD to ED is a +0 advantage. STR can be double END or half END - advantages and limitations are fair game.

 

3 hours ago, Opal said:

The debate on the "doubling rule" confuses me.  Especially characterizing converting STR's normal damage to killing damage as "free STR?"  Isn't it "free" KA? And how is it free, when you've paid for both the STR and the HKA?

It's like complaining the second slot in a multipower gives you the first slot free.😕

 

There's a "chicken and egg" issue there.  In 1e, many, if not most, published Bricks had 1d6 HKA.  That was the minimum you could buy.  And why not?  Tack on your 60 STR and you had a 5d6 HKA.  That was "free KA" and the doubling rule in 2e limited it.  Many Enemies 1 characters got no re-write and had 1d6 HKA (2d6 with STR).  That was fine for Armadillo who relied on his STR and Powered Armor.  Not so much for the 60 STR Monster who was supposed to rely on his HKA.

 

But let's assume we are not building a Brick.  We''re building "the shrimp with the AP Killing attack".  By concept, he's not extraordinarily strong, so we buy him a 19 STR to get +1d6 AP HKA.  Then he buys a 3d6 AP HKA for 56 points and does 4d6 AP HKA.  He has spent 65 points, 9 on STR and 56 on his AP HKA, and is in concept.

 

But if he had a 38 STR (28 points; +2d6 AP HKA) he could buy a 2d6 AP HKA for 37 points.  He has an extra 19 STR.  What did he pay for it?  Nothing - the same 65 points were spent.  So I would call that 19 free STR.

 

If we remove STR adders at all, then he has to make a choice.  He could certainly choose to have a 19 STR (9 points) and a 4d6 KA, No Range, AP (50 points) (which costs 6 points less than his original build AND avoids any reduction to KA if his STR is drained, yet gives him all the same mechanical advantages). If he wants a 38 STR instead of 19 STR, he has to pay the extra 19 points.  He can't get them for free by reducing his HKA and getting a higher addition for STR. Or he could put some extra STR and some extra KA in a Multipower, just like the Blaster has an RKA and a Blast she can switch between.

Oh, and @Duke Bushido, I was curious whether you were reading as we both write and read pretty long posts.  Your views on the underlying issue are known, so I see why you would not revisit them here.  Only so many hours in the day!

Not quite as thick here in Edmonton, but a few days back it was hazy to the point of impaired visibility a block or so out.  If we actually get a bit of fog, and it was already smoky, the fog drags the smoke down and visibility gets very poor. And, of course, the air quality is an issue. 

8 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I was going off 4th Edition for the sake of the conversation. Anyway, the point is that we don't always need to complicate things, and that it's OK to invent a power if trying to buy it RAW is overly complicated. 

 

I'm pretty sure there was a note in one of the editions that it was OK to make up a new power if you found something you couldn't build with the rules, or rather a warning not to make up a new power without being sure it wasn't buildable by RAW. It's also possible I imagined that. 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure 6e includes something along the lines of "these are the rules we thought worked the best, but if you're happier with other rules, go ahead and change them".

 

The "amorphous body" has no real perfect build at present.  I've seen suggestions for using Tunnelling (issue:  maximum defenses); Desolid (issue: Affects Solid World), Stretching (changing dimensions of the body), Teleport (you start on one side of the barrier and end up on the other - but a long, narrow pipe doesn't work right) and Shrinking (pass through barriers as long as something this tiny could make it through) among others.  The problem is that they all require stripping out most of the core ability used as a starting point, and many require far too much of the starting power to be reasonable from a cost perspective.

 

Desolid is closest.  Losing the ability to pass through solid objects and the invulnerability aspect are massive losses to utility, so huge limitations.  I would probably waive ASW if the character foregoes the damaging aspect.  I'd roughly price out the Desolid build and either use that with a ruling that the combined limitations and SFX just mean it works that way (handwave the minor remaining issues) or just call it a "new power" as you propose.

 

10 points feels reasonable. It's certainly no more than 20!

 

Of course, there's always EDM to a dimension adjacent to our own, so close that people in either can affect the other, except that being in the SquishyVerse allows you to slip through tiny spaces.  Or Change Environment (add in doublings of the size of small openings; IPE; Self Only).  There's likely a Transform in there somewhere - a vastly overpriced one. Massive Contortionist bonuses?  We can probably get even more ludicrous if we try.

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

it's called doubling because it limits the addable DC's to the amount already purchased.

 

I know what it is and what it does. My point, clearly not clarified appropriately, was that I am not arguing for unlimited adders, but for NO STR adders to HKAs. The doubling rule's allowance of unbalance, but only so much unbalance and no more, illustrates why those adders should be removed. It would be less intuitive, but a lot of "reason from effect" and "pay for what you get" is already very unintuitive.

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

You quoted Steve Long's example on why more is abusive but don't seem to want to accept that it agrees with my argument. I can understand not accepting it from me but why would you question his opinion?

 

What makes Steve's opinion any more valid than yours? As author, it was ultimately his decision. That does not make it the right or wrong decision. 

 

Steve solicited a lot of other gamers' opinions, and made an informed decision. I take credit for the explicit statement that something with no game effect costs no points. I recall opining that Transfer was just a linked Aid and Drain, and that we should have normal maneuvers that allowed targets to be tripped, choked, etc. I argued that all powers capable of being used simultaneously should be able to be used in Combined Attacks.

 

I put forward revised Figured with reduced costs for END, STUN and REC.  However, I agreed with his point that, if the pricing was fixed, there was no need for figured at all. I argued for not pushing every 1d6 to divide evenly by 5, and to make Range a standard (for Drains, for example). I argued for retaining COM, but Steve persuaded me with his assessment that COM was the only "characteristic" that did nothing but modify things we do with other characteristics.

 

I had some alternative thoughts on stun multiples, but I think Steve's decision was much more playable. I felt, and still feel, that DEX, PRE and INT should be priced the same. However, since 6e was released, I have shifted from the belief they should all be 1 point to the belief they should all be 2 points.  I questioned whether HKA should not be augmented by STR, and alternatively why doubling was a magic result.

 

Plenty of others contributed their ideas as well. Some I agreed with, some I disagreed with and some were way better than mine.

 

One thing Steve did not change - the rules are what he thinks work, but if you think something else works better, use that. So he even opined that his opinion had no special privilege.

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

And you presented that character to me in a 12 DC campaign, I'd hand it back with the limitation valued as -0 and tell you rebalance your point totals. If it was a 15 DC campaign, I'd let you play it after explaining how ineffective and unenjoyable I believe it would be. I'd even urge you to raise your STR to 15 and remove the limitation so you'd have a competitive build.

 

So even the RAW limitation doesn't work for you? If I was going to raise my STR, I would raise it to exactly equal the KA.  Here again, however, the fact that the limitation is not nearly as limiting on a high HKA/low STR build as it is on a higher STR build highlights how the "STR augments KA" model fails the balance test.  Assume a less egregious example - the character retains a 10 STR, and buys a suite of RKAs with no Range (same cost as HKAs with no STR addition), maybe tossing in some No Range drains, flashes, etc. Perhaps a No Range blast as well.

 

Why should there be any "uncompetitive" builds? Hero is about building the character you want.  To me, mechanically being able to do 4d6 killing damage at no range should have one constant cost.  The ability to create multiple different costs for the same mechanic, or to get added freebies at no extra cost by modifying the build, is a flaw in the system.

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Yes, it's more balanced. It's an alternate method of getting nearly the same performance for slightly greater points that's not as useful because a rare situation could arise that requires the maximum amount of STR and the HKA.

 

To the extent that it is "more balanced", it is only because the unbalance is more limited, not because the core mechanics are balanced.

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Yes, it's more balanced. It's an alternate method of getting nearly the same performance for slightly greater points that's not as useful because a rare situation could arise that requires the maximum amount of STR and the HKA.

 

And your 5-point cost difference is disingenuous. In a game with doubling, the AP HKA would cost 31 points. No doubling saves 26 points in a true apple to apple comparison though you would get a slightly higher 3d6+1 ap HKA out of it. That's where the abuse lies.

 

I see my typo now - I referred to a 25 STR, rather than 30.

 

The character can have a 31 STR (21 CP). He can have a 1 1/2d6 AP HKA for 31 points.  Adding the 31 STR pops him up to 3d6+1 AP HKA.  That cost 52 points.

 

Or he can go the Multipower route.  He can have 25 STR.  He can have a Multipower with a 31 point pool and two slots - +30 STR and 1 1/2d6 AP HKA - for 6 points - total spent 52. 

 

The first character gets 1 extra BOD from his KA, and never has to lower his STR to 25. The second can have a 55 STR or a KA that does one less BOD than the first character. The second character will be far more useful. Could a situation arise when that extra 5 STR is needed at the same time as the KA? Sure.  Will it happen with close to the frequency with which a 55 STR and no KA will be more useful than a 30 STR and the KA? I very much doubt it.

 

Remove STR adding to KAs and the issue vanishes.

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Doubling mitigates it to a level that's been mostly balanced for decades. It's not perfect but keep it until you have a fully fleshed out better option. HKA's are just the most prominent trouble spot but HA's are just as bad.

 

An HA is just limited STR. An HKA is a completely separate attack power.

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Until you rewrite the entire system to say that HTH combat damage is not augmented by STR and find a way to present it that somehow convinces players that that disconnect makes sense, I can't accept your version.  Give me the text of your change with all of its ramifications and I'll consider it and adopt it if it's an improvement.

 

Removing HKA and renaming RKA "Killing Attack" is pretty easy.  A couple of example builds with "Claws: 2d6 KA, No Range + 2d6 KA, No Range (Drained with STR)" gets me right back to that 30 STR character with a 2d6 HKA.  But now I can have "Claws: 3d6 KA, No Range + 1d6 KA, No Range (Drained with STR)" or even "Sharp Fingernails: 1 pip KA, No Range + 4d6 KA, No Range (Drained with STR)" and the characters all pay points commensurate with their abilities.

 

The disconnect is the only real issue. If it helps, that was the only reason Steve stated for retaining the HKA augmented by STR. My simple answer is that this is a core principal of Hero.  Logically, Ability A's special effect should provide Mechanical Benefit X justifies paying the points for Mechanical Benefit X.  "I am immune to the depths of space and the fire of the hottest stars, so I should be resistant to heat and cold damage!"  Agreed - you should buy defense powers that protect you from heat and cold.  "My flaming shield should burn someone who hits or grabs me."  Agreed - you should buy a Damage Shield.  "My high Ego should make my Mind Control more likely to hit and more likely to succeed." Agreed. You should buy Mocv and more Mind Control dice.  Only "I am really strong so my claws should slice deeper." seems too challenging to implement.  It's not. If we had simply started 1e with Killing Attack and a clawed guy with KA: No Range, we would not be having this discussion now.

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

That's dangerously close to a personal attack. Let's stay civil.

 

I an be a serious jerk if I put in a little effort, and dense as to how others interpret what I say pretty effortlessly.  The bolded statement In short, the reality is that enhancing HKA with STR creates free STR once you decide to pay for the HKA. The doubling rule says "well, OK, you can have that free STR, but only up to half of your HKA". Removing the doubling rule just highlights what a freebie this is. was, and is, simply a summary of my premise. I bolded it so it would stand out at the bottom of a wall of text, and not get lost for anyone still brave enough to read all this.  If you would like to tell me where you perceive a personal attack, I will take you at your word that this is how it reads and attempt to modify it accordingly.

 

**man - I was just thinking I should type "you out there, @Duke Bushido?" and who shows up with a reply while I'm finishing the post! 

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

And you're being disingenuous again. That character sheet has 15 STR + 1d6 HKA for the first part of the attack, not 2d6 HKA. Trying to cheese that past me would make me skip the red and yellow caution highlighters and go directly to the black marker of doom.

 

You know, for a guy who throws around accusations of "a personal attack" and seems quite offended by that possibility, you seem quite eager to accuse  me of being disingenuous.  Should I take that personally?  This is hardly the first time. I'll also share that I have thought "is he really missing the point or is he just being disingenuous" at least a couple of times in this discussion, but I afford the benefit of the doubt.

 

In any case, the character sheet will present the power any way I want to present it. 35 CP 1d6 HKA (+1d6 STR) + 2d6 HKA (no STR add; -1/2) - 4d6 HKA; 6 END (as I won't take two round-downs for that one attack) is probably how I would present it.  If someone would like to run it through Hero Designer and see what it says, that would be great.  It will certainly provide Active Points, at a minimum.

 

Is it cheesy?  Maybe. But I can also see the view that, since the STR adder is not being used, we should apply the maxim that "an ability that has no significant effect on game play" should cost no points (6e v1 p 10). Anyway, the character is sacrificing the benefit if, at some rare time in the game, I should receive a STR Aid.  Is it cheesy to pay 40 points for a 4d6 RKA, No Range instead of 45 for a 3d6 HKA, +1d6 for my 15 STR?

 

You know what's REALLY cheesy? Three different ways to get the exact same game mechanic, each with a different cost.  Let's look at 6e V1 p 10 again where we will find that

 

Quote

One of the most important general principles underlying the HERO System is you get what you pay for. That’s a shorthand way of saying several things.

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

It does not create free STR. You have to choose to buy it up to double. You asked me for an example that buys STR lower than that optimal point, so I present to you, your cheesy example with 15 STR that is attempting to achieve 4d6 HKA in total. Apparently such a concept is not totally foreign to you.

 

I stand by the statement that it creates free STR. If I want my character to have a 4d6 HKA, I can buy 3d6+1 HKA (50 points) or I can buy +20 STR (20 points) and 2d6 HKA (30 points).  Same 50 points spent. Same 4d6 HKA. 20 STR for free.

 

Remove doubling and it gets exacerbates.  +45 STR (45 points) and +1 pip HKA (5 points)  +45 STR for free. 

 

That starts from the perspective that I want the KA and the STR falls out of it. That character design interpretation is no more, and no less, valid than 55 STR + 1 pip HKA granting 3 1/2d6 extra KA for free.

 

Quote

One of the most important general principles underlying the HERO System is you get what you pay for. That’s a shorthand way of saying several things.

 

Steve's opinion.  I wholeheartedly agree.

On 9/22/2023 at 9:59 AM, Grailknight said:

That is an entirely different matter from the doubling rule we were debating.

 

I'm not certain precisely what you are debating.  My premise, however, is that HKA should not be enhanced by strength or, in other words, STR should not enhance HKA.  They should be two separate mechanics. If they are linked due to special effects, then by all means reflect that with further mechanics. The doubling rule serves only to highlight some of the issues.  If it is balanced to allow 30 STR to add 2d6 to a 2d6 HKA, why is it not appropriate to allow 45 STR to add 3d6 to a 2d6 HKA, or 30 STR to allow 2d6 to a 1d6 HKA?

 

On 9/22/2023 at 9:59 AM, Grailknight said:

 

That is an entirely different matter from the doubling rule we were debating.  I've never had such a character suggested or even theorized before.

 

Working on the assumption that 50 STR is an adequate attack in the campaign, I wouldn't give it any Limitation. I would however give one to all of his purchased HKA's and HA's and I'd give him a Physical Complication to reflect his inability to use them or weapons of opportunity properly.

 

Used alone his STR works properly, he can even carry heavy weights in one hand while using the extra attacks in the other. The HKA's and HA's are unable to meld with his STR for some reason though, so they get the Limitation.

 

 

 

OK. Let's approach this from the other side. He sells his STR back to 1.  He buys a 12d6 Hand Attack, a 10d6 Armor Piercing Hand Attack, a 4d6 HKA and a 2 1/2d6 Penetrating HKA. That would cost 202 points in total.

 

All four of those attacks are then Limited "No STR Adds", reducing the cost to 141 points, a 61 point savings. Maybe he'll use that to buy 60 points of Telekinesis. No Range

 

Fair?  Balanced?  This is the reverse  of your "but the strength is not limited".  Fine - if the inability to add STR to the KA does not limit the STR, let's limit the KA to not be augmented by STR.
 

The problem exists because STR does not provide HKA, HKA does not provide STR, but buying one gets the other for free.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 10:55 AM, Grailknight said:

 

It's the difference between having STR and an HKA compared to having STR or the HKA. One has both at all times, the other has to make a choice. It may only rarely be an inconvenience, but it can happen.

 

OK, let's start with a 50 STR and a 1 pip AP HKA for 46 points.  No doubling means the character gets a 3d6 AP HKA. Doubling means the character gets a 1/2d6 AP HKA. You (and Steve Long) consider the former horribly unbalanced.

 

The character could instead pay for a 25 STR and a 1 1/2d6 AP HKA (3d6 with STR) for 46. Presumably that is balanced. 

 

Or he can go the Multipower route.  Let's use that same 25 base STR.  The Multipower has +30 STR and 1 1/2d6 AP HKA, for 36 points - total spent 51.  He can have 55 STR or a 3d6 AP HKA and a 25 STR.

 

For the same 5 points, he can have 25 STR and a 1 1/2d6 AP HKA (3d6 with STR - he needs 1 more point to make it 3d6+1).  Are the two functionally equivalent?  I suggest that they are not.

 

Would you have allowed a -5 limitation on +30 STR if KA not used?  That's the same 5 point cost to get to the multipower. Presumably that is also balanced.

 

Because the doubling rule prevented Matterhorn from achieving his STR and KA at the same time, and we needed that to restore the balance set out above.

 

So no, the doubling rule DID NOT achieve balance.

 

What would achieve balance?  "Sorry, Matterhorn, STR is STR and KAs are KAs.  So you can buy a 50 STR for 40 points.  You can buy a 1/2d6 KA, AP, No Range for 8 points.  And you get EXACTLY what you paid for.  Want a bigger KA at the cost of not having extra STR at the same time? Use a Multipower like the Blaster does to trade Blast for KA.  Or we can put a Limitation on your KA that it is reduced if your STR is reduced. But you get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get. You don't get extra KA for free because you bought STR.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 10:55 AM, Grailknight said:

But one special snowflake doesn't invalidate doubling. It was put in to stop the abusive builds that were present in 1st and which are making a comeback in 6th. You shouldn't design a ruleset around edge cases.

 

2d6 HKA+ 30 STR is generally better than 3d6 HKA + 15 STR but neither is as good as 55 STR + 1 pip HKA.

 

The doubling rule LIMITS the abuse. With 5 STR adding 1 DC to an HKA, it is STUPID to buy more KA instead of buying more STR. If I want Wolverine - KA focused, so I want a 4d6 HKA - I am an idiot WITH doubling if I don't buy 30 STR + 2d6 HKA. WITHOUT doubling, I am an idiot if I don't buy a Brick with sharp fingernails - 55 STR and a 1 pip HKA.  The comparison here simply shows that allowing STR to add to HKA provides a significant freebie.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 10:55 AM, Grailknight said:

By the way, any GM I've encountered would tell you that your last build example for 40 points is only going to yield a 3d6 HKA. Combining a limited power with a normal one doesn't work that way.

 

Try encountering a GM who is functionally literate and opens 6e V1 to page 366.

 

EDIT: Replace above with "Try encountering a GM who opens 6e V1 to page 366, reads the rules for partially limited powers and interprets it in a non-disingenuous manner."

 

Quote

A character may have a power that’s only partly restricted — only part of the power operates under the Limitation. The character decides what Limitation to apply to the power, then decides what parts of the power he’ll Limit. The character buys the restricted part of the power with the Limitation and the rest of the power normally.

 

1d6 HKA can be augmented by STR. So that's 2d6 with 15 STR.  +2d6 HKA that cannot be augmented with STR. I take it we can agree that 2 + 2 = 4.  That's 4d6.

 

Or he can sell his STR back to 1 and pay 40 points for a 4d6 HKA, no STR adds. Once again, he is foolish not to buy enough STR to take full advantage of the free extra HKA - that extra STR carries no extra cost.

 

In short, the reality is that enhancing HKA with STR creates free STR once you decide to pay for the HKA. The doubling rule says "well, OK, you can have that free STR, but only up to half of your HKA". Removing the doubling rule just highlights what a freebie this is.

5 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

Saying that people would not use HKA with no maximum in 6th edition overpoweringly is crazy. I have seen a ton of people who buy a 5 point HKA (1 Point Body Damage) and then use their 50 STR to make it a 3-1/2d6 HKA which is a devastating attack. Much more devastating than an 11d6 normal attack via STR, and they both cost exactly the same. Doubling means you don't get these point hogs that do things like that, and I have seen a huge number of them, both in house and online. Every 6th edition game I have GMed or played in has had a player do things like that. Every online game, every in-house game, every game at a convention, period end of subject.

 

Of course they would. You are presenting this like the 50 STR and 3 1/2d6 KA is vastly overpowered. Now we are debating the value of killing versus normal damage.  Especially with the 6e stun multiple fix, I don't believe the KA is worth more than normal damage.

 

Now, let's assume I want a cost-effective 50 STR or 3 1/2d6 HKA?  With no doubling, I spend 45 points - you've given us that one. 

 

STR adds to KA with doubling rule?  OK, I'll buy a 25 STR for 15 points and a Multipower of +30 STR and 2d6 KA for 36 points.  I spent 51 points.  I could probably shave that a bit if I worked at it, but I have gained the advantage of +5 STR and it cost me 6 points.  If it is unbalanced to pay 45 points for 50 STR or a 3 1/2d6 HKA, why isn't it unbalanced to pay 51 points for 55 STR or a 3 1/2d6 HKA? 

 

2 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I dont think there is  right answer, and the thing is, it is not the HKAs that are limited in his presentation, it is the STR (I guess, if I needed to, I could come up with the reason why) but in either case the character saves a buttload of points.

 

Thanks for illustrating the mechanical aspects - the System provides options.  We provide SFX.  The character's mother was a While Witch.  The character's father was a brutal, violent beast, from whom the character inherited great strength.  Mom wove a mystic spell causing his great strength to fail should it be used to wield sword or axe.  The spell has the mechanical effect of causing his STR not to add to HKAs.

 

The core issue for me is that the same mechanical results should not come with a trap of cheaper or more expensive ways to buy them, and the same points should not provide objectively more if used in different ways.

 

2d6 HKA + 30 STR is objectively better than 3d6 KA + 15 STR.  They cost exactly the same, and one comes with 15 STR more than the other.  If you buy HKA, you effectively get STR for free, as long as you know to equalize the two.

 

15 STR and a 4d6 HKA can be purchased for 50 points as illustrated above. Or I can buy 15 STR + 4d6 HKA, no STR add (or RKA no range) for 5 + 40 = 45 points.  All the same abilities, 5 points less cost.  What I should buy is 15 STR and 1d6 HKA + 2d6 HKA, no STR adds.  That costs 5 + 15 + 20 = 40 points, a 10 point saving.  Which of the three is the mechanically balanced cost?