Hugh Neilson

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. 

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.
 
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
To the extent that it is "more balanced", it is only because the unbalance is more limited, not because the core mechanics are balanced.
 
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.
 
 
An HA is just limited STR. An HKA is a completely separate attack power.
 
 
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.
 
 
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! 
 
 
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
 
 
 
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.
 
 
Steve's opinion.  I wholeheartedly agree.

Well it has been two weeks.  School is back in session and we are hoping to help to a return to normalcy.  Smoke varies from day to day.  Some days it is very minor, and then we get like today, where it is almost like a fog (I literally can't see to the end of my street).  For once I am cheering the oncoming winter and hope the snow will totally dampen the remaining fires.  To quote the series "Winter is coming!"

Yes, Sir; I am still here.
 
I havent posted much since we switched to damage / STR adds / points balance partly because I really have not had the time  or mindset to digest the numbers you guys are throwing around (I am dealing with an unfortunate event, and staying out of jail is a high priority for me right now), and partly because-
 
Offered as a statement of fact without malice or derision to anyone-  as you and the other long-timers are already well aware, I think "points equals balance" is a "Scientology is a real religion"-level load of crap and attempts to enforce it are, in my own opinion, the biggest problem creators of subsequent editions.
 
Still, the discussions _are_ interesting enough to partake now and again; I have just had a _lot_ on mind the last couple of days.  Do carey on, though; I will find the time to catch up. 
 
 
 

And how of of those Pathfinder books is fluff?  Yes, I count all prestige classes, all races, all variant classes...as fluff.  How many books do you NEED to read, to play?  How many of those are campaign books, or class books, or whatnot?
 
Yes, to a point, they're 'rules' books because both Pathfinder and D&D have almost no rules, in a systemic sense.  What they have is a set of exceptions and special cases.  It's the worst possible way to build rules, but yeah, it's what lets gaming companies sell a zillion more exceptions.
 
 
I'm actually pretty sure most people are saying much the same thing.
 
All right, let's actually bring some numbers into this.
KA STUN, 4d6, using the 6E STUN mult (a d3)
Many STUN totals are impossible, so I skipped them.  These are rounded to the nearest percent.  
P(total stun at least 36) -- 31
P(total stun at least 38) -- 25
P(total stun at least 39) -- 24
P(total stun at least 40) -- 20
P(total stun at least 42) -- 19
P(total stun at least 44) -- 15
P(total stun at least 45) -- 15
P(total stun at least 46) -- 11
P(total stun at least 48) -- 11
P(total stun at least 51) -- 8
P(total stun at least 54) -- 5
P(total stun at least 57) -- 3
P(total stun at least 60) -- 2
P(total stun at least 63) -- 1
P(total stun at least 66) -- 0
P(total stun at least 69) -- 0
P(total stun at least 72) -- 0

12d6 -- STUN, percentage 
42,  53.32693980477263
43,  46.673060195192626
44,  40.108723576102626
45,  33.806089328702626
46,  27.917394539142627
47,  22.564386106792625
48,  17.831351558682627
49,  13.762348354492627
50,  10.362598605692627
51,  7.603437296512627
52,  5.429777614632627
53,  3.768850548012627
54,  2.538993269342627
55,  1.657465075978627
56,  1.0465962821586268
57,  0.637947569198626
 
58+ is down below 0.5%.  I don't care at that point.  It simply won't happen enough to be meaningful, so trying to say one near-impossibility is more likely than another is splitting a carbon nanotube.
 
Note that even 51 STUN is basically a TIE.  54 STUN, the KA has a small advantage...but not much.  You're getting down to the 1 chance in 30-ish that you'll get 57+.  Flip side?  70% of the time you won't reach 36 STUN, which basically means, you do nothing in the scenario we're discussing.
 
So, yes.  Hugh's right.  Chasing that 60+ STUN with a KA is like hoping a monster is gonna miss his save in D&D...when he saves on a 2.  
 
Now, yeah, in 5E?  KAs are gross.  They're sick.  They're hideously overpowered.  
Stun from 4d K, 5E:
P(total stun at least 42) -- 40
P(total stun at least 44) -- 37
P(total stun at least 45) -- 36
P(total stun at least 46) -- 33
P(total stun at least 48) -- 33
P(total stun at least 50) -- 30
P(total stun at least 51) -- 29
P(total stun at least 52) -- 28
P(total stun at least 54) -- 26
P(total stun at least 55) -- 25
P(total stun at least 56) -- 24
P(total stun at least 57) -- 22
P(total stun at least 60) -- 21
P(total stun at least 63) -- 17
P(total stun at least 64) -- 17
P(total stun at least 65) -- 15
P(total stun at least 66) -- 13
P(total stun at least 68) -- 13
P(total stun at least 69) -- 12
P(total stun at least 70) -- 12
P(total stun at least 72) -- 10
P(total stun at least 75) -- 9
P(total stun at least 76) -- 7
P(total stun at least 80) -- 6
P(total stun at least 84) -- 4
P(total stun at least 85) -- 4
P(total stun at least 88) -- 3
P(total stun at least 90) -- 3
P(total stun at least 92) -- 2
P(total stun at least 95) -- 2
P(total stun at least 96) -- 1
P(total stun at least 100) -- 1
P(total stun at least 105) -- 0
P(total stun at least 110) -- 0
P(total stun at least 115) -- 0
P(total stun at least 120) -- 0
 
So...80 STUN?  Still 6%?  And that's higher than a normal attack can possibly do.  And 1 time in 6, we're well over 60, which quite possibly will stun the target?  MUCH!!!! too high...particularly as this also requires major additional expense, to avoid taking an uncomfortable amount of BODY.  
 

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

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

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

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

How many remember "The moral majority is neither."

How many remember "The moral majority is neither."

How many remember "The moral majority is neither."

How many remember "The moral majority is neither."

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

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

How many remember "The moral majority is neither."

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

What you're basically talking about is Hugh Neilson's infamous Margarita Man.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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