Grailknight

There are times when these come into play such as when you want to create a ravening monster or a loyal slave. I usually handle these by requiring both a Physical and Mental Transform. If you're using Damage Negation as your main defense, it's actually pretty expensive in a Supers game because you have to protect versus both physical and energy-based attacks. And Damage Negation can be pretty risky when that boss or mastermind shows up with attacks 4-6 DC's beyond what you're immune to especially against KA's. Damage Negation takes away dice before they are rolled. For example, a 12 DC Blast against 4 DC Damage Negation would only roll 8 dice.

Yes, but always with the understanding that the heroes will be able to overcome them eventually. If you indirectly stop the plans of a vast shadow organization that's a heroic victory. Do it often enough and you can erode their power base to something you can shut down. Beating a villain that can't be directly faced sounds like the objective for an epic quest. Destroying a power source or freeing an antithesis are pretty standard tropes. Maybe the heroes can't beat the villain now, but after a campaign's worth of experience, training, alliances and equipment improvements, we're ready. The real worry is a supposed campaign mastermind that gets trounced by beginning level PC's because you didn't make them powerful enough on their first character sheet.

So, it should cost the same to turn a targets' hair fluorescent purple as it does to turn them into a statue or a mushroom? I can see reducing it to Minor and Severe because the spread of effects under Moderate is so great but there should be categories. Damage Negation is the easiest way to grant immunity to a specific level of DC's that exists in the game. Its utility was diminished somewhat because the STUN Multiplier was fixed. It might be a tad overpriced (I'd set it at 4 points per DC stopped.) but it has plenty of utility.

I've had experience with that third one, the Ahab complex. A character who does not have Psych Limitations to mandate this decides "I'm not letting this guy escape." even though they are the only member of the team that can keep up and has to pursue the literally demonic serial killer into tunnels where their team comms don't work when all the other players are shouting after her in game that this is a terrible idea. Even after I told her as GM that this won't end well, she persisted. But she was a good sport about it and admitted that it was really stupid next session before she began a new character. Still friends, 30 years later.

I'm fond of many of these but I use a more subtle baddie also. A sorcerer whose main area of influence is the mind and who sets himself as leader in the vice industries. He runs several brothels and gambling spots, attempts to slowly corrupt vulnerable NPC's to his cause and generally stays in the shadows. He's not a world-beater but can comfortably defeat a single PC and is always surrounded by minions, has a large information network and fabulous wealth hidden in smaller locations. He plays the long game and may never cross the PC's unless they make nuisances of themselves repeatedly.

What DC levels and velocities are we talking about in these cases? I can see the how it could happen in the first case but the second baffles me. Your defenses last until the end of the segment when stunned so the crash shouldn't be fatal unless you are moving at NCM speeds (which I wouldn't allow or attempt in a forest) and didn't strike something until the next segment. In scenario 3, you're again moving at NCM speeds and hitting each other is ... challenging. Also, unless you were descending at speed, it takes 45 seconds to fall 10 km. You'd have to have been knocked out to -21 or more to not get a recovery. I'm not saying these things are impossible because I know the game is played and not scripted but I don't think that AP was the direct cause of the deaths in the second and third cases.

For the overall campaign, it can take anywhere from a couple of weeks to a couple of months. You need to set up the basic blocks of friendly and antagonistic NPC's with individual capabilities and background organizations. Make 2 or 3 possible storylines and let the PC's follow their inclinations. They will do things you haven't planned even so. Be adaptable rather than forcing them back to one path. For a session I usually take 2-4 days to write the involved NPC's. Some may just be names with personalities and skills to be developed to flesh out the background. The opposition of the week need full sheets for the mains, but the nameless minions can be just a list of combat relevant abilities. As you build up a catalog of NPC's this time will shorten especially if you have one or more recurring mains. Work on your capability to go from a concept to a complete campaign balanced NPC and you'll shorten this time. I'd also suggest an initial session 0 to create and modify the PC's to fit the campaign. This may require you or them to adjust. Supers range from things like the Super Friends to The Boys in tone. Other genres can have the same spread. Make sure you and your players are anticipating the same thing even if both sides have to compromise.

I think you've misinterpreted my post. My reasons for the pricing AP and Penetrating differently have nothing do with frequency of use. Penetrating KA's are better at consistently doing BODY damage. They break Barriers better and ignore the DEF an entangled target gets from Entangle. That's why I agreed with Christopher R Taylor it should have one price for normal damage and a greater price for killing. My only mention of frequency was to the defenses for these powers and how it related to their different costs.

Well, that's 37 DC if Penetrating is a +1/4 advantage and 45 DC if it is +1/2. The only genre I've seen that I might place at that level is anime akin to DBZ. And yes, you want Penetrating to be a +1/2 advantage on killing damage at the low end of the power scale. Entangles give you some DEF against AP attacks but they are transparent to Penetrating. Barriers generally fall faster also. Since AP is only 1/2 the cost on Penetrating, Hardened is slightly more than twice as common as Impenetrable. I like the balance but YMMV. And there our experiences differ. I've seen STUN from AP and rarely BODY. Penetrating KA's have been the cause of far more BODY damage over that same span.

Possibly true balance wise but remember this game is played, not scripted. There can be sessions with incredibly skewed die rolls and an unintentional character death could result. Remember, Penetrating does 1 BODY per die on average. Lowering the price ups the number of dice rolled, making it more deadly, and that is usually undesirable in Supers.

And in my interpretation, adding STR to HA and HKA is baked into the rules for those powers explicitly and is separate from the rules of all the other powers. We are parsing at different levels. No, each power is its own mechanic. Possession would simply be another with its own set of rules within the framework of the game. But as my newcomer pointed out, you can say the same of every power. It's not a bad thing each that power works differently. STR adding is just the way HA and HKA work by RAW. Other powers work other ways. So, on this point we do agree that there' a place in the game for adding characteristics to powers. Unless we want to write a complete 7th edition though, we'll have to go with adding the non-STR options in an APG type book. Agreed.

Those are just cases of defining your SFX to a concept where those powers are applications of your STR. I can just as easily make a character who bases their Flash on DEX/SPD that hits so often you're disoriented or INT that uses their knowledge of anatomy to hit nerve clusters similar to acupuncture. Can those characters improve those other abilities without improving their STR (or DEX or INT ...) or will you require both to be raised proportionally? I agree that it's that way for the reasons you mention. And yes, STR adds to HA and HKA and no other powers in HERO have a characteristic add. But please stop with this idea that they are the only orphan mechanics in HERO. Every power in HERO is an orphan mechanic. Blast works differently from Flash which works differently from Entangle and so on and so on. We don't notice because we've played for so long that these things are second nature to us. It took a new player who was a GM of some other games to make this connection for me. We don't do it anywhere else because there are no written examples anywhere in the game. I'd have no objections to adding those options in an APG type book. Adding those make more sense that trying to disconnect STR. Of course, you'd need to add a method to stop the more abusive edge builds like say Doubling.

I'd modify this slightly. Base move would be 1/2 their average move because a faster runner can drag a slower one along while supporting them. If the characters have Teamwork, use that. If not use DEX rolls. Take the average of what they make (or fail) their rolls by and add/subtract that to the base move that phase. If both fail on the same phase, both need to succeed at a DEX roll or they fall.

A lot of words that don't address the main problem of why your solution is incomplete. 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. . 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. Not nearly as big a disconnect as STR not affecting HTH combat. The fact that the limitation is in the rules but is not the default should be an indicator of something. 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? 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. So, no apology and a sarcastic use of the word you found offensive in another backhanded insult. No problem. I'll still stay civil even if you felt the need to get one last dig in. So certain concepts should get things for free then? Maybe you should just tell that player that that star surfing character doesn't fit within the constraints of the campaign because it would be too expensive to buy. Except that metarule of the system clearly states that only the more expensive options are valid for use.

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. And if you can address that dissonance, your stance would have much greater support, including mine. I would guess that they wanted it to not initially be another form of 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. Here you are prioritizing cost over balance. Doubling is a compromise awaiting a better solution. 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. 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.

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. Totally with you on all of these. I ultimately came around to removing Figured Characteristics and COM. It took a few weeks of remaking NPC's to show me the benefits in character creation an to accept the reduced costs. I would have reduced the 5x and 4x STUN modifiers on the Hit Location chart by 1 but I agree with the change for Supers. I would not have removed Negative Characteristics. The current penalty for going from 1 to 0 is too harsh and makes Adjustment Powers too effective vs PRE and INT. Most pertinent to this and some of our past discussions is that I would have made HA into the HTH counterpart to Blast and completely separate from the idea that it should be limited STR. I'm fully invested in keeping the cost of a DC at 5 points across the entire game and would raise the cost of Density Increase and Martial Arts DC to keep them consistent. 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. 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. So why would I ever buy 6th edition Growth or Shrinking then? I can get the same results for less points by buying the Characteristics as Powers with Non-Persistent or Costs End Only to Activate. Or keep doubling and the 50 STR, 1 pip HKA option is now not possible. Balance of outcomes if not perfect balance of points is maintained. 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. The disconnect is the main issue. If you can't justify it in an appealing way, how will you get acceptance from your current audience or appeal to new GM's and players? Leave your option to an Advanced Player or GM guide until then. 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.

You can do the amorphous body with Shape Shift as long as you don't want to go through a solid object. It even has an example of going flat to go under a door.

it's called doubling because it limits the addable DC's to the amount already purchased. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. That's dangerously close to a personal attack. Let's stay civil. 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. 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.

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, if the mechanical effect is that STR fails when used this way, do all aspects of his STR fail? Can someone with a held action Entangle or Grab him while he has his side weapons out and only have to deal with his low STR? Can he not hold a heavy object in one hand while cutting a rope in the other? Is he like Wonder Woman, so that if I tie him up with a switchblade in his hand, he becomes powerless? If the answer to these is yes, then he gets a Limitation on his STR. 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 balanced purchase is the most common and effective build with doubling for a character that doesn't have STR but HKA as their main attack. Not having the STR to double the HKA is a less common build, but you're totally ignoring concepts built around movement or skills where it's better when doubling is in effect. The huge STR, tiny HKA build is just an abuse to get the option of a campaign level HKA for low points. If I was going to do your multipower version, I'd go with 55 STR, a 5 point control pool and 2 slots, 1 of +5 STR and 1 of 1 pip HKA. That costs 2 extra points. 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.

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.

Yet you just said that you'd make weapons that got boosted by DEX or INT for Fantasy. I have no objection to those at all in principle. Which is it? That's an entirely different issue from balance. Show me a character that uses Variable Slots in a Multipower. Doubling does stifle those builds that used high STR/ low HKA but again, Steve long's examples gives the reason why this is this way. Characters with an HKA that they don't have the STR to double are pretty common in Fantasy and a concept matter for campaigns. I see them on occasion, but if you don't that's just all your players being efficient. If you don't think it was an essential change, why did you drag it out as an example? Your build will always have at least one more Limitation for No Range and will have to add Linked if you want a version that adds a Characteristic to the damage. Added complexity is added. Refer back to Steve Long's example which you quoted. You won't accept it coming from me. ???? What makes it work differently for that one example character than for any other character. Again, doubling limits HKA by requiring that added damage from any source cannot exceed the DC of HKA purchased. Everyone else's STR works the same way. The speedster wouldn't get Limitation on his excess movement and the Skill monkey wouldn't get one on his excess levels. Would you give a retroactive Limitation to a character that bought an HKA with XP? That's not an abuse, it's a rare situation that might arise in an unscripted and therefore unpredictable scenario. Why do you imply that I would single out my player to take advantage of part of their build that's not a Limitation?

I have absolutely no objection to such powers being added but I see that you do not absolutely object to a limit on how much damage can be added. Sounds like a good rules project. What do Combined Attacks have to do with doubling? I have no issues with this but it distracts from the conversation. Is it perfectly balanced? No. Did doubling fix the problem from 2nd through 5th edition? Yes. A compromise solution was arrived at where you had to buy at least 1/2 your HKA as HKA directly and it worked for decades. No, we didn't all cruise along ignoring the STUN Lotto. Some of us cut our GM teeth teaching engineers and programmers not to power game a ruleset that is a power gamers dream. It was kept under control by GM supervision in various campaigns I've been involved in. Obviously, your experience was different, but you found yourself taking advantage of it. I had no problem with this change to the ruleset. But STR adding to HKA wasn't game breaking with doubling, so no change was necessary. Here we disagree. Why remove a rule(doubling) to make an extremely common power into a more complicated build that does the same thing? What will your write-up for a HKA that is not purchased with money but with points look like for a mage who summons swords look like? I'll bet it'll be longer than HKA-x DC's. As you yourself quoted, Martial Arts and Move-by/through have to be exempted by the GM. That's because of the language of the optional rule for 6th is all inclusive. That wasn't necessary in 2nd through 5th because doubling only applied to HKA. How is his STR limited? He can still use it fully for all other purposes. Doubling is not a rule to limit STR, it limits HKA's. It's a combined attack and each has defenses applied separately. The multipower build introduces scenarios where he will not have his full STR. It'll rarely come up, but it can happen. I don't have to. Steve Long's example said it all. But I'll summarize, it stops abusive builds.

Thet do have a case as I doubt that fair use applies here. They were not compensated or even consulted about the use of their works, it's being used for commercial purposes and they may lose money from competition.

In simple terms, because while RAW allows STR to add to HKA, it does not allow HKA to add to STR. In genre, stronger things hit harder and do more damage with weapons including what HERO classifies as Killing Damage weapons. Doubling hits a sweet spot between play balance and realism where you can only add so much to a weapon and beyond that point it becomes ineffective. Without doubling we get those "thumbtack vs battleship arguments" that we've had before and don't need to repeat. Now in simple terms, tell me why the reverse is not also viable? Why can't my 15 STR plus 3d6 HKA hit for 60 STR instead of 4d6 Killing? As you say, the points are the same. If this were possible by RAW, I'd agree that doubling is unnecessary, but I've never seen anyone beside myself make this argument. As for what worked well about HKA, doubling was added in 2e and was RAW for decades until 6e where it was changed. It says something about doubling that in the very next paragraph it was mentioned as an optional rule for consideration. I don't recall any other instances where Steve Long wavered like that and this is the man who removed Figured Characteristics and eliminated COM.

I understand it also. I'd prefer to just change HA to 5 points and have it act like HKA. Or did you forget that HA also benefits from that same free STR?