Grailknight

Actually, the part you're all ignoring is the Limitation to make Damage Negation only affect Normal damage and AVAD's. That makes it ineffective against all Drains and KA's. There are already rules to limit effectiveness in RAW.

.

Damage Negation versus AVAD's is merely an all-inclusive method to not take full STUN from them. And it's still restricted to matching damage type, (Physical, Energy or Mental) so it has to be purchased for each category. Yes, if you invest in all three types you can mitigate all AVAD's, (There's no such thing as a damaging power that doesn't fall into one of them no matter how convoluted you twist the SFX.) but the cost is high. Using Damage Negation as a character's main defense takes a larger points investment than any other method by percentage. I've never seen a PC use it for anything other than being able to shrug off attacks that share their SFX.

49 minutes ago, steriaca said:

An easy fix. Just say the one that they faced was someone set up as a scapegoat or strawman pretending to be the major villain. 

It'll be extremely difficult for that villain to ever regain the respect lost. He'll always be that guy we beat when where just beginners, playing catch up to the PC's rather than the major player he was intended to be.

14 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I guess I wasn't clear.  I don't mean the different power levels of Transform, I mean the Body/Soul/Mind construct.  Those categories should be dropped.  You should just have "transform" and then if it only affects someone's mind, its a limitaton.

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.

14 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

 

Hence its problems with cost For 5 points you're immune to 1 damage class of any kind of attack, killing or normal, AVAD or whatever.  That's too cheap.  With 60 active point cap you can buy 12d6 of Damage Negation vs PD and be immune to nearly anything in existence as long as its a physical attack, which covers 99% of the dangers out there.

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.

12 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

I am not sure as I do not have a copy available to me right now, but doesn't Damage Negation take of the highest dice after the entire attack is rolled? If that is so it makes the attack extremely valuable.

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.

3 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

Have any of used a villain that is on the power scale that while they may be used in the background they are never actually written up as due to their power level the heroes will never be able to fight them directly?

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.

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I would drop the categories of transformation and damage negation.

 

The multiple categories is an unnecessary complication merely intended to increase the cost of Transformation attacks when it should be a limitation to only partly transform a target.  Especially in the light of the justification for transform -- if you can kill them then you can change them -- it is needless and, I suspect, ignored by many if not most GMs.

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.

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Damage Negation fills no missing niche and is just another way of defense that is at best questionably costed and redundant.

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.

9 minutes ago, Tom Cowan said:

yeah, it was the more STUN damage then then you would like lot of 6s and a bit of STUN lotto.

who puts a 103 year old normal in new power armor? 

note the 2nd player had a TK MP with the shield Costs Endurance (-1/2), Instant (-1/2)  and Flight 30-40m?, No Turn Mode (+1/4), Combat Acceleration/Deceleration (+1/4) no Noncombat movement (-1/4)

3rd one the player was burning stun to push his move so low on stun and was hit by the grav tank's cannon (the 6 of us had stopped the bad guy's plan, trashed his war bots and the bad guy was booking it even if my PC was down and the brick was 1-2 hit from a KO to, so our only fast flyer/blaster chased... all the rest of us had a WTF are you thinking. RIP the Grand Sky Knight)

 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.

1 hour ago, Tom Cowan said:

It is the one shot 'oh cr@p, that was a good roll' with AP attacks that I have seen kill (one a low body power armor guy, two flyers (one got stunned flying fast in a forest with TK shield that dropped when STUNNED the other got knocked out at over the speed of sound and 10 km up chasing a running bad guy) maybe it is the flying? move through earth is painful) but people see the 'death by Penetrating' well before it will kill (2 last hit, 2 this hit, 2 next hit, I can take 6 more hits, new plan, drop the Tim). 

Not sure why Entangle would not stop a Penetrating attack, the base 1 PD/1 ED Entangle gets 1d6 body that you have to get through,

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.

24 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

 

Just because something is more common does not mean that it is more valuable. If you though that way then:

 

Assuming Attack Advantage one is used 999 times out of 1000

Assuming Attack Advantage two is used 1 time out of 1000.

This would make it:

Defense Advantage for Attack Advantage One should be +1/4 (or 1 point per defense point)

While Defense Advantage for Attack Advantage Two should be +249-1/4 (or 249 points per defense point)

 

Wouldn't this be fair considering how unlikely it is to be attacked by attack advantage Two?

 

No, it wouldn't. Both Armor Piercing and Penetrating have about the same effectiveness, so there for their respective advantages should be the same. How often they are utilized should not be even taken into account as that can change a lot based on the game. It is effectiveness that should determine the level of advantage.

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.

42 minutes ago, Tom Cowan said:

Well, even a 10d Penetrating killing attack's max Penetrating BODY is 20.  At that point the max 60 BODY of the killing attack would likely be deadly too. (Got 40r def to lower the body to 20?)

Penetrating attacks are normally for low and slow, not one and done. 

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.

7 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

 

In over 20 years of playing hero, I have never seen Penetrating cause much damage to the target. Now Armor Piercing on the other hand...

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.

1 hour ago, Gauntlet said:

 

I think that Penetration would only need to be a +¼ advantage with KA as well as while it does do BODY, it does it basically as 1 BODY for 15 points rather than 1 STUN for 5 points.

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.

33 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

I think we disagree on the definition of orphan mechanic.  If we call powers a mechanic of the game, then all the powers follow pretty similar rules.  Adding to a power from a characteristic is different from buying a power.  If is the only example of such things written into the main rules, as such it is orphan from anything else.  You do not buy the addition of STR, it is baked into the system. 

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.

33 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

I disagree that there is an equivalency between this enhancement of a power's effeect simply by buying a characteristic that does not actually have any inherent ability to do the action that it is being enhanced.  I probably confused the situation by mentioning a mechanic that facilitated possession.

No, each power is its own mechanic. Possession would simply be another with its own set of rules within the framework of the game.

33 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

Even putting that aside, I citicised the orphan mechanic doing something that could not otherwise be done by the system.  Having something that works in one instance but nowhere else, for a purpose that could be accommodated within the system is the "bad thing".

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.

33 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

And I would have no problem with STR adding to HKA to be devolved into an APG type book, alongside all of the other potential options. 😉 My concern is that it is baked into the system with no other characteristics following the principle that the presence of STR adding to HKA establishes.

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.

33 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

 

That is indeed precisely my point.  And adding to HKA is just another case of "defining your SFX to a concept where those powers are applications of your STR".  I think (not quite sure I am understanding the question)  that the answer would be you can increase whatever you pay points from.  If you have a Flash then I would allow you to buy more Flash.  If you have STR, I would allow you to buy more STR.  If I was inclined to allow that Flash to be enhanced by STR (which I am not, but think that you should be considering it) then increasing either Flash or STR would lead to the increased Flash effect.

 

Doc

Agreed.

5 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.

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?

5 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

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). 

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.

5 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

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.

 

Doc

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.

On 9/23/2023 at 11:07 AM, Scott Ruggels said:

co-ordination roll? 8 or less, and THEN roll for dex?

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.

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

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.

.

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

 

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.

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.

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

"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.

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.

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

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?

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

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.

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

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.

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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". 

 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.

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

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.

 

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

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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?

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.

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

And if you can address that dissonance, your stance would have much greater support, including mine.

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

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.

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

 

 

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.

Here you are prioritizing cost over balance. Doubling is a compromise awaiting a better solution.

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

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.

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

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.

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

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.

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

Totally with you on all of these.

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

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.

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

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.

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

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.

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

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.

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

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.

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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

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.

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

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.

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

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.

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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?

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?

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

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.

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

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.

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

 

 

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.

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.

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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

 

 

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.

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.

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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? 

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.

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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?

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.

8 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

I think the point Hugh was making about Matterhorn was, if the player came to you and said, I have a 50 STR character with a variety of different killing attacks.  His STR doesn't add to any of them (or to any random weapon he picks up).  What limitation do I add to my STR?

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.

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

If I have a Blast and an RKA, I can use them as a combined attack. Neither augments the other.

 

If I have STR and an HKA, and we remove "STR Boost HKA", I can still use them as a combined attack and the high STR character still hits harder.

 

Doubling isn't the issue. One ability adding to one other ability is an outlier mechanic that I would remove.

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?

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Show me the character creativity it stimulated.  Find me three characters - just 3 - in all of 2e through 5e after the change (not the ones written in 1e) that have a 3d6 HKA and 15 STR, or a 1d6 KA and 45 STR, or any similar build with a 3:1 or greater ratio of STR:HKA or HKA:STR.

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.

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

 

A lot of us muddled along with the Stun Multiple for a long time too - one extra edition. It was still a good change, and it was not essential.  Note that it has an optional rule too - adopt hit locations and the multiple returns to 1-5.

If you don't think it was an essential change, why did you drag it out as an example?

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Show me that really simple spell in 5e or 6e.  The build is already very complicated.

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.

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

So why is it necessary to cap an HKA, but not to cap any other attack?

Refer back to Steve Long's example which you quoted. You won't accept it coming from me.

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

It is limited by not adding to HKAs.  Everyone else's STR adds to HKAs.  His does not.  The HKA can still be increased by non-limited STR. It has not been limited.

????  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?

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Apparently, the only "abuse" is arises in those rare instances when the character will need both his KA and his full STR. That seems very uncommon, and I think accepting those "abuses" is no less reasonable a compromise.

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?

14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

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.

14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

What do Combined Attacks have to do with doubling?  I have no issues with this but it distracts from the conversation.

14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

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.

14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

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.

14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

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.

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

We're at 6e v2 p 99, for anyone trying to follow along.

 

First off, that sidebar suggests inability to

 

 

Taken exactly as written, that would include combat skill levels (the basis for Deadly Blow et al.), combat maneuvers (martial and otherwise - so much for all those extra Martial Arts DCs) and movement (that would hurt a lot of speedsters).  I note that

 

 so any cold feet on removing the doubling rule got even colder when considering the doubling rule as a general principal.

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.

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

As well,

 

 

Further support for HA being limited STR.
 

So we need some more exceptions to the optional rules tacked on to what was a change endeavouring to simplify the "adding damage" rules.  I note that it is also suggested for "heroic campaigns" and real weapons paid for with cash rather than CP, although the example is clearly a Super.  Let's look at that example:

 

 

so...the first 12 points of STR were useless, and cause no balance issue by a freebie KA adder, but the next 3 STR (if he had a 15 STR), and every point thereafter (if it's higher), were much more useful and can't add to that KA for free without unbalancing the game.  What limitation could Matterhorn take on his +50 STR if it "does not increase HKAs"?

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.

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

In that example, Matterhorn invested 56 points, 50 for STR and 6 for that dagger.  Let's strip out the Focus limitation - it's 1/2d6 AP HKA, sharp fingernails, 12 points, so a total of 62.   Will you let him combine that 1d6+1 AP HKA with a 12d6 STR strike as a Combined Attack?  If not, why not?  A character with a 12d6 Blast and a 1d6+1 AP RKA could make a combined attack.  If he buys a 1d6+1 AP RKA, No Range (a bit pricier at 17 points), now can he use a combined attack?  What about a 1d6+1 AP HKA, No STR Adds (exactly the same mechanical result - how is it "balanced" for these to cost 5 more points than using an HKA with STR adders?  Especially if we "need" the doubling rule for balance.)

 

If you would not allow this, perhaps Matterhorn should also be no fool.  What if he instead spends his points on:

 

+21 STR (so now he has 31);

A Multipower of two fixed slots, +34 STR and a 2d6 AP HKA.

 

That's 37 for the pool + 3 + 4 for the two slots = 44 points + 21 for STR - 65 points rather than 62.  He can have a 65 STR whenever he wants, 5 more than the non-MP build.  He can have a 3 1/2d6 AP HKA. So he has added +5 STR for only 3 points AND can use that full 3 1/2d6 AP HKA that doubling would cap at 1d6+1.

 

Lots of other + STR/Multipower combos could certainly be envisioned.

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.

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Explain to me how all of this "you can add STR to HKA but only up to doubling it" is creating better balance - and go slowly this time!

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.