Kdansky

Re: The cost of killing damage I can agree to that. Also, I'm not sure if *2 is the best possible number. I might like to use something between 2 and 2.5, but these numbers are highly impractical to calculate during battle. So I would go for a *2 + y approach, where y is dependend on DCs, and you can calculate it in advance. But as I briefly demonstrated before: If y is only DC/2, KAs again become at least as good as EBs in any situation. 12d6 EB averages at 42 stun, probably varying from about 36 to 48, not much less/more. A: 4d6 KA with fixed *2 is at 28 stun, but going rather wildly from about 20 to 36 (rolling 18+ on 4d6 is not uncommon). Still, a *lot* less in average. Only rDef against Body though. B: 4d6 KA with fixed *2 + DC adds another 12 stun on all results, resulting in 40 average, but easily getting to 48 too, 1% chance of getting 52+ stun. (rolling 20+ on 4d6 is a good 1%) C: 4d6 KA with fixed *2 + DC/2 adds only 6 stun, average 34, quite a bit lower than the EB, but you get the NND effect of body only vs rDef. Often seen would be the 18+ roll of 42 stun, which is the average of the EB. I see all solutions A, B and C as viable, a bit depending on how common rDef is. I will not go for B, but I might use A or C, middle ground. As said before, we used another approach 2d6/2 (round to .5) -1, which averages 2.5 multiplier, and it was similar to 1d6-1. You still roll a lucky 10+ every couple attacks and get your *4 multiplier, which in turn makes your 3d6 churn out an easy 44+ stun on an average damage roll, devastating nearly anthing at 45 AP.

Re: The cost of killing damage As usual, I agree with Sean. I think we'd be very bored alone together, as there's no-one to argue with at all. So, because the KA has a messed up mechanic with unwanted results, we redesign our PCs? That is the perfect example of curing the symptoms, not the sickness. I'm still going for stun x2, may be a bit weak, but works well simulation-wise. 2d6 does a maximum of 24 stun, any Super will just shrug that off, but it will still kill any normal in two shots. Probably not even KOing him in the process, only kiling.

Re: Building a power with different limitations I would go with naked advantage focused through the suit. Wait. That leaves the problem that we actually could construct this: EB 12d6 - 60 AP. Endx10 = -2 total cost: 20 cp naked advantage: +1/4 half end cost, on 60 that is 15 cp, not limited (or limited as lightly as possible to maximize effect). total cost: 35 cp for a 12d6 EB with half end cost, and breaking the AP limit too... Very bad

Re: The cost of killing damage Ok, let me put this in few words. I still have no clue whatsoever why a BBEG should decide that the KA is the bigger threat, if it were exactly as good than the EB. That only leaves me with these conclusions: A: The BBEG is wrong. The KA is not the bigger threat at all, but for some weird reason he is mistaken and has messed up target priorities. Don't they learn too? B: Although the EB is generally not worse then the KA, in this special case, the KA is better, therefore the BBEG considers it more dangerous. C: The BBEG is right and the KA is generally better. If I look at the system and compare KAs to EBs, I'm pretty sure that KA outclasses EB in 99% of all situations, and I will have to construct all characters with this in mind. Sure, it's not impossible, but having a broken system and fixing it with campaign rules or character design (everyone has 50% DR, everyone has 10+ rDef) is not a good idea.

Re: The cost of killing damage Sorry to assume you flamebaited, to me it looked like it. But you contradict yourself. Your logic is as follows: 1 KAs are not better than EBs. 2 Evil guys assume the worst (reasonably likely) case. 3 KAs can make bigger hits. 4 Therefore the KA is a bigger threat than EB. It's quite obvious. 1 is false, it contradicts 4. Name something that is a bigger threat but a worse power than any other. You won't find it, as "bigger threat" is the same as "more dangerous" which translates to "more powerful/suitable". Having bigger hits obviously is better, since the defender reasons such. So what's your approach? Rather not use a KA because you might be a target? Use a 40 AP attackpower instead of a 75 AP one to make yourself seem less powerful. Wait, if you do that, you *ARE* less powerful. This result should be the other: If everyone has a KA, everyone is as much of a target as before, but everyones strength increased. So that is not a disadvantage of the KA at all.

Re: The cost of killing damage But since you (comic) actually agree that KAs are a bigger threat, why do you defend them as not being better than EBs? I find it striking that you write "The KA is balanced" and two lines later "the BBEG will target you first due to being a bigger threat." That's reminds me of populistic politicians. "We're not rassistic! The immigrants want you to believe that!" And as stated: As soon as you are not limited to only KAs on a character, the disadvantage is nil. You want to be sure to do 42 stun? Use the EB instead. Also, after this flame bait, I will not bother discussing this with you any further. If you want to overcomplicate things, then please do so yourself. KA truly does have slightly less KB, but it more than overcompensates with its crits. (again, I refer to the 100+ stun lucky dice rolls with that word). Also, the math (while probably being correct) of Hugh is slightly off. When are you encountering (N)PCs with 12 rDef (or even 9) in a 15 AP limit game? It skewes your results when you put in really wrong numbers. Still, you're right. Assuming everyone has about DC in rDef, KA-stun-multi-2 is worse than EB. If you have less rDef however, you will take some BODY on most attacks, even if you take not much stun. My problem with a fixed multi of 3: It's superior by far to the EB. My problem with a d6-1 multi: It's superior by far to the EB due to same average and huge crits. My problem with the fixed multi of 2.5: complicated ro calculate (17 * 2.5?). 17* 3 takes me long enough as is, 2.5 is really annoying. Fixed multi of 2: probably too weak. What about doing the "add half the DC"? That gives way better results, a bit broader distributed than EB, but roughly same average. Only problem: KA is now again superior to EB due to rDef requirements. Your enemy is forced to have the more expensive defense, or else he will be gibbed. Assuming anyone has rDef, it's about the same. We are now at a limited NND for +0. I'm still not entirely happy

Re: Shapeshifting The first one sounds big. Probably -1 or even more. I mean: since you can see that person, everyone else can too. And for shapeshifting to have any effect, you must be seen. So anyone now sees duplicates. Completely drops the use as stealth ability and mostly impersonation. Have seen recently: Assuming recently is "recently" (the last 5 non-generic characters encountered + PCs) it's big but not gigantic. I'd handwave around -1, depending on how it's ruled exactly and how campaign works. Have studied: Sounds a bit like extra time / Preparation. But you can prepare way in advance, so add "delayed" You'll not get a lot here either.

Re: The cost of killing damage 1: 1 2: 1 3: 2 4: 3 5: 4 6: 5 1/6 (1+1+2+3+4+5) = 2.66~ As I said. That is the average Multiplier you will get on 1d6-1 (0 := 1). This means the multiplier of 3 is (also/again) favouring the KA against the EB. I'm actually not sure which version would be better in practice. What's better? An Attack which does 10% more damage or an attack which does double damage on a 10% chance? Clearly the second, as you get a probability to stun/KO/break through defenses. So having a bit less overall damage might still make the second version better. I personally feel that 1d6-1 is better than fixed 3, and fixed 3 is way better than EB. We once tried to use 2d6/2 -1, (x.5 values get used as is and not rounded) which gives similar results, a way better curve an slightly lower average of about 2.46. Quite a bit better, but still annoying one-shot kills (altough rare they can srew up gameplay, believe me when I tell you I nearly one-shotted something along the lines of a dragon on 3d6-1 (KA + Str + going all out in heroic)). Also, very complicated to calculate (17 * 2.5 is how much again?). And third: If the multiplier is 2.5 (lower than current 2.66) then it's still vastly better than EB, due to the very advantageous broad range. I will go for fixed multi of 2. And if that results in too less Stun, I am inclined to make it + DC/2, which just favourably moves the curve, but does not change it. Though I think that would result in a pure KA advantage again. 3d6 KA resulting in tops 36 stun (usual relevant hits will be around 20-25, or often irrelevant) is not really big, considering 9d6 averages in 31.5 (but very rarely will reach 40+ if ever). Still, you got the reduced defenses advantage. Sounds like this will make KA a lot like NND. If your enemy has any resistant defenses, it's rather mediocre, if he has a lot of them, it's worse than EB, and if he has none, it's devastating (which is ok). Might make KA + ArmorPiercing/Penetrating interesting. 20+ on 4d6 is not easy, but doable btw. That's 5555, 5556 x3, 5566 x6, 5666 x3, 6666 against 1296, that's a good 1% chance. Still *a lot* better than 60+ on 9d6 (that will be around 0.0001% I estimate, though I have not done the maths, three times as many dice means roughly cubed chance for same result). And since you did not read my post, I'll restate it too. What you say is wrong (do the math if you don't believe me). KAs are roughly as effective against a 0 armor target as EBs (slightly (only slightly!) less average stun, bit more killing, ridiculous constun. They are a lot better against armored targets than EB. 30 rDef 12d6 EB -> 42 stun -> result 12 stun. 0 body. 4d6 KA -> 14 body -> 14*2.66 = 37.33 -> result 7 stun, 0 body. 10 rDef + 10 def 12d6 EB -> 42 stun + 12 body -> result: 22 stun + 2 body. 4d6 KA -> 14 body -> 14*2.66 = 37.33 -> result: 17.33 + 4 body. If you have 10 rDef and 50% DR, you'll take 12d6 EB-> 42 stun -> 32 stun -> 50% only -> result: 16 stun + 1 body on average or 4d6 KA -> 14 body -> 14*2.66 = 37.33 -> 27.333 -> 50% only -> result: 14 stun + 1 body. Not really any difference whatsoever. I still got my devastating crits. ( roll 16, roll 6 stun multi, 16*5 = 90 -> 80 stun, 40 taken, you're on the ground). Sure, the really high up rolls will not utterly one-hit you, but they are still much better than the EB. The low rolls now also do a bit of stun, instead of doing zero. Yes, it *is* worse for the KA. But the KA still comes out on top. Actually, we *gain* in average for the KA against DR, though we lose half our crits (the stun multi = 4 ones are not that bad anymore). After re-reading what I just said, I really think a fixed multi of 2 is a good idea. It makes KAs a bit of a gamble (you lose in average, but you gain crits (I'll call the high rolls that from now on)) which sounds rather cool to me. Some enemies are very susceptible to that (no DR, mediocre armor, low con), others will annoy you because you can only ping them 90% of the time (everytime your rolls are average).

Re: DCV when running at full non-combat speed Since it is so rare that you mess up, I'm going to stomp on it. Your "Non-combat" sounds a lot like doing it in combat. Cheers

Re: The cost of killing damage I was faster than the palindromedary, but basically we think alike. Also, in my games people are very rule-aware. They are not munchkins per se, as in "they abuse what they find", but they quickly find holes and then build characters which "use" the holes without abusing them. So you won't find any VPP Multiforms, but nearly everyone will have resistant defenses and KAs. And regeneration is very common Also, minor amounts of flight are liked a lot. There's a huge diffence in Flight 1" and not having the power. Much more than having 100 cp's worth of it to having 1". Invisibility was also taken on more than one occasion, since it is just a good deal. NNDs were really not used, entangles are also unliked (mainly because they suck due to campaign setting, which is extremly broad and you never know what you come up against. Having something that does not work against Group X might get very uncool when you only come up against X for a couple battles due to unpredictibale story line).

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think? On the other hand, if you want to use two powers at the same time, both which really do only shine if used at max-AP (attacks, mind control, etc, but e.g. flight is also useful at 10 pts), you would probably not use a MP to build them. EC (or just buing seperately) is quite better. VPP is something else, because you're not paying for slots. Rarely we see someone hitting the AP limits with darkness (except AoE, Selective, Megascale, Continious, Zero End, .....), but it's always KA and EB. I like the Schtick Power. But that results in everyone having one big 75 cp attack I suppose. That's 3 DC through any armor, since enemies will be built at a "non-schtick attack is also good" level.

Re: The cost of killing damage I find it extremly annoying that people insist on calling the stun lotto "bad" for the attacker. It's NOT. NEVER. EVER. PERIOD. The stun lotto greatly benefits the character as in: - Sometimes, you just get lousy rolls which do zero damage. Does that matter? Your EB would hve done less than 10 stun on a 40% chance too (roll slightly below average) and doing 10 stun or 0 stun is not really a big difference. True, sometimes you cannot IK the mook, but on the other hand, how much of a danger is that mook? Will you get in huge troubles because you take two phases every couple hours? No. - If you get lucky against a mook, that's no difference. - If you get unlucky against a BBEG, you'll do 0. If you get unlucky with EB, you'll also do 0 (or nearly 0) damage. The same. - But if you get lucky against the BBEG, where you really are in danger and you can really use the extra help, then you can IK him. 4d6 KA (incl. str), roll 17+ body (only slightly above average (=14)), roll a 6 on stun lotto (great), hit him for over a hundred stun. So when you need it most, the KA shines. When it's not important, it might sometimes fail. You know, OIHI is also only worth -1/4, since that's a very small limitation. "Only works against Enemies about as strong as I am" would be? Probably along -1/4 or -0. That's the KA's "disadvantage". If you use a fixed stun multi of 3, then KA has a higher average than EB (a fixed 2.666 is the same, iirc), higher max and stronger spread. It's just better. I will use a fixed 2 in my next campaign (yes, that *is* low), I let you know how it plays out. And "KA makes you a big target" is like saying: "The guy who has the best attack power for the same points as us is a threat." Yeah, true. Now go and get a KA yourself... ------------------------------- Yes, there are RP-differences, but they should not really give out so many free points. That's SFX. It's kinda convenient (no "and what do we do with this villain now?"-problem) to have a KA, especially if you are not playing 4-colour. It was a swordfight. Nobody is going to blame me afterwards because my opponent unexspectadly died.

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think? We tried an approach like this once. It was low powered (150 cp) with the following rule: every AP from 21 to 40 you pay 50% extra, and for every AP after that (41+) you pay it twice. Advantages: Big things got really expensive, whereas lots of small things were rather cheap. Did what it was planned to do, more or less. Disadvantages: Lots. And even more. CVs and Speed got really attractive, calculations were really difficult and limitations were a MUST. It just was not feasible to pay 40 (+ 10 +20) = 70 points for a 8d6 Attack, so everyone just took lots of limitations. Note that limitations increase in relative power in this system. Even a small -1/2 limitation instantly saves many, many points. I'm not using that house rule again, I'd rather eyeball, even though I dislike it.

Re: Starting a new game Since this seems to be the topic anyway: Why does everyone insist on using HD? It's not like the math is complicated? I mean, if I wasn't so incredibly bad at doing calculations in my head, I wouldn't even need a calculator for it (yes, I am one of these people who type in 40 * 1.5 but I can solve Integrations and differential equations, I must've picked up +10 skill levels, only with advanced mathematics (-2)) But for that I don't really need a software. Well, I have one, it's called Calculator (and OpenOffice Math). Also, I do a lot of concept work on paper...

Re: Master List of Limitations, HD Prefabs I might be blind, but you said there is a text file too? Might you be so glad as to repost that? And on a minor note: .doc is a terrible format.

Re: Vehicle DCV... I had no idea "Quick, blast a hole into the Aircraft carrier with your Lazor Beamz!" "Oh no! I missed because it's 100 feet away!" (range modifiers get big quickly) "You missed a half a mile long ship?"

Re: Attack multipowers [spoilers] Have you all not seen Beowulf?! He only ever uses any weapon once! You need to brush up on your B-Movie Knowledge Skills. If you're at it, include Army of the Dead 3.

Re: Rinse and repeat Well, not really. My 5d6 H/R-KA will cut through a meager 5 PD/ED FF like an overcharged lightsaber through pre-melted butter. So you're taking 35 stun instead of 40, big deal. And the disadvantage on it is rather measly anyway. "Does not work against the first attack", that's what? -1/2 tops (depending on your average fight length, of course, would be 1/2 or 1/4 with me)? It's not something that makes the defense better, but just something that saves some points. Limitations don't bother OTP much... And yes, I forgot about missile deflection, but especially against Lazor-Beamz-From Eyez-ShootR-TM that is not an obvious or good counter. You need all adders in the book to even get to roll, and OTP might just have something to prevent the one good defense from working, like spending a bazillion of points in OCV. And we *are* talking about someone with lots of OCV, aren't we? Spending 40 points on MD is like having a 20/20 FF in addition to your normal defenses. Anyone will have trouble with this, but OTP is not bothered much with his OCV of ~37'000 (give or take a few). Since we still have points to spare on OTP, you can easily add support for your one trick, like find weakness (free Armor Piercing! Active Point Limit Break! (Final Fantasy anyone?)) or just a hijillion of CVs.

Re: Muscle Mimic I would use a Analyze roll to copy and then the withheld point method. - You have to buy a decent Analyze skill to be able to use it - You have to hold back points (effectively reducing your point maximum, quite a disadvantage) - You have to make your roll - You still buy all things normally, so you can use them normally afterwards. Longterm you end up with a character with all skills and a good Analyze skill. Short term you have your effect. Can't really see the problem. Also, not spending your points in advance is a disadvantage.

Re: Rinse and repeat I completely forgot: It might be easy to stop a punch-one-trick pony with entangles, range or similar. But what do you do against: "RKA - I r shoot lazer beamz teh eyes?". There is really not much you can do against a solid ranged Killing attack (well, desolid and damage reduction, but that is very useful against 90% of all attacks too). Immunity against the special effect is really not a good way, darkness stops anyone and even force walls against the stun won't work due to RKAs high body damage. Yes, this is (again) also a KA problem (KA is numerically a lot better than EB, we all know it). Less predictable result is nearly always in favour of the attacker.

Re: Rinse and repeat I encountered the problem, because we were playing low powered with a high AP limit. Suddenly, it did not make sense to buy two attacks (was nearly unaffordable anyway), and so my HKA character mopped the floor with nearly anything. It leads to another problem: Hero *needs* AP limits. And AP limits are very boring: hey look, everyone has OCV/DCV 7 and does either 15d6, 10d6 AP, 5d6 hka +str or 5d6 rka. Wow, how awesome! We are so different! We tried a rather complicated houserule: Every AP over 20 costs 1.5, every AP over 40 costs twice. Result? Complicated Math (99% of the cases can easily be solved in excel though, only Frameworks are really tricky), everyone taking a lot of limitations on their attacks to be able to pay the points and else not much of a change. Perhaps a progressive formula would work better, but that would be awfully complicated to calculate. Also: Installing Leopard + Bootcamp + Vista on his Mac. Now it's running, but it felt like Win95 :/ Driver problems, random crashes, data loss (well, at least I did backups before starting, so I did not really lose anything yet).

Re: Attack multipowers [spoilers] I did not go into detail on the special effects for a purpose. Some players from my group might be reading this forum too Let's just say he can't, shall we?

Re: What rule don't people know? grabing / grappling In my games, nobody ever bothers to remember how to grab someone. Which is really annoying, because at some point one PC will try to grab the other PC (due to role playing reasons) and then both players have no clue how that will work out. And that's not in Hero, but in all systems...

Re: desolidifation is too cheep ??? If your character uses a MP for attacks, it's rather cheap to add an affects desolid attack somewhere (75 AP limit -> 7 point ultraslot, some limitations, voilà 3 pt AD attack)

Re: best way? That's also a nice approach. With fragile and independant, your "weapons" won't last long against a bit of sundering and grabbing.