Doc Democracy

Not sure how you took that from what I said. I mean, being upfront, I would be trimming the number of characteristics, but allowing the continued existence of STR, I am content with lifting and normal damage. Just don't see the justification for additional HKA on top of the normal damage. I think that puts you in the camp of it being an option in an APG to create a game, not default for core rules. What is your position on STR boosting other powers where it "makes sense", or other characteristics doing it in addition to STR?

You get the benefits of having the STR by buying the STR. Why should that purchasing get you free HKA as well?? There is already a case that STR should be 2 points per point, if you are adding in free HKA then that becomes much stronger. No? I think that the concept of the core rules as a toolkit to create the game you want to play would/should provide guidance on doing almost anything at all (otherwise it would not be universal). I think that if you add STR to HKA because it "makes sense" then you need to open up the potential for STR and other characteristics to add to other powers when it "makes sense". My preference would be for this to be an addendum to the core rules rather than have one element of that approach baked in and the others not mentioned. I have you pegged as the author of the next edition. 😄 you got the time and money to go for it??

You mean this IS something that alienates newcomers? There are SO many bits of the system that are not about verisimilitude. A quick example might be using Flight, only touching a surface, to simulate running up a wall. All the time people come onto the boards using powers to deliver game effects that are not the "common sense" application of the power, driven by the name of the power. People that cannot separate SFX from powers find it difficult to get the most value from the character building sub-game of the system. Lots of people bounce off it hard. Some are content for others to build for them, others wander off to other systems.

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. 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. 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". 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. 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

The system is not built on verisimilitude. The essence of any build question that people come to the boards with is, "describe what you want to happen, then buy the game effects that happen in game". Verisimilitude is not built in. I can buy Flash, no range, to simulate hitting someone so hard they briefly lose their ability to see/hear. Common sense says the stronger they are the more effective this should be. I can buy Blast (Phys), to simulate throwing rocks, or other weapons. Common sense says the stronger you are, the more damage these should do. I can buy RKA as above. I can buy Tunnelling, using my immense strength to tear through walls etc. Surely as I increase my STR that should also increase, for the sake of verisimilitude. Ultimately, STR adds in these ways for historic reasons, possibly even because other games did it and it "made sense" to do it. It is however an orphan mechanic that is not there to accomplish something that could not be done (I would love an orphan mechanic that facilitated possession). It even works against the maxim being used to argue for it, the one saying the most expensive way to accomplish an outcome is the valid way (something I don't 100% buy into). As the most expensive way to get 30 STR and 4D6 HKA is to buy them separately. My key argument is that we do not do this anywhere else it would make sense. We do not advantage any other characteristics to increase the effectiveness of defences, movement, or anything else: only for STR. Doc

If the idea is to get a 4D6 HKA and for the same or fewer points, you can also get enough STR to lift a car, punch for 6D6, then surely you pick the version with the freebies? This is not like a limitation or framework where there is a trade-off. In fact the HKA w/STR version is even more resilient, because if you are STR drained you still have the KA and if you are KA drained you still have the STR. Genuine question, are you going to allow STR to enhance all the effects?

He is saying that is not the way the system works. You do not look back at SFX like "really strong" and enhance their abilities for free. If that is what you want, you pay the points for it. Should high school jock, who can barely manage a coherent conversation (Ego 10), do as much damage with the Helm of ego whip (5D6 Mental blast), as the adept who has spent decades honing his mental power (EGO 25)? It's the same question but I doubt you're giving the adept free dice of mental blast. If your concept is that the giant is so strong, he gets more value using weapons, buy +HKA, only to add to weapons based on HKA. Otherwise the giant combines his STR damage with the HKA, delivering more damage in that attack.

But gamers are gamblers and they feel where their best chances often lie and that was the problem with the 5th edition killing attack. So, yes, you have only a 20% chance, on any one roll, of matching the STUN. When the average STUN damage through defences is 7 against an opponent who may have 50 STUN, you do not see that as a great risk. With the killing attack, you have 56% chance of rolling 14+ BODY, which is gives you (in fifth edition) 19% chance of 21+ STUN through defences and a 10% chance of 35+ through defences. There is more excitement in the killing attack, and 1 in 10 times you have a decent chance of stunning your opponent which allows everyone else to throw pushed attacks at that stunned opponent and take them out the fight. In sixth edition those numbers reduce drastically and the gamblers do not see the same risk/reward ratio.

I dont think there is right answer, and the thing is, it is not the HKAs that are limited in his presentation, it is the STR (I guess, if I needed to, I could come up with the reason why) but in either case the character saves a buttload of points. If the character did not buy any HKAs but was similarly unable to add it to any picked up weapons, would it still remain -1/2. Dunno, but that is because I am not really certain what the extra damage belongs to, the weapon or the STR. It might feel cleaner to increase HKA damage because of STR but the consequentials muddy the system. A question would be, why not add in inherent killing damage to STR like inherent normal damage is? Then you would simply be adding the inherent killing attack to the bought killing attack. That would also be cleaner and would inevitably mean, IMO, that people would think that STR needed to cost more. Doc

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?

He was saying that hand attack is essentially STR (only to increase damage). As such you have 25 STR but only 10 of that counts for lifting, grabbing etc. Not 2D6 for free. To which I can only say, I agree wholeheartedly.

Is that not just an argument never to change anything? I mean, obviously, Duke is there. he is content to work with the system as it was way back in 2E and I reckon most of us here, if we wanted to would be quite content to do the same and have pretty much identical games. But that would not keep the system alive - where it needs to sell stuff. We are the people most likely to buy stuff (even if we only play the original edition) and we wont buy the same ruleset more than onece or twice every coupe of decades. A company needs to produce new editions just to generate the money it needs to survive. Most of us want changes, we just dont all want the same changes! 🙂 Hugh wants the system to be more coherent. Hand attack is, to all extents and purposes, limited STR. It adds to STR because it is the same thing doing a limited version of the same thing. If STR was not in a black box, you would be able to modulate the damage, lifting and other things associated with STR on a character by character basis. Killing attack is not doing anything that STR does. The idea that STR adds to the damage is because it is mixing up SFX with mechanics. It seems obvious to you that a sword should do more damage if someone stronger is using it. It also makes more sense to me that Mental Blast do more damage because their EGO is high but it doesn't. There is inconsistency in the system, when SFX make a difference to the mechanics and when they do not. You either agree that you owuld like a bt more consistency or not and what that would look like but saying that it has been this way since [whenever] doesn't engage that argument.

It is cleaner. Each thing does what you pay for. No extra benefits for choosing a particular thing, no little secret bennies for those that know the system. I can understand the objection, It makes killing attack work like blast. No differences.

Well, the conceit of the system is that a modified power is a new power. However, there is virtually no difference. Not complex enough to make me squeamish about preferring this than giving free points out. which brings me to.. It does indeed accomplish the goal of eliminating free points. The limitation does its job of saving points, the person who buys Killing Attack, no range, pays fewer points than the person who buys Killing Attack because their power is limited. Nothing to do with free points from STR.

In Hugh's world, that sword in Supers is also incredibly simple. Killing attack, no range.

It is why I am a fan of one recoverable charge for this. It might end up purely as a 1/4 or 0 limitation as it recovers every post segment 12. So you get 0 END for free but can only use it once a turn. As GM I think I might be leaning heavily towards the +0 limitation.

Just in the rules (6th edition), if your attack has extra time it means, if you use another attack, the attack with extra time goes back to the start, and you need to wait the whole period of time again. 6E1 Page 374, "Attacks are an exception: if a character takes this Limitation for a power that requires an Attack Roll, he cannot make another attack until the power’s been used". There is the usual, you can get special GM permission to ignore this.

That sounded like Extra time for me, but for attacks that means you activate it and it takes a full turn to be ready to throw. Problem is that it forbids you using other attacks in the meantime. I was sure I saw a limitation that meant you could only use it after a certain period had lapsed since its last use, thought it was called cooldown or something. It is like phasers that overheat and need to cool down before firing again. Could not see it in main rulebook or in Star Hero.

Yeah, you are right. My response is edition based. I am also agreed that using a complication is a bad precedent to set. The recoverable charge does indeed sound like a good option.

My problem with using Trigger or END Reserve for this is that you are actually paying points to limit the use of the power. Trigger might be acceptable if it provided an additional attack that turn, a significant advantage in any combat, and if I was using the END reserve to track the bureaucracy, I would not be charging points for it. Doc

You know, this is beginning to get very close to belonging in the political thread in Non-gaming discussion. Possible close enough to draw the ire of Dan Simon should it go further.

Bingo. The xenovores might not call or think of themselves as evil, it is aculturally loaded term. In the D&D-verse, where such things are laid out absolutely in the cosmos, there is no escaping the term. Doc

I know Duke has left the conversation but I know he can't help reading things either, even if he no longer contributes. I think this is not what anyone us suggesting. The point of the thing is not to be evil, just to be evil. The point is to further the ends of whatever drives that evilness. In Fantasy that usually derives from deities or supernatural influences. It can also be well-established cultural practices, things they know are abominable but are mandated by their God, or provide them with power.

Come on Chris. I am trying to have a discussion, not a fight. I am not trying to be right. Essentially, the OP asked about evil races, a staple, as you admit of fantastical literature and fantasy RPGs. I was looking to explore the concept, you seem to want to say it is impossible for a modern, sensible person to admit such things could be part of an imagined world, unbound by the limitations of our reality.

Well, if that entity is living and breathing and essentially a mortal extension of a supernatural manifestation of evil, and work to bring evil to the world, then I am comfortable that I am slaying an evil creature. This is not a simulation of any reality, it is a fantastical representation of mythic archetypes. Usually the protagonists are indeed teams, working towards their own individual destinies for the world. Usually one of those teams is good as that destiny aims at more happiness and kindness in the world. The other team is evil as it aims at pain and suffering. Those labels of good and evil are a bleed over from our own existence, we know what we like and the things we like are good. While the hackneyed high fantasy long-since wore thin, I also weary of the multi-hued or shades of grey grimdark ambiguity. I like heroic fantasy. I like to see principled people fighting for common good and if that requires dark evil antagonists as a stark contrast, I am quite comfortable with that. What I am really against is any suggestion that a paticular style of gaming, literature or myth-making is BadWrongFun and should be deprecated. As long as everyone involved is bought in and enjoying themselves then it is fine and good. I think that if someone's game relies on evil bad guys that are guaranteed bad and guaranteed to do the wrong thing, and the players are on the same page, then being able to attack, oppose and kill those evil opponents without shedding too many tears is fine.