Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

[Alkai]

I am curious as to why the Hand-to-Hand attack power imposes a mandatory limitation of "Hand-To-Hand Attack" when the Hand-to-Hand Killing Attack does not.

 

Besides the obvious difference of what type of damage they do (normal damage for HA vs killing damage for HKA) I see no reason why they should not otherwise be handled the same.

 

Is there something I'm missing?

[Markdoc]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

Well the correct answer is because STR is too cheap.

 

But basically STR costs 5 points and gives you 1d6 HA, plus assorted bennies, so the mandatory, "free" limitation was added in a feeble attempt to make HA worth buying.

 

cheers, Mark

[SpydirShellX]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

My question is why energy blast doesn't have a similar -1/2 mode. HKA and RKA are considered balanced with each other due to strength adding to one and range for the other. Why does HA get the -1/2 and ranged doesn't? There are a lot more maneuvers you can do with a HA and not a EB.

[Southern Cross]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

Because a HA is effectively Restrainable-being tied up stops a character from using a HA.

[SpydirShellX]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

Maybe in that case it should be a mandatory Restrainable limitation. However, as I understand it, there's nothing preventing you from using a HA to help escape from a entange or grapple - and thus is not following the restrainable - so it's not effectively restrainable, just like strength is not.

[secretID]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

Recently discussed here:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50096

[ghost-angel]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

Another way to think of HA that makes it completely different from all the others:

 

+5 STR, Only To Hit Things.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

You can add 'Hand to Hand' only to EB, but you can't add STR damage to EB, so it is a pretty pointless exercise.

[JmOz]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

The only thing I see, and we cna debate to our hearts desire on how limiting it is:

 

HKA maxes Str add by x2 (In other words the max on a 1d6 HKA with Str is 2d6)

 

No such lim exists with HA

 

Personaly, I would rather have seen HA removed with it being replaced with a lim on str of Combat Only (-1/2) and normaly NCM (-1/2)...Yes I feel it is worth a -1 lim, but then some people will say it is to cheap...

[Lucius]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

 

Personaly, I would rather have seen HA removed with it being replaced with a lim on str of Combat Only (-1/2) and normaly NCM (-1/2)...

 

Non Combat Multiplier?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary ponders Duplication, not usable in combat....

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

Non Combat Multiplier?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary ponders Duplication, not usable in combat....

 

No Characteristic Modification, I suspect, or a typo for 'NFC' (No Figured Characteristics).

 

The way I look at it is ...

 

HA used to be 3pts per die, unfortunately, in games that set Active Point caps, rather than Damage Class caps, it got a little ridiculous ('75 AP Max? Okay, I'll just stick with a 13 STR and buy 21 dice of HA. I'm under limits!'), and the slight weirdness of pushing your HA for +3d6 damage for 9 END.

 

So, disregarding rounding oddities, 5pts per die with a 1/2 limitation approximates the 4th Edition 3pts per die, while letting Active Point caps or Multipower Reserves do their thing.

[JmOz]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

I ment NFC (no figured characteristics), I was thinking of Normal Character MAximum when I typed it...don't ask I was tired...

[Markdoc]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

Another way to think of HA that makes it completely different from all the others:

 

+5 STR, Only To Hit Things.

 

Yeah, but that's worth more than a -1/2, since +5 STR, no figured CHA is far more useful and gives the same -1/2. IMG, STR is priced at 2 points per, and "only to hit things" gives you -1, balancing everything out nicely.

 

cheers, Mark

[ghost-angel]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

Yeah, but that's worth more than a -1/2, since +5 STR, no figured CHA is far more useful and gives the same -1/2. IMG, STR is priced at 2 points per, and "only to hit things" gives you -1, balancing everything out nicely.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Oh I never said it was priced right

 

Just that it was another way to think about it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

Right, hand to hand normal atatcks cost too much when compared to the cost of simply buying limtied strength, so you need to increase the cost of strength but if you do that then you can't get a decent brick built that does appropriate damage for the rest of the campaign inside the campaign AP limti so instead of increasing the cost of strength you decrease the cost of HtH damage whilst denying that it is in fact limtied strength (because if you did there are all sorts of othter limtiations you could apply) so we limp onm witht his rather bizarre conundrum.

 

Solution? Well, there isn't one: there's hundreds*.

 

The one I'm currently favouring: can't increase cost of strength so decrease utility. Remove ALL figured charactreristics from strength. Not for jumping is a -1/4, not for lifting is a -1/4 (but you'll have to work hard to justify it) and so the cost of strength remains the same, the cost of HA remains the same (but we don't need it - it just becomes limtied strength, so it goes completely) and all is lovely in the kingdom.

 

Then someone asks about other charcteristics with figured secondaries, and the effective cost of making up for the lack of figureds effectively downsizing tthe whole campaign, and the whole thing kicks off again.

 

 

 

 

*hyperbole, I know

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

I am curious as to why the Hand-to-Hand attack power imposes a mandatory limitation of "Hand-To-Hand Attack" when the Hand-to-Hand Killing Attack does not.

 

Besides the obvious difference of what type of damage they do (normal damage for HA vs killing damage for HKA) I see no reason why they should not otherwise be handled the same.

 

Is there something I'm missing?

You're not missing anything. It's a quirk of the system. In my opinion, there should be come corralation. What it boils down to, I think, is that HA is based off of STR, and since STR does a lot more than just damage things, HA should cost less than the STR would to get the same damage. If it didn't and cost the same, no one would buy HA, but would instead just buy STR because you would get lifting & jumping in addition to the damage for the same cost (not to mention all those Figured Characteristics).

 

As it is, you can still do just that and get a better deal buy buying STR with No Figured Characteristics vs HA with it's mandatory -1/2 HA Lim. But you aren't supposed to realize that, and buy HA anyway. Or else if you do realize that, you're supposed to be confused and awed by the Adding Damage rules that you think HA must have some hidden ace up its sleeve to make it worth buying.

 

PS:

Hidden Ace: HA +6d6, Double Knockback

[Markdoc]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

Right' date=' hand to hand normal atatcks cost too much when compared to the cost of simply buying limtied strength, so you need to increase the cost of strength but if you do that then you can't get a decent brick built that does appropriate damage for the rest of the campaign inside the campaign AP limit[/quote']

 

I've doubled the cost of STR. Once that's done, all the other problems go away.

 

AP limits? I see those as a problem in and of themselves (how many times have we seen "but we can't do X because of campaign limits..." in threads) and have never used them - nor could I honestly recommend them to anyone, so that's basically not an issue.

 

cheers, Mark

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

I'll just file this under revisions I'd like to see in HERO 6th.

 

- I'd like to see an official revision that Heroidc Level STR costs 2:1, while Super Heroic STR costs 1:1. I have no problem with 1:1, I just have a problem with it for Heroic campaigns (and my players violently resisting the shift).

 

- I'd like to see more variations on disads & lims including a lot of the more obscure things we try & model (overheating plamsa rifles, a deeper look into contested RSR, etc.)

 

- All lims & disads in one place; currently we have a whole bunch of disads scattered throughout the book, and that drives me a little batty

 

- Clearer rules on how to build things like "data jacks" - Mind Link still seems bizarre to me. More as I think of it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Mandatory limitation for HA, but not for HKA?

 

I'll just file this under revisions I'd like to see in HERO 6th.

 

- I'd like to see an official revision that Heroidc Level STR costs 2:1, while Super Heroic STR costs 1:1. I have no problem with 1:1, I just have a problem with it for Heroic campaigns (and my players violently resisting the shift).

 

- I'd like to see more variations on disads & lims including a lot of the more obscure things we try & model (overheating plamsa rifles, a deeper look into contested RSR, etc.)

 

- All lims & disads in one place; currently we have a whole bunch of disads scattered throughout the book, and that drives me a little batty

 

- Clearer rules on how to build things like "data jacks" - Mind Link still seems bizarre to me. More as I think of it.

 

Jacking in is one of the few really excellent used for EDM IMO.

 

STR, well get rid of figured rather than mess with the price would be my solution, but we can talk that one out elsewhere

 

Book organisation: well all I can say is that Hero has the best index of any rpg, ever. That covers a whole lot of ills.