Is Find Weakness mispriced?

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

This is a good example of where SFX problems can arise.

 

Say the force field in question was built with full invisible power effects.

 

What SFX explaines how Find Weakness, a special & sensory power, can be used vs. the defenses provided by that force field?

I can see that, although from my own take on how FW is in TV, comics, etc., is that it is a sort of "trump" ability and usually relies on a lucky break combined with some sort of ingenuity. Such as aiming for "that point that there's no way the FF can be keeping up with" even though no such point has ever been known to exist to that moment.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Since we're now talking about possible replacements for Find Weakness why not allow characters to purchase the ability to use Hit Location rules in games that don't normally use them? There is a precidence for this with the Does Knockback advantage.

 

Costing can be done a couple of ways:

1. Flat cost of ~ 10 points (The same as Defense Manuever I-IV)
   
2. Straight Advantage worth (+1/4)

I would favor option 1 since the character would still need to overcome up to a -8 penalty to OCV.

 

For those who think this is just not as effective as Find Weakness you could also allow Critical Hit rules* to be used on targeted shots.

 

*Full damage on the dice for any attack roll made by half of what was needed (or a natural '3'). (example: If 10- is needed to hit a roll of 5- is 'Critical')

 

The beauty of this approach is that if the game already uses Hit Locations and/or critical hits the points that would otherwise have been spent on Find Weakness can just be put towards Penalty CSL's vs. Hit Locations. If nothing else, this makes it easier for GM's to compare a character to others based on the common rules of thumb (CV, DC's, Defenses, Movement, etc...)

Depending, I would find Hit Locations as a bigger worry in supers, given the frequent lack of overall body protection (back to your SFX issue - "sure, Madame Invincible is "invincible" but that dang armor doesn't cover her face..."). But it's a viable approach, I don't have a real issue with it.

 

To the overall issue of Adjustment Powers making FW wonky, I just find that a non-starter given Adjustment Powers are so fundamentally problematic.

 

Otherwise, it wouldn't really bother me if FW were dropped, despite the fact I find it useful and, when used properly, balanced enough. I do admit that what it adds can be more or less done in other ways and it may just add unnecessary complexity.

 

However, what I do see as a problem is that when FW is used half-way properly, it's a good cost for its use. The alternatives all end up costing more.

 

I think FW has always been in part there to allow a Batman type (EDIT - by which I mean "human" and relying on nothing "unnatural" but keeping up with supers) to more easily scale up with the more overtly-powered crew. Basically, you buy arche-Batman with a much higher SPD, give him FW, and, boom, you have a viable character with less direct offensive power but able to scale up quickly without paying more for offense, but requiring the player to be more cagey.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Strong words!

Good to see you - I think it's been a while! Hi!

[Edsel]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

When did it stop being an attack action to find weak?

 

I just confirmed that it is a rule in 5eR and I don't think it was changed from 5ed. I'll have to look at 4th and earlier tonight at home.

I am looking at the description for Find Weakness in my 4th Edition book. Find Weakness takes a 1/2 PHA action but it is not an attack action. (page 48 in Champions Deluxe, 4th Ed.). If it was an attack action it was sometime pre-4th.

 

EDIT: Champions 1st Edition on page 10 also says that Find Weakness (a skill) takes a half PHA to use. It never calls it an attack action.

 

-- Eddie "If its a Hero book I never throw it away" Sells

[Markdoc]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

When did it stop being an attack action to find weak?

 

When did it start? It's a half phase action, but not an attack. As far as I know, it has always been like this. This may have changed back in 5eR - I don't have a copy of that (the curse of being an early adopter!)

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I've edited the below

 

Using average to high defenses of 25 in a 60 AP standard supers game, assuming FW always works and attacks never miss, and squaring two opponents off, one against the other, let's assume a 12d6 attack and an 8d6 attack with FW 13-:

 

first phase, 12d6 does 42 - 25 = 17 STUN, 0 BOD

8d6 does 28 - 13 = 15 damage STUN, 0 BOD

 

second phase, 12d6 does 42-25 = 17 STUN, 0 BODv

8d6 does 28 - 7 = 21 damage STUN, 1 BOD

 

third phase, 12d6 does 42-25=17 STUN, 0 BOD

8d6 does 28 - 4 = 24 damage STUN, 4 BOD

 

But miss that first or second roll, and our FW character is at a disadvantage, as his opponent will inflict more damage per hit.

 

SNIP

 

I'm not denying there can be balance problems, but I have a tough time seeing them as any more serious than any number of other possible balance issues.

 

See, here's where we part ways. Even if we use your example, if the first roll is failed (which will happen about 1 time in 6), it costs the player a half phase and he is definately worse off. 2 times out of 6, he's about at parity, 2 times out of 6 he really starts to surge - and 1 time in 6 he's ripping his opponent a new one.

 

As I noted above it's at least in part the ability to start putting BOD on targets which is of concern - which is why I specifically noted my problem with FW on killing attacks - that lets people strip away their target's resistant defences quickly.

 

Is it worse than the tunnelling slug with n-Ray vision and mental powers? (Don't laugh - I've seen exactly that construct) or the teeny, tiny pixie with a huge no range mod RKA? (Don't laugh - I've seen that construct, too). No, it's not. But it *is* a matter for some concern, in part because it's not so obviously abusive

 

As to the cost issue, I really like the early suggestion to remove FW as a power and instead make it a talent, based on AP. That keeps the ability to reduce defences, but not the ability to essentially remove them - or if you really want to remove them, based on AVLD, does BOD, appropriately limited - which is deals with the active point and cost issues.

 

cheers, Mark

[BNakagawa]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Well, the disconnect is not as complete as it is with Find Weakness.

 

Characters lacking specific Penalty CSL's vs. Hit Locations with this ability will be faced with a decision of better chance to hit vs. better chance to do more damage IF they hit. As a result, some targeted attacks will miss that would have otherwise hit. A target dodging might be enough to force a miss, etc.. . This reinforces DCV's role as THE primary defense mechanism in HERO and avoids the combination of Find Weakness with attacks built with AOE 1 Hex (Accurate) since by default, Targeted Hit Locations can't be combined with AOE attacks.

 

Not if you also purchase 8 PSLs vs. hit location penalties, in which case you have a fixed point cost ability to double any attack.

 

There's your disconnect.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Ug...

Well, this thread has gotten a bit heated.

 

From my perspective and experience...

FW is probably priced about right, should have more rules governing the mechanisim under which it is applied, SFX-wise (Its a sensory power, it SHOULD be tied to a sense), Should have a stop sign, and is almost totally broken in games that use hit locations.

 

I like FW, but I think it deserves a long looking at and probably an overhaul.

 

A brief example from our old game on just how potent FW can be.

 

We were wrapping up a scenario when the last free and awake badguy took a hostage. This was in a Bronze to Iron flavored dark-ish Champions game using Hit Locations. My Gadgeteer had, for this particular run, essentially a Cyberpunk-esque smartgun... 2d6+1 RKA with 3 pts Resistant Peircing, AF5, some built in targeting levels, and FW on a 13- (the guns sensor suite was feeding back to the base supercomputer, and the analysis was displayed on the inside of his goggles). In a game where the team brick threw around a 16 DC punch, I hadn't worried too much about the build. I hadn't thought it through, obviously.

My C went into hostage negotiatior mode, all the while finding weakness.

When things went south, a teammate provided the distraction needed to break the badguy's Covered on the hostage, and my fastdraw smoked his dex roll.

A phase later I had put 3 rounds into his 1/8th Defence head.

Did around 50 BODY, IIRC.

*Splat*

 

This led, in game, to an international incident and, out of game, to my agreeing with the rest of our group that I was going to retire that particular combonation of gear. This also was the defining moment when I realized that FW and Hit Locations don't mix so well together.

[schir1964]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

WHAT IF?

What if the Hardened Advantage also subjected a -1 Penalty Per Level vs Find Weakness?

 

Would this help?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Markdoc]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

This also was the defining moment when I realized that FW and Hit Locations don't mix so well together.

 

So without hit locations, you would only have done 25 BOD. Would it have made that much difference?

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

What if my Armor is invisible to sound, but fully visible to sight? Remembering that a "visible" power must be detectible by three sense groups, armor that is simply perceptible as metallic skin or scaly hide isn't "Visible", but it's certainly detectable by sight.

 

My concern, Sean, is not that I think your model is inferior to the present model, but that it doesn't improve on it enough to be worth the hassle. The same concerns would still seem to be present.

 

I think there is a problem here with terms. Most powers have to be visible to three senses, that is, IMO, they have to be obvious to three senses. They are not 'invisible' to other senses necessarily, just not noticeable, an example might be a metal wall built as visible armour, detectable by sight, touch and metal detection: you wouldn't normally assume a wall was 'visible' to sound, but it can and should reflect it. I think that there is a difference between 'invisible' powers and 'the other stuff left over when you have defined what is visible'. Now we are in the realm of making it up, but I you can't really apply game terms and retain reality at all points. Almost every defence will be 'detectable' by its effect, and by other things: N-Ray vision detects physical objects, but very little is defined as having a visible component 'physical object'. I appreciate this is semantics, but there are certainly areas in the game that, despite the page count, remain ill-defined and, given the lack of design philosophy apparent, difficult to work out from basic principles.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

So without hit locations, you would only have done 25 BOD. Would it have made that much difference?

 

cheers, Mark

 

So, FW is a bad idea then?

 

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

WHAT IF?

What if the Hardened Advantage also subjected a -1 Penalty Per Level vs Find Weakness?

 

Would this help?

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Avoiding FW is easy: 5 points of LoW will usually do it, but it is just silly if you are including that in every build just because the FW power is in the game...and a lot f the brick characters I build DO have it for both mechanical and conceptual reasons.

 

Not so many have hardened as that is much more predicatable - still quite scary for the poor brick, but much more predictable.

 

I think the problem is with FW itself.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

See' date=' here's where we part ways. Even if we use your example, if the first roll is failed (which will happen about 1 time in 6), it costs the player a half phase and he is definately worse off. 2 times out of 6, he's about at parity, 2 times out of 6 he really starts to surge - and 1 time in 6 he's ripping his opponent a new one.[/quote']

 

Each increased iteration also costs increased time. Smart opponents will switch dance partners if someone is creaming one of their team members, so there should be no guarantee FW Man can keep concentrating on a single opponent. By the same token, if he misses the first roll, he will likeky try to switch targets.

 

The BOD issue is certainly real, and should be looked at as seriously as allowing NND/AVLD attacks that do BOD, or penetrating killing attacks. That same 60 points can buy a 3d6 NND that does BOD (average 3 BOD per attack from the first shot), or a 2 1/2 d6 Penetrating KA, averaging 2.5 BOD per shot. These have defenses, of course, but so does FW.

 

Requiring a -0 limitation on FW that it doesn't reduce defenses for BOD, or it can't do more than halve or quarter them (sweeten to taste) in a low lethality game would seem like a quick and easy fix, but it does have to be considered.

 

We're both also assuming the target has only one source of defenses, since FW requires specific defenses be targetted, of course, but that issue will be more relevant to STUN than BOD damage.

 

Is it worse than the tunnelling slug with n-Ray vision and mental powers? (Don't laugh - I've seen exactly that construct) or the teeny' date=' tiny pixie with a huge no range mod RKA? (Don't laugh - I've seen that construct, too). No, it's not. But it *is* a matter for some concern, in part because it's not so obviously abusive[/quote']

 

I'm not saying it can't be problematic, but I am saying it's not that difficult to control. If we remove all the abilities that can be subject to abuse, we won't have much left over.

 

At the risk of an even longer 6e, it probably wouldn't hurt for Caution and Stop Sign powers to have a brief explanation of how and why these can unbalance the game. The biggest problem with these abilities is that they can have unexpectedly unbalancing results, so an explanation of how they can have such results would seem reasonable.

 

To the cost issue, the major concern isn't really the first halving, but multiple halvings. Perhaps a solution to examine would be making each potential subsequent halving a +5 adder, rather than having unlimited halvings for free. This would also make the extent to which defenses could be reduced more obvious when the build is put together.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

We were wrapping up a scenario when the last free and awake badguy took a hostage. This was in a Bronze to Iron flavored dark-ish Champions game using Hit Locations. My Gadgeteer had, for this particular run, essentially a Cyberpunk-esque smartgun... 2d6+1 RKA with 3 pts Resistant Peircing, AF5, some built in targeting levels, and FW on a 13- (the guns sensor suite was feeding back to the base supercomputer, and the analysis was displayed on the inside of his goggles). In a game where the team brick threw around a 16 DC punch, I hadn't worried too much about the build. I hadn't thought it through, obviously.

My C went into hostage negotiatior mode, all the while finding weakness.

When things went south, a teammate provided the distraction needed to break the badguy's Covered on the hostage, and my fastdraw smoked his dex roll.

A phase later I had put 3 rounds into his 1/8th Defence head.

Did around 50 BODY, IIRC.

 

I think the combo creates a lot of the issues here. To get 50 BOD, you averaged about 8 per hit before multiples. That implies the target had no rDEF remaining, which seems reasonable (24/8 = 3, less piercing leaves none).

 

Should Piercing reduce rDEF before or after FW? That would have left a bit of rDEF.

 

Reinvest the 20 points from FW into Penetrating (17 points) and each hit does 2 BOD guaranteed, doubled for head hits. That would have been 12 BOD damage, rather than 50, but with no need for any extra time to FW. Realistically, that particular situation provided you with an ideal situation to FW - several phases without any other combat going on.

 

How lethal was the remainder of the game? Is an instant kill against one villain when you have a perfect setup inappropriate to a bronze/iron age game?

[Markdoc]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

So, FW is a bad idea then?

 

 

No, but it definately needs to be regarded as having a stop sign by it, which brings us back to what I've been saying. Based on my own experience, the build AmadanNaBriona posted would probably not be allowed - but as I commented earlier it's not - at first glance - obviously abusive.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I appreciate this is semantics' date=' but there are certainly areas in the game that, despite the page count, remain ill-defined and, given the lack of design philosophy apparent, difficult to work out from basic principles.[/quote']

 

It's also semantics to argue that PD isn't Visible, so sight based FW shouldn't work on it, isn't it?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

WHAT IF?

What if the Hardened Advantage also subjected a -1 Penalty Per Level vs Find Weakness?

 

Would this help?

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

 

I don't think this would make a lot of difference - a -1 penalty isn't that substantial. Spend 1 point on 1 LoW with your Hardened defenses instead.

[Markdoc]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

To the cost issue' date=' the major concern isn't really the first halving, but multiple halvings. [/quote']

 

Exactly. THAT is the precise area of concern. To take your own suggestion from the same post, the 60 points spent on FW 13- and 8d6 EB could buy you a 3d6 NND, does body.

 

Parse that sentence.

 

For the same cost, you can get a power that does 8d6 as one that does 3d6 - on average, the attack with FW will do near as much BOD and occasionally it will do significantly more BOD. It will almost always do more stun.

 

For all intents and purposes, 5 points of LoW will stop FW so I'm treating the defences as more or less equivalent - most of the time either it works or the target has the defence and it doesn't.

 

Are the limits (half phase usage) and the skill roll sufficient to add an extra -1.5 in limitations? Given that RSR and extra time full phase are more limiting and only add to to -1, I'd guess not.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

It's also semantics to argue that PD isn't Visible' date=' so sight based FW shouldn't work on it, isn't it?[/quote']

 

FW is a sensory power so I have no problem with this 'invisible effect' aspect of it IF players define what it is the FW senses, how it works. If it is sonic feedback, energy sensing, precognition, or whatever, fine, but just 'sensing weakness' then you are defining a mechanical aspect rather than an in-game one.

 

This is important: there may be some characters your power shouldn't work against because of sfx logic, or even some it might work better against, but only if we have an appropriate sfx overlay, otherwise we are wargaming.

 

The other problem I have with FW is this artificial division between normal and resistant defences, which seems like an arbitrary nerf to me; does anyone know different?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Using average to high defenses of 25 in a 60 AP standard supers game, assuming FW always works and attacks never miss, and squaring two opponents off, one against the other, let's assume a 12d6 attack and an 8d6 attack with FW 13-:

 

first phase, 12d6 does 42 - 25 = 17

8d6 does 28 - 13 = 15 damage

 

second phase, 12d6 does 42-25 = 17

8d6 does 28 - 7 = 21 damage

 

third phase, 12d6 does 42-25=17

8d6 does 28 - 4 = 24 damage

 

But miss that first or second roll, and our FW character is at a disadvantage, as his opponent will inflict more damage per hit.

 

.

 

Here's how I see it going, assuming the characters are of similar combat skill and speed, and the FW can't engineer an ambush:

 

First phase: Find Weakness, dodge 12d6 misses

Second phase: ditto

Third phase: Find weakness, attack at a substantial advantage..

 

If you miss the first roll then you switch opponents, if you make it then you are almost level pegging, and the second puts you in the lead - you could start the attacks at Second Phase and, all else being equal, win.

 

Moreover it is usually the case that someone with FW will have thought through the implications tactically, so they may well have martial dodge or some other power to keep them (relatively) safe until they are ready to attack. A martial dodge is worth +5 DCV, which makes you almost unhittable for someone of similar skill. It is still an odds game, but the odds are good.

 

Also, whilst tactical play is sometimes nice, FW slows down combat generally, as the character with FW is at an advantage if he can string things out a bit. I'm against slower combat.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Find Weakness does have some built in penalties. There's the cumulative -2 to the roll. So it's easier to mitigate the 1/8 Defenses issue by not allowing the Find Weakness roll above 11 or 12 for example.

 

There's also circumstantial modifiers, like unsual physique. I would give a -3 or more to someone using it against a Jello Mold for example.

 

As to it acting outside the "norm" - that's why it's a Special Power as well, it's, well, special.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Here's how I see it going, assuming the characters are of similar combat skill and speed, and the FW can't engineer an ambush:

 

First phase: Find Weakness, dodge 12d6 misses

Second phase: ditto

Third phase: Find weakness, attack at a substantial advantage..

 

If you miss the first roll then you switch opponents, if you make it then you are almost level pegging, and the second puts you in the lead - you could start the attacks at Second Phase and, all else being equal, win.

 

Moreover it is usually the case that someone with FW will have thought through the implications tactically, so they may well have martial dodge or some other power to keep them (relatively) safe until they are ready to attack. A martial dodge is worth +5 DCV, which makes you almost unhittable for someone of similar skill. It is still an odds game, but the odds are good.

 

Also, whilst tactical play is sometimes nice, FW slows down combat generally, as the character with FW is at an advantage if he can string things out a bit. I'm against slower combat.

The "can't hit me" character can always create problems with a variety of abilities. There are plenty of options for dealing with them.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

So, how about this, to replace FW:

 

Armour piercing +1/2

Each additional halving of defences +1/2

 

Leave it there, and flavour to taste.

 

Now +1 is NND, but that is stun only (AP would be at 1/4 defences), and +2 is NND does BODY (AP would be at 1/16 defences: realistically anything at or above 1/16 is 'defences gone' for most of us).

 

Now that sounds about right to me. If you want to limit it to require rolls and extra time then go for your life, but as the root mechanic, this works and scales well with the rest of the system, or at least it does to my first glance.

 

Hardening would remove one level of AP per application.

 

I thought of +1/2, each additional halving +1/4, but that feels too generous (1/8 defences at +1 is pretty nasty: you'll be getting a LOT of stun and appreciable BODY through on a 6d6 attack even against 30 DEF (17 STUN and 2 BODY), which is too unbalancing against NND).

 

You could attach it to a single power or, with permission, buy it as a naked advantage.

 

Thoughts?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Exactly. THAT is the precise area of concern. To take your own suggestion from the same post, the 60 points spent on FW 13- and 8d6 EB could buy you a 3d6 NND, does body.

 

Parse that sentence.

 

For the same cost, you can get a power that does 8d6 as one that does 3d6 - on average, the attack with FW will do near as much BOD and occasionally it will do significantly more BOD. It will almost always do more stun.

 

The NND user gets to use his half phases, and needs no roll to allow him to do BOD and Stun, as you note.

 

Are the limits (half phase usage) and the skill roll sufficient to add an extra -1.5 in limitations? Given that RSR and extra time full phase are more limiting and only add to to -1' date=' I'd guess not.[/quote']

 

I think RSR is the wrong limitation - we should be using Activation Rolls, since FW isn't really a skill roll. The skill applies only to the reduction of defenses, and not the 8d6 attack, but then, how useful is your 8d6 attack if the target does receive his full defenses? It's not useless, of course.

 

As well, "extra time - only to activate" seems to be the most appropriate limitation, but it's not quite there since you need to use that Extra Time in several phases to achieve the full effect.

 

It's also more practical to plan the use of that 3d6 NND, since it won't work perfectly sometimes, work sub-optimally other times, and fail completely in some cases against the same target.

 

Factor in advantage stacking, framework use, etc. and the waters get pretty murky. However, it does seem reasonable to suggest that the cost may be more in line if the ability to even try for multiple halvings carried an additional cost.