Is Find Weakness mispriced?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

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

 

As a simple example. while he's jumping around like a jackrabbit, his opponent can target other members of the hero team. After three or four phases, when FWMan has got enough FW to think he's ready to go after his target, his double teamed teammate should be out of the way, leaving FW Man to deal with two targets - only one of which he has found weakness on.

 

There are lots of other aproaches, but the above requires no special builds - anyone can do it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

I agree about RSR - in fact I can rarely see the point of it, and often convert it to an appropriate activation roll if I find myself in danger of using it. Silly limitation, but one that looks darned good on the surface.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

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

Only a bit. I think the badguy had 13-15 Body, so without the location modifier he might have been saveable, but in general, dead is dead

 

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?

I almost completely ignore that little bit of 5th edition-isim, because it seems to be a balance nerf and causes a whole lot of illogical effects and situations. I still treat FW like AP in these terms... it reduces all defences. In my example, had we been using the 5th edition model, if I been shooting at the badguy Brick rather than than the Powersuit Guy I would have bounced the body because the Brick had Damage Resistance rather than resistant armor. Doesn't feel right to me at all.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Edit: almost missed this...

Smart FW players won't sit there intently staring at a single bad guy,either.

Most of the rest of aforementioned game, I seldom shot at a supervillan till I had managed at least one FW against them. Inbetween time, I was taking cover, shooting agents, running around, etc. I might FW against the flyer who was strafing us, then punch the agent I was brawling with. Next phase, I'd FW the Big guy trading shots with our brick, then spary fiore against a group of agents... Your character with FW doesn't HAVE to stand there with a newon sign saying "I'm reducing your defences, so HIT ME!!!!"

 

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?

It was the single most lethal attack of the game, but not utterly unreasonable for the campaign. Our Brick had knocked a bunch of agents into neg Body land due to creative application of Knockback, Haymakers and environment, and the guy I smoked wasn't by any means my characters first kill. For the campaign it wasn't totally inappropriate, and I did have a perfect set up for it. What worried me more was that I had written up the gear inspired by a Cyberhero game I was statting up the gear for, and the idea of unleashing that kind of harm in a Heroic level game disturbed me for campaign balance reasons.

My GM was a bit more ticked... He intended the badguy to be a recurring villain (eventually he was... Different guy, same Battlesuit).

Applying the rPeircing before the FW would have droped the body down by a bit.... If I'm doing my math right, the end result would've been around 38 Body instead of 50

 

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

That's pretty much what I was saying. I'm not opposed to keeping FW, but I think it needs to be disassembeled and rebuilt using modern design principles, and I think it needs options for scaling with various campaign levels and optional combat rules. It's a relic of 1st Edition, and has stayed mostly unevolved since, except for the "type of defences" addition in 5th. It's the Horseshoe crab of Hero.

 

So, how about this, to replace FW:

 

Armour piercing +1/2

Each additional halving of defences +1/2

Thoughts?

Not bad. I like the idea of adapting AP so that more than one level has a practical effect other than bypassing a levelof hardening. This would give an actual reason to buy multiple levels of AP, and would decrease the unique factor in FW... the ability to inflict multiplied reductions of defence.

 

I think RSR is the wrong limitation - we should be using Activation Rolls, since FW isn't really a skill roll.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I'd like to see options for FW to be constructed using either a RSR or it's current activation roll model, and a scaled extra time as you mention. Noting wrong with adding more tools to the kit.

I think charging for additional reductions, either as an adder or an advantage, has merit and could/should be looked at closer.

 

the big issue I have with FW in conjunction with hit locations is that it seems even less "logical" than it does in generalized games. The idea that it lasts the WHOLE combat, effects the WHOLE body, and yet is lost immediately after the end of combat, and can't be reused, all lead towards an overall feeling that it is a power intended as an abstraction and doesn't work with the more realistic combat rules. I'd break it down so it can be built to suit the campaign. FW in my FH game, for instance, is limited so that it applies only to the next attack made by the Character, and applies a -2 per halving additional Targeting limit (gotta hit the weak point you spotted). In exchange, besides reducing the cost, I also allow it to be used against the same foe in the same combat, because the effects don't last. This makes it a great talent for mystical blind archers or assassin types, but keeps it from getting out of hand. YMMV

[Sean Waters]

FW and Hit Locations

 

Also the rather odd thought that if you DO find weakness, that weakness is in whatever location you hit - either he has one BIG weakness or lots of little ones

 

I can see that for a 'tuneable EB' with sfx that it just largely bypasses defences, but it doesn't make much sense for the martial artist striking at vulnerable points, does it?

 

I can't really see how that would work at all in a game with hit locations.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: FW and Hit Locations

 

Also the rather odd thought that if you DO find weakness, that weakness is in whatever location you hit - either he has one BIG weakness or lots of little ones

 

I can see that for a 'tuneable EB' with sfx that it just largely bypasses defences, but it doesn't make much sense for the martial artist striking at vulnerable points, does it?

 

I can't really see how that would work at all in a game with hit locations.

 

Choke holds must logically target the neck, and nerve strikes must target nerve clusters, but these also take no hit location penalties. There's an underlying assumption that there's no penalty to strike a specific location unless you get a Hit Location benefit for doing so.

[Sean Waters]

Re: FW and Hit Locations

 

Choke holds must logically target the neck' date=' and nerve strikes must target nerve clusters, but these also take no hit location penalties. There's an underlying assumption that there's no penalty to strike a specific location unless you get a Hit Location benefit for doing so.[/quote']

 

Fine for superheroes, but if you find weakness in a heroic game then defences are halved if you punch the head, then the vitals (with the appropriate penalty or just because you are using random locations and that is where you hit). Moreover those manouvres would be unaffected by find weakness as they are built with NND, so they either don't work or no defences apply anyway.

[Markdoc]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

As a simple example. while he's jumping around like a jackrabbit' date=' his opponent can target other members of the hero team.[/quote']

 

Except of course, FW man can attack during those three or four phases. If he's not being attacked, then he doesn't need to dodge. And by phase 3, he should already be doing significant BOD with each attack....

 

After three or four phases' date=' when FWMan has got enough FW to think he's ready to go after his target, his double teamed teammate should be out of the way, leaving FW Man to deal with two targets - only one of which he has found weakness on.[/quote']

 

If he's not attacking, 4 phases is enough to do 4 FW on both of them: enough to drop both his opponents' defences to 1/16th each. If that happens, odds are he'll KO or kill them in one shot each.

 

FW is not an uber-abusive power - but it is far more effective than you seem to think.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Except of course' date=' FW man can attack during those three or four phases. If he's not being attacked, then he doesn't need to dodge. And by phase 3, he should already be doing significant BOD with each attack....[/quote']

 

Is he dodging or isn't he? Once he's dodging, his opponent can simply decide not to attack. If he doesn't dodge (ie he decides to FW twice instead), he doesn't get the extra DCV. Now, if you allow him to say "In Phase 2, I'll FW. If anyone attacks me, I'll dodge. If no one attacks before DEX 0.000001 on Phase 3, I'll FW again." I don't allow players to "know" the point between segment 3 ending and segment 4 beginning with that kind of pinpoint accuracy. If I did, the same "Sense Speed Chart" ability would need to also be available to the opponent, who could reserve until DEX 1.3 billion in Phase 4 and attack the FW character, forcing him to abort his entire Ph 4 to dodge, or suck up the hit.

 

If he's not attacking' date=' 4 phases is enough to do 4 FW on both of them: enough to drop both his opponents' defences to 1/16th each. If that happens, odds are he'll KO or kill them in one shot each.[/quote']

 

In this case, he's not dodging so he's sucking up hits throughout the four phases.

 

FW is not an uber-abusive power - but it is far more effective than you seem to think.

 

I'm not arguing it's ineffective, or that it cannot be abused. But it's not as inordinately effective as some seem to think. It does need to be monitored, and I agree it can sneak in if the GM is inexperienced or inattentive to its possibilities when it shows up on a character sheet.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I almost completely ignore that little bit of 5th edition-isim' date=' because it seems to be a balance nerf and causes a whole lot of illogical effects and situations. I still treat FW like AP in these terms... it reduces all defences. [/quote']

 

I tend to think it's nerfed this way because of the aforementioned abuses - which is a bad reason to do so.

 

I agree, still run it that it halves all defenses.

 

Though I have no PCs who wanted FW. And that includes some people who are efficiency-minded and can do munchkin builds if they so desire, though they try to be responsible, only rarely do I have to do something about an abusive build. Although we did just pass an AP Maximum on attacks as some were pushing the edges too far from where others could or wanted to go.

[Markdoc]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Is he dodging or isn't he? Once he's dodging' date=' his opponent can simply decide not to attack. If he doesn't dodge (ie he decides to FW twice instead), he doesn't get the extra DCV. Now, if you allow him to say "In Phase 2, I'll FW. If anyone attacks me, I'll dodge. If no one attacks before DEX 0.000001 on Phase 3, I'll FW again.".[/quote']

 

I'm tempted to say "well, duh" - but being polite, I won't . Of course he doesn't get to know what happening in advance, nor to specify in excruciating if/then detail. But neither does he have to specify all of his actions in advance and then stand around like a robot while everyone else acts. "I FW and hold a half action" is entirely sufficient. That applies both for him and for his opponents.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Is he dodging or isn't he? Once he's dodging, his opponent can simply decide not to attack. If he doesn't dodge (ie he decides to FW twice instead), he doesn't get the extra DCV. Now, if you allow him to say "In Phase 2, I'll FW. If anyone attacks me, I'll dodge. If no one attacks before DEX 0.000001 on Phase 3, I'll FW again." I don't allow players to "know" the point between segment 3 ending and segment 4 beginning with that kind of pinpoint accuracy. If I did, the same "Sense Speed Chart" ability would need to also be available to the opponent, who could reserve until DEX 1.3 billion in Phase 4 and attack the FW character, forcing him to abort his entire Ph 4 to dodge, or suck up the hit.

 

 

There is nothing to stop someone doing a FW AND a dodge in a single phase. Slows down the accumulation but at the advantage of a substantial DCV bonus

 

The problem I have with FW though is that it is a seperate and dead end branch of Hero evolution.

 

What did you make of the +1/2 per halving for AP idea?

[pinecone]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

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.

 

Dang...they keep on Changin stuff...or maybe I don't remember so well...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

What did you make of the +1/2 per halving for AP idea?

 

Sean, I think that has some instinctive appeal. Then I look at the comparison.

 

For 60 AP, I can have a 12 d6 EB that averages 42 Stun and hits against normal defenses. Targets with 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 defenses take 27, 22, 17, 12, 7, 2 Stun

 

For 60 AP, I can have an 8d6 AP EB that averages 28 STUN against half defenses. Targets with 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 defenses take 20, 18, 15, 13, 10, 8 Stun. No advantage until the target has 30 Defenses - pretty high.

 

For 60 AP, I can have an 6d6 AP EB that averages 21 STUN against 1/4 defenses. Targets with 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 defenses take 17, 16, 15, 13, 12, 11 Stun. No advantage until the target has 35 Defenses - very high.

 

Those very high DEF characters are likely designed that way for a reason, and are likely to Harden their defenses.

 

Extra halvings aren't all that effective when dealing with Stun. They are far more effective at killing low-DEF characters than at KO'ing higher def characters.

 

I'm more and more coming back to the theory that, if the cost is to be tied to something, it should be the defenses reduced, rather than the attack empowered.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Sean, I think that has some instinctive appeal. Then I look at the comparison.

 

For 60 AP, I can have a 12 d6 EB that averages 42 Stun and hits against normal defenses. Targets with 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 defenses take 27, 22, 17, 12, 7, 2 Stun

 

For 60 AP, I can have an 8d6 AP EB that averages 28 STUN against half defenses. Targets with 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 defenses take 20, 18, 15, 13, 10, 8 Stun. No advantage until the target has 30 Defenses - pretty high.

 

For 60 AP, I can have an 6d6 AP EB that averages 21 STUN against 1/4 defenses. Targets with 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 defenses take 17, 16, 15, 13, 12, 11 Stun. No advantage until the target has 35 Defenses - very high.

 

Those very high DEF characters are likely designed that way for a reason, and are likely to Harden their defenses.

 

Extra halvings aren't all that effective when dealing with Stun. They are far more effective at killing low-DEF characters than at KO'ing higher def characters.

 

I'm more and more coming back to the theory that, if the cost is to be tied to something, it should be the defenses reduced, rather than the attack empowered.

 

 

Nice analysis, although not quite as straightforward if other advantages used as well. I think the break point for 1/2 defences is 28 DEF (42-28=14 v 28-14=14), and for 1/4 defences it is....also 28 (42-28=14 v 21-7=14) The breakpoint remains almost constant at whatever level you buy it.

 

I'm not too worried about the cost of the power as you'll only buy it if you really are concerned about high defences or if you have a very low powered attack to start with, which would struggle with campaign normal defences i.e for conceptual reasons. I think the level is pitched about right.

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

I have alowed it in every Supers game I have run, and it has been allowed in every supers game, I have played in, and it has never broke the game. You just need GMs with a better handle on what to allow and disallow in their game. Champions is not like D&D, characters need to be inspected far more cautiously than in D&D. Because it IS a Supers game, and if anyone is given free run in the game, they can do much more than you want too.

 

I have found even a small VPP more of a game breaker than Find Weakness.

 

 

In every supers level game it was allowed, it ended up being a game-breaker.

 

There are far too many ways to exploit it. Far too many.

 

Either by itself or in combination, it always ended up forcing the GM to fudge like crazy to keep the game interesting. Better IMO to just not allow it in the first place.

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Well you answered yourself there, but I wouldn't say your better without them, I have been in that situation myself. What I would say though is, it is a matter of you either being the GM, or letting the players take over the game. There are many ways to handle it. Saying no would just be the first part of it. Obviously, if they felt stringly enough about it to leave the game, then they had a reason to want FW.

 

Fine, if they want it, then they have to give something themselves. If they ask for a 13d6 attack and want FW, then I would say no. If they say they are leaving, I may say fine, depending on how they say it, or I say say, "Lets work it out. Why do you need that high of an attack, AND FW?" Then let them know how unbalancing that would be. If they indicate that is why they want it, then cut them loose. If not, then offer them a different solution. Try what you would feel most comfortable with. There are several areas they can take from in order to not make it unbalancing. The top 3, in order are DC, OCV, and the FW skill roll. I they don't want to give on any of these basis, then I would say they fall into the, "I want to be unbalancing" class and you should cut them loose. As it will destroy the game in the long run. I know this, as I have experienced it. Though the bad PC I had wasn't shooting for FW, so that wan't a problem with him.

 

 

I say no' date=' then the player gets all cranky. I've had one decide to pack it in and not play at all largely over the FW issue. You'll probably say I was better off without him anyway, if that was how he was, but it still left us short a player in a place where players were not a dime a dozen.[/quote']

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

It can certainly be abused. Many powers and power combo's can. The most devestating example I've seen was the old Deathstroke module, which had agents with FW. Since they initial scene gave them a few phases to prepare, they did amazing damage to the PC's when they were ready to go.

 

 

Preach it brother. This is exactly what I am saying too. It is not a game problem, but as you say a problem with people wanting to use caps instead of judgements on a character because its easier than having to tell someone their PC is too powerful for the campaign.

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

With respect it is going to be a rare player indeed who does not have his FW loaded onto his best attack' date=' so these 'other atatcks' are likely to be even less use[/quote']

 

I have never had a problem like this occur in any of my Champions games, and I have been running them for close to twenty years. Their may be players that WANT that, but that does not mean as a GM you GIVE them that. If they have something like this slotted to their best attack, then why would they have other attacks. They take this, on a less powerful attack for a means of flavor for the character. "I can hit him with my guided missile for 12d6, or I can wait a phase, catch him on target withmy targetting laser, and cut him to ribbon with it for 3d6 RKA"

 

Even when you are fighting a team and you can swap opponents if the roll went badly, so can they, and we wind up with a really very silly situation 'All change'. Now givent hat Hero imposes no penalty for breaking off int eh middle of combat to engage another opponent, that just bursts the suspension of disbelief bubble for me.

 

Uhmm... sorry to say this, but you are the GM, aren't you? It's not as simple as one villain standing in the corner and shouting, "TAG ME IN." Thats all part of the situation you build into the game when it happens. If you, as a GM cannot find some way to make it work realistically in the game, that is not my, nor the games fault. Here is an example of how it can work though.

 

Willpower is fighting Nextro and Quicksilver is fighting Bugo (Heroes and villains respectively). On Nextro's turn he notices Quicksilver (A speedster) running away from Bugo and towards him, after just knocking him down with a FW Move Through. Nextro, not wanting to face both Willpower and Quicksilver at the same time, shoots Quicksilver with a flash attack to get by him quickly. Willpower fires an EB and knocks down Nextro. Bugo gets up feeling the pain from the FW attack, and seeing Quicksilver temporarly disabled jumps at Willpower to pay back Nextro for helping him. Nextro seeing Willpower confronted by now turns to the helpless Quicksilver.

 

There you go a switch up, that works game-wise and isn't just, "Ok now you are fighting him, and you are fighting this other person." Though Bugo could have just as easily kept fighting Quicksilver. You don't often need rationale for different villains attacking different PC's It just happens in team fights the same way PC's often attack different villains that they aren't always fighting. You don't stop them and say, "Now wait a minute it doesn't make sense that you would attack that villain even though he is down and at a disadvantage, you have been fighting this guy the whole time you need to attack him."

 

Now Hugh makes some good points about nerfing FW. Cool and pretty easy. 'Everyone has a trenchcoat on', or 'That one, get him first!' But that is the point to a large extent: if the villains always smack The Exploiter on phase 12, the game gets daft and The Exploiter's player gets hacked off.

 

If there is a power that requires this kind of nerfing on a regular basis there is something wrong with it.

 

As to 'total points = attack+ FW' (or however you want to do it)...well, first off the book makes no such suggestion, although it is of course sensible. mind you you can still build a 10d6 Eb with FW in a60 AP game and be mighty effective a good proportion of the time, so I don't think it balances well.

 

I have had this sort of situation come up on me several times when I first started GMing Champions. One of my players made a character with 60 Dex while the rest were at standard levels. I constantly had to throw in villains with area attacks, in order to hit him. That was a pain. I also had a different PC build a character named Vision, who had Invisibility to everything except Infrared Vision, so I constantly had to throw in at least a few people with it, or he would trounce everyone. Those situations were all a pain, but it wasn't a problem with the game. It was a problem with me as a GM not wanting to say no, when I saw something that I KNEW would hurt the game. The Hero System, and Champions specifically is NOT, I repeat NOT a self balancing game like D&D is. (Heck, even D&D isn't self-balancing comepletely, but I am not going into that) It is not enough to slot this much of an allowance for offensive powers, and this much for defense. That is a fine place to start, but you can't just use it. The GM has to go over each individual PC to check for potential abuse. Here is another trouble PC I had once. He was mot an extrodinary character by any means named Runic, who was a magic user. He had all his own powers and could survive without using his magic VPP fine, though he was a little weak compared to the others. His VPP seemed inocent enough, as it was only like a 18 point pool or something like that, can't remember the exacts now. Then he showed what he could do with the VPP. He already did decent damage, I think it was 12d6 with his sword (he didn't kill), which our average was around 13d6. He slotted 3 levels of growth. That bumped his strength up and he now did 15d6. That is not all though. Since limitations were applied to it, he also slotted 3 levels of density increase. Now he did 18d6, and he had points left over.

 

Finally, and I'll keep coming back to this, IT MAKES NO SENSE. it senses stuff you can't sense, it works against illogical categories (normal/resistant) irrespective of sfx or anything else for that matetr and even the 'carry over ' rules (i.e. it doesn't) make little sense: if you've found a weakness in Defender's armour today, unless he re-built it overnight, it'll still be there tomorrow, for pity's sake.

 

Even the idea that it only works with (as a base) a single attack is a bit crazy to me as FW is NOT part of the attack itself, unless you build it that way, so virtually every build I have seen makes no real sense. So you ccan find weakness with guns, but not find the same weakness with, say a knife? So you can sense a weakness in that wall but not mark it in chalk for the team brick to hit?*

 

I can balance everything else in-game. I just can't make it make sense without writing in the book in crayon.

 

 

*You CAN of course build approprtiately synergetic FW/attack combos: the sonic blast the character can tune to a resonant frequency, for example, but like I said almost every build I've seen just fails to address the issue of HOW it works, and just buys it for point efficiency.

 

As for the SFX issue of it that is a comepletely different story. I am somewhat in agreement with you there, and I would say if the player cannot plausibly explain his FW ability then it is perfectly reasonable to say that they cannot have it regardless of any other conditions. Though there are many explanations you can use for FW. I mentioned one above in an example, as the targetting laser. There are others too. If the SFX is actually locating a weakness in the other character, than I could easily see the character taking it with all attacks, but then as I have mentioned in other posts, there is a cost to everything. Above and beyond the point cost that is, and if they can do FW with everything, then they have to pay elsewhere, whether that is in DC, OCV, or whatever. It would aso be logical for say a person who is an expert in martial arts to have FW, where they find the person's weakness with their martial arts, but when they switch to their guns it doesn't work. Or if someone can find a weakness with one attack it might be such a precision attack, that they cannot use it with other attacks that are not as precise. As for not knowing the weakness later, that is hard to figure out. It could be that given the nature of the human (or alien) body whatever weakness found has to be found again later, as maybe the weak point shifts slightly, or since you haven't hit it in a while, you have to reaquire the knowledge of its exact location. Though even in those latter 2 cases there is call to say they should at least get a bonus to FW if successfully used previously. As for marking it for teamates, it could be that it doesn't work that way. (IE the targetting laser, or a special combat manuever, "The Dimok" for instance.)

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Sure - but any time someone says - "OK, use GM's fiat to dogpile the character", then to me, that's saying "Yeah, we got a problem here".

 

Which was the point.

 

Now in my experience the problem is not really pervasive - as I said I haven't banned FW. I just scrutinise any appearance of it really carefully.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Cheers to you too Mark, that is exactly the way to handle it.

[Willpower]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

OK, I'll do you one better. I have 2 examples for you.

 

Targetting Laser = The targetting system for this laser helps the user pinpoint the best place to attack the target. This is where the attack always hit, if it hits the target. This nexus point is stored in memory so when used multiple times the targetting system can pinpoint in greater detail therefore further maximize potential damage. However if the targetting system fails to find the correct nexus point needed for maximum damage, it has to undergo a hard reset before it can be used again on that target. Further uses will end up using the flawed Nexus Point as a beginning guide so they should be avoided.

 

Di Mok = Di Mok is a martial art manuever that is complex to perform. You have to perform it with an open palmed strike with the fingers hooked. The strike must hit a vital spot that is hard to target, and requires a few moments of vigilant study of the intended subject to find the exact target point. The target point for Di Mok is a particular muscle grouping. Once the muscle grouping is found it can be split to penetrate the subject's defenses. If so chosen, you can split the muscle grouping further to further penetrate the targets defenses.

 

Not sure a character loses their first attack: FW is a half phase non-attack action. That mans you can do it twice in a phase or FW and then attack in a phase.

 

However, if all we are arguing about is utility and cost then it is just how you apply that looking glass or stop sign. We are not. It is certainly adiscussion point but it is not my central theme. Here is the challenge, a simple one, I’d have thought: give me a sfx justification for find weakness that actually makes sense for the attack or attacks it relates to, using the power presented in the rules. Go on.

 

Now before we go off on that one, I can think of 'some sort of mystical stuff that, y'know, sometimes works and sometimes doesn't', or possibly '...er...chi?', but that is rubbish. It is avoiding sfx not presenting them, and does not fit in with what most advocates seem to see as its niche: the skilled type with the low DC attacks. I'm not suggesting you have to limit your self to that, just that the solution should actually be coherent and not 'it just does'.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

OK, I'll do you one better. I have 2 examples for you.

 

Targetting Laser = The targetting system for this laser helps the user pinpoint the best place to attack the target. This is where the attack always hit, if it hits the target. This nexus point is stored in memory so when used multiple times the targetting system can pinpoint in greater detail therefore further maximize potential damage. However if the targetting system fails to find the correct nexus point needed for maximum damage, it has to undergo a hard reset before it can be used again on that target. Further uses will end up using the flawed Nexus Point as a beginning guide so they should be avoided.

 

Di Mok = Di Mok is a martial art manuever that is complex to perform. You have to perform it with an open palmed strike with the fingers hooked. The strike must hit a vital spot that is hard to target, and requires a few moments of vigilant study of the intended subject to find the exact target point. The target point for Di Mok is a particular muscle grouping. Once the muscle grouping is found it can be split to penetrate the subject's defenses. If so chosen, you can split the muscle grouping further to further penetrate the targets defenses.

 

Targetting laser is, I presume, presented for use in a game not using hit locations?

 

If we apply standard rules to the sfx as suggested, then it may be seen as somewhat confusing that this astonishingly advanced piece of technology is incapable of retaining targetting information for specific targets in memory for more than a few hours, and somewhat odd (but you're the boss ) that it needs a 'hard reset' before it can be used again on that target. How long does that take? How do you do it? Presumably not 'in combat'.

 

Also, presumably, if it locates an optimal attack point on your back then the best defence against it is facing the laser, so it can't hit the optimal attack point?

 

Presumably as well, if it was able to locate a targetting point on one piece of VIPER powered armour, the same point would apply to all the other identical battlesuits?

 

What is the targetting system actually looking at and for? Does it use X-rays, or sonics or something else? Machine intuition? I've always wonderd about this: if you are in a smoky area, and you are suffering -2 to sight PER rolls as a result, how is FW affected, if at all?

 

The biggest single problem though would be that the rules require you to target different defences on after the other: normal and resistant, and there is nothing here that can explain why that should be because it is not an artefact of the game world but of the underlying mechanics.

 

I know I am nit-picking, and you have made a very good effort at creating a sfx that precisely matches the foibles of the power...but is that not an objection tot he power in and of itself: it requires an astonishing level of inventiveness and specificity to even get close to having power and sfx match.

 

As for the martial arts technique, I presume that isn't going to work against anyone with rigid armour or defences like force field? Moreover there is nothing to explain why you can't try again if you fail or why, for any given opponent you'll forget where the muscle group is from day to day...and of course the 'normal/resistant' problem.

 

I see this discussion as having reached certain conclusions:

 

There are plenty who like the power and plenty who don't, but the following can broadly be agreed:

 

1. A great deal of GM overisght is required.

 

2. Some of the official restrictions make very little sense and are broadly ignored (especially the one about targetting normal/resistant defences).

 

3. The concept of finding weakness should be represented or representable in the system.

 

4. Making it a sensory power without tying it (or requiring tie-in) to senses is a sub-ideal state of affairs.

 

So, what I'd have to suggest is that whilst we can probably all agree that we want something 'find-weakness-ish' in Hero, what we have is a bit of a pain quite a lot of the time and is rarely if ever used as presented so should probably be changed.

 

Arguably therefore even the advocates are not using FW, just something very like it.

 

I'm just saying

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Targetting laser is, I presume, presented for use in a game not using hit locations?

 

If we apply standard rules to the sfx as suggested, then it may be seen as somewhat confusing that this astonishingly advanced piece of technology is incapable of retaining targetting information for specific targets in memory for more than a few hours, and somewhat odd (but you're the boss ) that it needs a 'hard reset' before it can be used again on that target. How long does that take? How do you do it? Presumably not 'in combat'.

 

Also, presumably, if it locates an optimal attack point on your back then the best defence against it is facing the laser, so it can't hit the optimal attack point?

 

Presumably as well, if it was able to locate a targetting point on one piece of VIPER powered armour, the same point would apply to all the other identical battlesuits?

 

What is the targetting system actually looking at and for? Does it use X-rays, or sonics or something else? Machine intuition? I've always wonderd about this: if you are in a smoky area, and you are suffering -2 to sight PER rolls as a result, how is FW affected, if at all?

 

The biggest single problem though would be that the rules require you to target different defences on after the other: normal and resistant, and there is nothing here that can explain why that should be because it is not an artefact of the game world but of the underlying mechanics.

 

I know I am nit-picking, and you have made a very good effort at creating a sfx that precisely matches the foibles of the power...but is that not an objection tot he power in and of itself: it requires an astonishing level of inventiveness and specificity to even get close to having power and sfx match.

 

As for the martial arts technique, I presume that isn't going to work against anyone with rigid armour or defences like force field? Moreover there is nothing to explain why you can't try again if you fail or why, for any given opponent you'll forget where the muscle group is from day to day...and of course the 'normal/resistant' problem.

 

I see this discussion as having reached certain conclusions:

 

There are plenty who like the power and plenty who don't, but the following can broadly be agreed:

 

1. A great deal of GM overisght is required.

 

2. Some of the official restrictions make very little sense and are broadly ignored (especially the one about targetting normal/resistant defences).

 

3. The concept of finding weakness should be represented or representable in the system.

 

4. Making it a sensory power without tying it (or requiring tie-in) to senses is a sub-ideal state of affairs.

 

So, what I'd have to suggest is that whilst we can probably all agree that we want something 'find-weakness-ish' in Hero, what we have is a bit of a pain quite a lot of the time and is rarely if ever used as presented so should probably be changed.

 

Arguably therefore even the advocates are not using FW, just something very like it.

 

I'm just saying

On the whole I think you make a pretty strong case. I think we struggle, as the dialogue Hugh and you and a few others primarily had within this thread, with how one would replace FW suitably. I think part of the problem is that in your closing list of driving considerations, #1 is true only to one degree or another according to GM/play group, so there is no consensus on how disconcerting FW is or is not, and in turn we have no real agreement on how to best fix it, especially since #2 also is in play. So between #1 and #2, we primarily drive cost arguments on any alternative construction.

 

I think this in essence means that pre-5th (pre-4th?) FW which did not break out normal/resistant was acceptable in its core, non-abused intention/"standard" uses but had too many problems in actual implementations.

 

So I think in turn it means that while we still might want to fix this rather radically (by eliminating this "non-evolving," non-adaptable mechanic), we need a cost parity for the current standard uses when remaining with an element of luck (RSR or such) that was promoted in the initial idea.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

SO can we reach an idea of how we would like to see it?

 

Here's my wish list:

 

1. Get rid of the normal/resistant distinction and have the power, as a base, halve all defences.

 

2. Remove the 'can't try again' mechanic and replace with 'can try again at one point up the time table OR allow the character when building the power to determine how often it 'resets': i.e. you could have it reset every turn or never (so some characters you fail against and can never effect again, some you always effect at a agiven level, if you pick 'never', OR you can always try again - losing bonuses too - after a set time)

 

3. Specifically mention in the write up that the cost of FW should be considered along with the cost of attack powers when looking at campaign AP limits.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

In fact - come to think of it - that encapsulates my problem with fw - it is too specific and lacks options.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

 

Sean, I believe I agree on all counts to the last couple posts.