Favorite 60-point Power Construction

[Fedifensor]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

That's a ridiculous ruling, sorry. Someone with 30ED is functionally immune to a 5d6 EB, but if the dice fall right, they'll still take knockback from it. There's no logical reason a deaf person wouldn't get knocked flat by that power.

 

That's what house rules are for, I suppose.

Or, instead of trying to get a tremendous amount of knockback on the cheap because the rules are broken when it comes to using Does Knockback on powers that cost less than 5 points per die...you could just buy a linked EB with Double Knockback and Knockback Only. The deaf person would still get knocked back even though they're immune to the hearing Flash.

[CTaylor]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

There's a reason the "does knockback" advantage is in the rules, and it isn't because we should only use powers that already do knockback to simulate being knocked around.

[Ice9]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

A power that only does knockback should cost less than one which does damage+knockback, and that applies to active as well as real points. Having an excessive active/real point disparity in cases like this only serves to screw up power frameworks.

[CTaylor]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

Well there is some precedent in games, movies, books, and so on for naked powers like one that only stuns and one that only knocks people flying. You can build that kind of thing with hero but I wonder if some strange construct that lets you do it like naked advantages wouldn't be useful.

 

For example you could make a structure that would cause bleeding, based on a killing attack that didn't do any actual damage. Or a knockback attack based on a blast that did no actual damage but did the knockback. Instead of buying the attack and then lots of limitations to represent this effect, you have some construct rule that lets you buy "naked effects." Just an odd thought.

[Utech]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

There's a reason the "does knockback" advantage is in the rules' date=' and it isn't because we should only use powers that already do knockback to simulate being knocked around.[/quote']

I'd argue that it also isn't so that people can cheese their way to doing extra knockback.

[Utech]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

you could make a structure that would cause bleeding' date=' based on a killing attack that didn't do any actual damage. Or a knockback attack based on a blast that did no actual damage but did the knockback. Instead of buying the attack and then lots of limitations to represent this effect, you have some construct rule that lets you buy "naked effects." Just an odd thought.[/quote']

I like your odd thought. Repped.

[Vulcan]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

I'd argue that it also isn't so that people can cheese their way to doing extra knockback.

 

I'll get the crackers, who's bringing the whine?

[SteveZilla]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

This is a problem with the pricing of 2x knockback and Does Knockback. 16d6 [3 point per d6 power] does Knockback (+1/4) cost 60 points and average 16 - 2d6 knockback. 12d6 EB costs 60 points and averages 12 - 2d6 Knockback. 7d6 EB Double Knockback costs 61 points and averages 14 - 2d6 knockback.

 

Are these results reasonable? I suggest loss of 5d6 damage to obtain 2" of knockback is excessive, indicating the price of double knockback is too high. Does Knockback is probably OK, but a Hearing Flash that Does Knockback should not, IMO, generate more knockback than a double knockback EB.

 

Make Double Knockback +1/2 and an 8d6 EB, Double Knockback attack would match the hearing flash. That seems a more reasonable result to me. 1d6 trades off for 1" knockback on average.

 

You should cross-post this in the 6E Advantages thread...

[Ice9]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

But that's the thing - I wouldn't call it "cheesing" your way into anything. Power A does knockback+damage. Power B only does knockback. For the same point cost, Power B should do more knockback. And it shouldn't stop doing more knockback just because it's in a power framework.

 

I mean, would you call buying Leaping cheesy because you could have built it as Flight, Only for Leaping (-1) for the same real cost and much higher active cost?

[Utech]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

I mean' date=' would you call buying Leaping cheesy because you could have built it as Flight, Only for Leaping (-1) for the same real cost and much higher active cost?[/quote']

No.

 

I call it cheese when you're using a Flash attack instead of an Energy Blast just to get extra inches of Knockback. If you're not, you're cheese-free in my book.

[Balabanto]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

Well, for sheer, raw, punishing power and ability, for the unbelievable ability to unbalance the game, there is only one winner that can be put down that doesn't require an excessively stupid construction.

 

From the long ago playtest of the Ultimate Super Mage, here it is!

 

Ready?

 

4d6 RKA. That's it. Nothing complicated, nothing over the top, just 4d6 RKA. Do the math. You'll be shocked.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

You should cross-post this in the 6E Advantages thread...

 

Great minds think alike (forgot to note I had done so, though).

[SteveZilla]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

Well, for sheer, raw, punishing power and ability, for the unbelievable ability to unbalance the game, there is only one winner that can be put down that doesn't require an excessively stupid construction.

 

From the long ago playtest of the Ultimate Super Mage, here it is!

 

Ready?

 

4d6 RKA. That's it. Nothing complicated, nothing over the top, just 4d6 RKA. Do the math. You'll be shocked.

 

Not bad -- good for lots of force (not the knockback kind, the BODY kind). I tend to prefer 2d6 RKA - Armor Piercing - Penetrating. Less Damage, but better against heavy armor.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

Why does having a sense or not make a difference in whether a Flash with Does KB actually works. It's like saying the sense itself is causing the KB.

 

What makes sense conceptually about an EB or KA with the NND Advantage and either Does Knockback or Does Body (which includes Does KB) not doing any Knockback vs. a target with the NND defense?

 

RAW in either case is not consistent with the 'normal' KB rules at all. Damage that gets past defenses has no bearing at all on how much actual KB is done to a target. Why should applying an Advantage to a power limit this?

 

From Mr. Long:

If a target is immune to a power for some reason (for example, he’s immune to a Sight Group Flash because he’s already been blinded by some other attack or phenomenon), then he’s totally immune to it, including the Advantages, unless the GM rules otherwise for some reason.

 

This is why building a Power by starting with a less than appropriate choice (in mechanical terms) can lead to confusing results.

 

For example, a Tough Group Flash cannot affect a Desolidified Person in much the same way a Sight Group Flash cannot affect a Blind Person. Adding Does Knockback to the Flash shouldn't change that. For the Touch Group Flash + Does Knockback to be able to affect the Desolid, it'd also have to have Affects Desolidified.

 

Does Knockback adds an extra effect (knockback) to the base power, but doesn't change what the base power can affect.

[pinecone]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

This is not SFX based, it is mechanics based. It applies to all NND's, not NND's with specific SFX. If some NND's with Does BOD can do knockback against a target with the defense and others cannot, that woud be SFX driven.

 

 

 

This is a problem with the pricing of 2x knockback and Does Knockback. 16d6 [3 point per d6 power] does Knockback (+1/4) cost 60 points and average 16 - 2d6 knockback. 12d6 EB costs 60 points and averages 12 - 2d6 Knockback. 7d6 EB Double Knockback costs 61 points and averages 14 - 2d6 knockback.

 

Are these results reasonable? I suggest loss of 5d6 damage to obtain 2" of knockback is excessive, indicating the price of double knockback is too high. Does Knockback is probably OK, but a Hearing Flash that Does Knockback should not, IMO, generate more knockback than a double knockback EB.

 

Make Double Knockback +1/2 and an 8d6 EB, Double Knockback attack would match the hearing flash. That seems a more reasonable result to me. 1d6 trades off for 1" knockback on average.

 

I think I can see what your saying.

 

I however have built it using Hearing flash, based on this reasoning.

 

A shockwave does 3 things, knock back or down, inflicts temporary deafness, and should do some damage.

 

So) Flash: Hearing 5D6 Does KB, x2 KB, Expl., Xtra area, and e-atk 2 D6 NND, Exp. (62.5?)

 

This does what I want it to do...

 

Recomended way) 5D6 E-attack x2 KB, Expl, xtra A or REnd>1/2 (also 62.5?)

 

The recomended way does not do what I want....

 

Maybe this? HA +3D6 x2 KB,Extra A.,Exp., and Flash;Hearing 3D6 Exp., Xtra A x2,REnd>0

Thats 60 pts I think...

 

What makes one of those build more "moral" or "better" than another? Or "Cheesy"

 

I can see that 8D6 of Flash does KB does a mite too much KB (avg 11") but this is a game about Superbeings...the only problem I'd have is that it does not do what a shock wave ought to do. The big KB explosion Might cause ballence problems, but thats not a rules issue to me.

 

5D6 does an average of 3" of KB, easily resisted by bracing or rooting with flight etc, and it does too little damage, most any game I've been in or heard of is average def 20 or more...

 

So it looks like a build that does not justify the expenditure, not even as a slot in a multi.

That suggests that it is a "bad build".

 

Back in the old days x2 KB was a +1/2 (if I remember right) I believe it went up in cost as a reaction to the excess power of 8D6 x2 KB wind blasts and the like. But +3/4 just seems too high, and it makes for difficult math (I for example always add in a +1/4 to make it round out)

 

The Ha version does 5" avg KB and 6D6 damage so it will mow down Mooks, and has a fair chance of knocking a Super off his feet. and it might do a stun or two vs low defense foes.

 

The Flash version does an avg 3" KB, and 7 stun NND (Hearing flash def) so, a little less KB and a little more stun vs Supers (Hearing Flash def is real rare in my own experiance).

 

So as I look I see them as equivilent. One is not better than the other.

[pinecone]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

Oh even before that Extra KB subtracted Dice from the subtraction roll at +1/4 per so +1/2 would do straight KB with no subtrasction for Normal, and -1 D6 for a Killing Atk....

 

I actually liked it this way better than a Multiple....

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

The biggest problem I see with adjusting the cost of x2KB from +3/4 down to +1/2 is the ripple effects it will have on other aspects of the game (HA's being the primary one).

 

From browsing the various 6e threads it appears that Steve Long is already planning to make adjustments to Characteristic costs (decoupling figured's) and hopefully HA costs as well.

 

Since we don't have that book yet I would try to apply the smallest number of house rules to 5e as possible. One option I haven't seen mentioned yet would be to introduce a new custom power (Repulsor Beam?) that only exists as a base that the Advantage Does Knocback (+1/4) must be applied (like a reverse version of an HA's required Limitation). Its base costs is still 3 points per dice of effect (it works just like a non-targeting sense Flash or Dispel). An 8d6 "Repulsor Beam" would cost 30 real points (8*3=24; 24*1.25=30).

 

Thoughts?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

I like the prebuilt "repulsor beam" idea.

 

Otherwise, I'd say for now, just use a Touch Flash and link a Hearing Flash to it if it's absolutely necessary for concept.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

I however have built it using Hearing flash, based on this reasoning.

 

A shockwave does 3 things, knock back or down, inflicts temporary deafness, and should do some damage.

 

Your shockwave does (can do), in no particular order:

1. Knockback

2. Deafens

3. Damage

 

But a Hearing Group Flash on it's own does one of those, and an Energy Blast does two of those. I don't see why that wouldn't make the EB the more appropriate choice.

 

Now, there are many instances where there was a shockwave, but didn't to one or more of those things. Like in The Hulk when he use his super-clap shockwave to blow out the fireball. Betty Ross wasn't deafened at all, she nor the helicopter took damage, and they didn't get blown away.

 

What are we to make of this? It's possible that The Hulk's player built the Brick Trick as a Dispel Fire and didn't add any other things to it like damage, deafening, or Does Knockback.

 

Or Flash-Bangs. Clearly a shockwave, yet it deafens without causing damage or knockback.

 

Not to mention that:

If a target is immune to a power for some reason (for example' date=' he’s immune to a Sight Group Flash because he’s already been blinded by some other attack or phenomenon), then he’s totally immune to it, [b']including the Advantages[/b], unless the GM rules otherwise for some reason.

Emphasis mine.

 

Just because one can build a Flash that Does Knockback does not override the inherent limitaiton in Flash that it doesn't affect those who can't perceive the Flash. Which would likely include most inanimate objects as well.

 

It's a similar issue IMO as people using Flight - Only along A Surface for a speedster's ability to run across water and up buildings, yet not like taking the single 1d6 knockback die (instead of two) because they are flying -- not to mention turn modes.

 

barring GM fiat (or whatever car he drives), you must obey the inherent mechanics of the base power (little p) used to build a Power (big P). An Advantage that adds to the effect but doesn't expand what it can affect does not allow the construct to affect what the base power cannot.

 

Personally, for 60 AP limit games, I see no reason for Double Knockback (when applied to powers that already cause knockback), to be +3/4. +1/2 works fine IMO. Double Knockback IMO should scale with the amount of dice in the attack. For example, it is all but useless on a small attack (like a 3d6 normal attack), but hideously effective on something with lots of dice (like an 10d6 Flash/Dispel w/ Does Knockback).

 

Perhaps the Advantage is too "all-or nothing" because of both its price and its mechanics? It might be better to change to a mechanic that subtracts dice from the knockback dice roll. IMO it'd be more linear, give the low end some more effect, and be less subject to abuse with lots of dice.

 

30 Hand Clap!: Touch Group Flash 8d6' date=' Does Knockback (+1/4), Explosion (+1/2), Double Knockback (+3/4) (60 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Restrainable (Claps Hands; -1/2) - END=6 [/quote']

 

Of course, Hyper-man, you do realize that the character will take the full effect of this. I hope he has Hearing Flash DEF and a way to resist an average of 9" of KB. No Range Explosion w/out Personal Immunity?

 

I can see that 8D6 of Flash does KB does a mite too much KB (avg 11") but this is a game about Superbeings...

 

Let's see. We could also have:

 

41 Hand Clap!: Naked Advantage: Explosion(+1/2) on 60 STR(30 pts) + Personal Immunity(+1/4)(37 Active Points) - Only To Grab & Throw Away From Me(-1/2), Not In Vaccum or Under Water(-0) -AND- 4d6 Flash Hearing - Explosion(1DC:3"; +1)(24 Active Points) - Linked to Naked Advantage: Explosion(-1/2), Not In Vaccum or Under Water(-0)

 

With the standard 60 STR Brick, against targets in adjacent hexes that weighs 100 kg, the "grab" is 55 STR, and the "throw" will be a distance of 18" (using the Standing Throw column) and cause 11d6. Succeeding in a STR vs STR roll to resist the grab could be viewed as having been "dug in" (or just lucky) against the blast of air.

 

And 37 + 24 = 61 Active Points. Not counting the base STR, of course. So it's not a true "60-point Power Construction" because of that.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

One of my favorite 60 point powers:

 

Energy Leech: 2d6 Transfer END to END, Continuous, Uncontrolled, Can be stopped by "killing" the leech (DEF 6, 6 BDY), transfered END goes to leech not caster (+0)

 

This is a magical creature called the Energy Leech that once summoned will suck the END out of the target and use that END to power itself. The Uncontrolled can be ended by "killing" the leech, which has DEF & BDY based on a 60pt Entangle. A more lethal version (the Death Leech) would transfer BDY to END. The GM might insist on having a second way to stop the Leech depending on the campaign.

[Balabanto]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

Not bad -- good for lots of force (not the knockback kind' date=' the BODY kind). I tend to prefer 2d6 RKA - Armor Piercing - Penetrating. Less Damage, but better against heavy armor.[/quote']

 

All kidding aside, unless you run a campaign with massive amounts of Damage Reduction and very limited resistant defenses, 4d6 RKA will still be better.

 

Let's look at the average ranges.

 

7 Bodyx1=7 x2 14 x3 21 x4 28 x5 35. Defenses in a game like this will be around 24, so let's use that. 7. Stopped. 14/ 2 21/ 9 28/16 35/23. That's 60 Stun. Your toughest character will still be bloody, but he'll be waking up soon.

 

And somewhere in there, he's going to get a recovery. Now let's do that again with a 4d6 RKA

 

14/1=Stopped. 28/4 42/18 56/32 (STOP HERE. Most people don't buy a Con of more than 30) 70/44. That's a total of 98 Stun. Your Toughest character is snoring and out of the fight. No recovery possible and probably in the -20 to -30 Range. Plus, if you win the stun lotto early with this attack, you can just haymaker the guy with something else, and he can't do anything about it.

 

Hero isn't about killing your opponent. Hero is about finding the most efficient way to reduce your enemy's stun total to -10 or less in the shortest time.

[Vulcan]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

Hero isn't about killing your opponent. Hero is about finding the most efficient way to reduce your enemy's stun total to -10 or less in the shortest time.

 

I thought HERO, like most RPG's, was about having fun...

[CTaylor]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

Transfers make some fun powers. Transferring strength to strength (AE) is a pretty nasty ability. Even at low levels it can be pretty potent stuff in a hurry, particularly against agents. For 60 points you can get 1/2D6 of 0 END cost AE megahex, continuous, uncontrolled transfer with +20 points of maximum effect, that will jack your strength up by 26 points (and with a nice 18 or so base, that gets you up past Spider-man territory). It is a nice add on to a basic martial artist template, one of my favorite types of builds: the Martial Artist Plus...

[Kdansky]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

4d6 Killing Attack

 

Help, the Stun Lotto Debate is flaring up! Someone get a big bucket of Houserules Against Stun Lotto and extinguish it!

 

That aside: I agree. 4d6 KA with RAW are ludicrously good.

 

Current houserule: Stunmultiplier fixed at x2, expected resistant defenses slightly below expected DC of KAs. It's not a very good solution, as the KA now does nearly no stun anymore... But the campaign is already in it's second half, so that will work until it ends.

 

 

Transfers make some fun powers. Transferring strength to strength (AE) is a pretty nasty ability. Even at low levels it can be pretty potent stuff in a hurry' date=' particularly against agents. For 60 points you can get 1/2D6 of 0 END cost AE megahex, continuous, uncontrolled transfer with +20 points of maximum effect, that will jack your strength up by 26 points (and with a nice 18 or so base, that gets you up past Spider-man territory). It is a nice add on to a basic martial artist template, one of my favorite types of builds: the Martial Artist Plus...[/quote']

 

You might want to replace +maximum Effect with Cumulative? I always thought that increased Maximum Effect (after all, what else should it do? It's also priced a lot better than +2 per 1cp which does not scale for the different cost of 1d6 of each Transfer, Drain or Suppress). You'd get a lot of mileage out of it since you are already advantage stacking. Also, Megahex is cheap

I would probably not allow it on a PC.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction

 

Help, the Stun Lotto Debate is flaring up! Someone get a big bucket of Houserules Against Stun Lotto and extinguish it!

 

That aside: I agree. 4d6 KA with RAW are ludicrously good.

 

Current houserule: Stunmultiplier fixed at x2, expected resistant defenses slightly below expected DC of KAs. It's not a very good solution, as the KA now does nearly no stun anymore... But the campaign is already in it's second half, so that will work until it ends.

 

I offer two solutions to the KA dilemma (which is misnamed - it's really the Stun Multiple dilemma):

 

(a) Remove the SM from KA's. 5 points gets 1d6. That 1d6 is counted like a normal attack, except that we subtract 1/2 the dice rolled (round up) from the STUN total and we count 1-5 as 1 BOD and 6 as 2 (or we count 1 as 0 BOD, 2-4 as 1 and 6 as 2). We then apply that damage like the current KA (reduced knockback; rDEF as normal, etc.). This is the "low volatility" approach.

 

( Change normal attacks. They now cost 15 points for 1d6. Roll the dice and subtract 1/2 the number of dice, rounding up (so subtract 1 from 1d6). That is the BOD of the attack. Now roll the 1d6 Stun Multiple (or use the hit location chart and add 1) and multiply the BOD by that Stun Multiple (1 - 6). This is the "high volatility" option.

 

Note that a 4d6 Stun Attack under the high volatility approach will average 12 BOD and 42 STUN (just like a conventional 12d6 normal attack), but will vary much more widely (like the current KA).

 

To add, we can have ©, the "no volatility" approach. All dice come up exactly average, rounded down, so a 60 point KA always does 14 BOD and 36 STUN (it would be 37 average with a current KA). A normal attack always gets 42 STUN and 12 BOD. This simply adjusts Standard Effect to remove loss of 1/2 point per d6.

 

Set one of the three as the standard for the Hero System. Offer the other two as optional rules. The GM could apply one standard for everyone in the game, allow characters to define each attack power's volatility or even allow each separate attack to be designated in terms of volatility (I'll use my EB with high volatility this shot) as they see fit.

 

This will allow all types of attacks access to the same volatility. If you want wildly volatile STUN with an NND attack, go to it. Want more variance on your Flash? Buy it High Volatility so 60 AP does 4d6 segments.

 

This separates the issues - a killing attack is one which averages a bit higher BOD, a bit lower STUN, acts against rDEF and has reduced knockback. Volatility is separated from the "KA vs Normal Attack" comparison.