Weapon always does maximum damage

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

I must be being slow, explain to me how

 

45 2d6 HKA, Max advantage (+1), +3 Stun Multiplier (+3/4), 1/2 end (+1/4), OAF (-1)

 

is not a deal when compared to

 

60 4d6 HKA (standard effect), +3 Stun Multiplier (+3/4), 1/2 end (+1/4), OAF (-1)

 

Ok, when you say "Advantage Stacking" what you are trying to identify is the effect of Advantages in general on a higher base cost.

 

There is no "stacking" going on; each Advantage is multiplying a higher base cost and thus inflating the Active Points considerably, independently of each other.

 

 

The real question then, is given such a scenario is 45 points or 60 points a fair price. Lets try the split between them.

 

45 3d6 HKA, +3 Stun Multiplier (+3/4), 1/2 end (+1/4), OAF (-1)

 

This effect is going to average 10.5 body; so its occasionally going to do more or less damage than the two examples you give, but on average it is within 1.5 points of effect.

 

So...is that 1.5 points of average effect worth paying 15 more points real cost for your 4d6 version? Or is the 2d6 Advantage oriented approach for the same cost more fair?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

Then we definitely do not agree. Arithmetically it is certain that a 30 point base attack with +1 in advantages (60) costs more than a 15 point base attack with +2 in advantages (45)...

 

Those extra advantages cost 30 points for the base 30 attack and cost half that much for the 15 point attack with a maximum effect advantage.

 

You might want to run it past me again how there is no difference mathematically.

 

Doc

 

PS: sorry - should read to the end before replying - JmOz was there a good half hour before me...

 

The terminology being used is muddled and misleading. What I demonstrated and was referring to was that there was no ADVANTAGE STACKING, as it was being referred to, whereby additional Advantages altered the impact of another Advantage.

 

The impact of each Advantage is INDEPENDENT of any other Advantage.

 

Or to be more clear, its not the addition of other Advantages at play affecting the costs; its the effect of a higher base cost of xd6 vs yd6 being multiplied.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

Or to be more clear' date=' its not the addition of other Advantages at play affecting the costs; its the effect of a higher base cost of xd6 vs yd6 being multiplied.[/quote']

 

OK, I think we are on the same page.

 

so, a +1 maximum effect advantage is only equivalent to twice the dice with SE when no other advantages are in play.

 

When other advantages are in play, the maximum effect advantage route is more point efficient (at +1).

 

I think that if you use a maximum effect advantage then you need to double the value of other advantages (just like with autofire). I think that would even the cost approach and I would go with the +1 maximum effect advantage as the more elegant approach.

 

 

Doc

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

OK, I think we are on the same page.

 

so, a +1 maximum effect advantage is only equivalent to twice the dice with SE when no other advantages are in play.

 

When other advantages are in play, the maximum effect advantage route is more point efficient (at +1).

 

I think that if you use a maximum effect advantage then you need to double the value of other advantages (just like with autofire). I think that would even the cost approach and I would go with the +1 maximum effect advantage as the more elegant approach.

 

 

Doc

Thats a possible approach...but if you read thru my response to JmOz above you might be surprised at the actual cost to effect of the Advantage approach works out well compared to a normal non max / non standard effect attack.

 

 

One of the easy things to lose sight of with the HERO System is that ultimately, the purpose of points is to accurately measure effectiveness so that a character that has spent x points on y ability is roughly comparative to another character that spent x points on z ability (or collection of abilities). If the end effect is not worth the cost, the cost is wrong. That's why, say, Damage Shield kind of sucks; the cost is out of line with the effect; to make an effective DS requires Active Points far out of line with the utility. Regeneration has similar problems, though the artificial lims allowed on it coupled with its free pass on heal frequency make it a wash. Any effect that requires a collection of Advantages to accomplish has scaling issues; low dice of effect work ok because the magnification isn't as extreme but each additional chunk of effect costs a lot; the multiplicative effect at work. In some cases the aggregate effect is very powerful and the points are representative, but a lot of times the effect ends up too weak for the price. Know what I mean?

[BNakagawa]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

One of the easy things to lose sight of with the HERO System is that ultimately, the purpose of points is to accurately measure effectiveness so that a character that has spent x points on y ability is roughly comparative to another character that spent x points on z ability (or collection of abilities). If the end effect is not worth the cost, the cost is wrong. That's why, say, Damage Shield kind of sucks; the cost is out of line with the effect; to make an effective DS requires Active Points far out of line with the utility. Regeneration has similar problems, though the artificial lims allowed on it coupled with its free pass on heal frequency make it a wash. Any effect that requires a collection of Advantages to accomplish has scaling issues; low dice of effect work ok because the magnification isn't as extreme but each additional chunk of effect costs a lot; the multiplicative effect at work. In some cases the aggregate effect is very powerful and the points are representative, but a lot of times the effect ends up too weak for the price. Know what I mean?

 

I'm not sure that this is necessarily true.

 

It would be nice if it was true, but ultimately the only thing that points really represent is an individual's investment in X.

 

Powers are context sensitive and the context is the rest of the character.

 

A PC that invests in a 12d6 EB is not the same as another PC that invests in a 12d6 EB if one has a 12 SPD and the other has a 2 SPD. One of them will be getting 6 times the results in the same amount of time. Also, a PC that has enough CV to never miss is going to get a better ROI than a PC that has a lousy CV and never hits.

 

Ultimately, the only thing that a point system does is prevent an individual PC from doing everything all the time.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

I'm not sure that this is necessarily true.

 

It would be nice if it was true, but ultimately the only thing that points really represent is an individual's investment in X.

 

Powers are context sensitive and the context is the rest of the character.

 

A PC that invests in a 12d6 EB is not the same as another PC that invests in a 12d6 EB if one has a 12 SPD and the other has a 2 SPD. One of them will be getting 6 times the results in the same amount of time. Also, a PC that has enough CV to never miss is going to get a better ROI than a PC that has a lousy CV and never hits.

 

Ultimately, the only thing that a point system does is prevent an individual PC from doing everything all the time.

 

Notice I said the PURPOSE, not the OUTCOME.

 

 

 

Due to synergy / holism some combinations of abilities will often have a greater effect than the sum of their points indicate; either always or circumstantially. It's pretty much unavoidable without pre-defining every possible combination of allowed abilities. However, at the micro levels, given two different abilities at x point cost and comparing them only to each other in a vacuum one should not be demonstrably better than the other in the vast majority of cases; if that's not the case then one of the abilities is mispriced, IMO.

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

You only need 3 Increased Stun multipliers

Yeah, rolled an 18 on my Count-Fu there...

 

Happens to the best of us.

[JmOz]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

Ok, when you say "Advantage Stacking" what you are trying to identify is the effect of Advantages in general on a higher base cost.

 

There is no "stacking" going on; each Advantage is multiplying a higher base cost and thus inflating the Active Points considerably, independently of each other.

 

 

The real question then, is given such a scenario is 45 points or 60 points a fair price. Lets try the split between them.

 

45 3d6 HKA, +3 Stun Multiplier (+3/4), 1/2 end (+1/4), OAF (-1)

 

This effect is going to average 10.5 body; so its occasionally going to do more or less damage than the two examples you give, but on average it is within 1.5 points of effect.

 

So...is that 1.5 points of average effect worth paying 15 more points real cost for your 4d6 version? Or is the 2d6 Advantage oriented approach for the same cost more fair?

 

The last part is a compelling argument, and one I will consider

[Sean Waters]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

Ok, when you say "Advantage Stacking" what you are trying to identify is the effect of Advantages in general on a higher base cost.

 

There is no "stacking" going on; each Advantage is multiplying a higher base cost and thus inflating the Active Points considerably, independently of each other.

 

I think this has just been a case of concept confusion: at post 41 I indicated what I meant by 'advantage stacking' and we concur over how additional advantages work: +1 on a 15 point power costs 15 more points no matter how many other advantages are in place (although, of course, limitations do not follow the same progression). The important thing is the base cost, but with a low base cost it is cheaper to stack more advantages on top of it, because each one costs less than the same advantage on a more expensive base cost power.

 

 

The real question then, is given such a scenario is 45 points or 60 points a fair price. Lets try the split between them.

 

45 3d6 HKA, +3 Stun Multiplier (+3/4), 1/2 end (+1/4), OAF (-1)

 

This effect is going to average 10.5 body; so its occasionally going to do more or less damage than the two examples you give, but on average it is within 1.5 points of effect.

 

So...is that 1.5 points of average effect worth paying 15 more points real cost for your 4d6 version? Or is the 2d6 Advantage oriented approach for the same cost more fair?

 

OK...the 3 examples:

 

45 2d6 KA Max Damage, +3 Stun multiples, 1/2 END OAF (12 Body, 60 stun every time)

 

45 3d6 KA, +3 Stun multiples, 1/2 END OAF (10.5 Body, 59.5 stun on average)

 

60 4d6 KA SE, +3 Stun multiples, 1/2 END OAF (12 Body, 60 stun every time)

 

Now there is no doubt that using standard effect doesn't do you any favours in terms of damage, but if you want guaranteed results that is the official way to do it. I mentioned back in post 10 that a 'straight' KA usually gives better damage totals than a standard effect one.

 

Whilst the 'max damage' only makes (on average) a 1.5 point BODY difference and a half point STUN difference it is still more effective and more reliable than the base power in delivering damage, which suggests that the cost is pitched too low. Guaranteed results should cost a premium (although I think SE makes then cost too much of a premium to make it attaractive except for certain low dice builds).

 

Let us not lose sight of the big picture here. Let us look at the attack powers we are actuall using, stripping away the reduced END and OAF:

 

82 2d6 KA Max Damage, +3 Stun multiples

 

79 3d6 KA, +3 Stun multiples

 

105 4d6 KA SE, +3 Stun multiples

 

Interesting. The cheapest attack is the 3d6 - by 3 points. The 4d6 costs shedloads more. I think all that really demonstrates is that SE is a bad idea in this instance. Given the marginally higher cost for 'Max Damage' the marinally higher damage is about right BUT it still doesn't take into account any premium for guaranteed results. You might not think there should be one (a given 3d6 KA is potentially much more effective than a 2d6 Max Damage attack, but also powterntially much worse) but again the principle that aresult you know ahead of time is worth more than one you don't seems sound.

 

Mathematically I agree: the max damage advantage, given this specific example, works out fine, but that is only taking into account measurable factors for this example - is foreknowledge of damage valuable? What should that value be? How it works out on other builds is another matter, and that is still a problem for me:

 

60 4d6 NND Max damage (delivers 24 stun or 0 stun every time)

60 6d6 NND (delievers 21 stun or 0 stun on average)

 

We can not (well we can but I don't think it is helpful) custom create an advantage for a given concept.

 

Hero can do anything...given sufficient points. The concept outlined by the OP sounds to me like someone trying to get a meta-advantage rather than actually trying to build a concept, otherwise they would just take standard effect and say that was the maximum the weapon could do.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

The last part is a compelling argument' date=' and one I will consider[/quote']

 

It is standard to pay more for guaranteed damage in the game.

 

3D6 KA - 10.5 average BODY

3D6 SE KA - 9 average BODY

 

4D6 SE KA - 12 average BODY

4D6 KA - 14 average BODY

 

So you are paying 15 points here for a guaranteed extra 3 BODY damage.

 

If you are going to compare the maximum effect cost then it behooves you to compare it with standard effect averages as they are both guaranteed damage attacks.

 

As it goes - with no other advantages, the maximum effect and the SE have the same cost - obviously as that was the logic in deciding the cost in the first place.

 

With a 12 BODY attack with an additional +1 in advantages one method guarantees you that BODY for 90 points (30x(1+1+1)), the other guarantees you that BODY for 120 points (60*(1+1)).

 

Are they equivalent methods?

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

The terminology being used is muddled and misleading. What I demonstrated and was referring to was that there was no ADVANTAGE STACKING, as it was being referred to, whereby additional Advantages altered the impact of another Advantage.

 

The impact of each Advantage is INDEPENDENT of any other Advantage.

 

Or to be more clear, its not the addition of other Advantages at play affecting the costs; its the effect of a higher base cost of xd6 vs yd6 being multiplied.

 

So, would you let a character buy a 2d6 KA as 1 DC KA, 6x DC's (+5) instead of buying a 2d6 KA? They both cost 30 points so it must be OK mathematically, right?

 

I'll take mine AP Penetrating 0 END Autofire AoE 1 hex accurate, please.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

So, would you let a character buy a 2d6 KA as 1 DC KA, 6x DC's (+5) instead of buying a 2d6 KA? They both cost 30 points so it must be OK mathematically, right?

 

I'll take mine AP Penetrating 0 END Autofire AoE 1 hex accurate, please.

 

Did I say I would? Don't fabricate absurdities and try to try to attach them to me, thanks.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

Did I say I would? Don't fabricate absurdities and try to try to attach them to me' date=' thanks.[/quote']

 

I never said you would - I asked. If I can have "maximum damage" as a +1 advantage, why not "double maximum" as a +3? It's a similar use of standard effect. Of course, one can just as easily cap the advantage as allow it to continue iterating (would have stopped a few constructs if Increased Stun Multiple capped...)

[Greywind]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

...once upon a time, multiple levels of increased knockback was an option...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

...once upon a time' date=' multiple levels of increased knockback was an option...[/quote']

 

 

...then we wised up

 

IMO the best way to get more damage out of a power is to buy more of it. I'm not a fan of having modifier based ways of increasing damage. I'd include 'increased stun multiple' in that. Buy more dice and limit the Body they do: stun only is a -0.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

I never said you would - I asked. If I can have "maximum damage" as a +1 advantage' date=' why not "double maximum" as a +3? It's a similar use of standard effect. Of course, one can just as easily cap the advantage as allow it to continue iterating (would have stopped a few constructs if Increased Stun Multiple capped...)[/quote']

 

Then, the answer is no. I didn't intend the Advantage to be stackable, and I've never used it as such.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

Is this a normal weapon that his character wields with such expertise to always do 'maximum damage' or is it a magical/special weapon?

 

If it's the latter then standard effect is perfect but if it's the former then it would probably need a little more complex build (multipower with +Xd6 HKA and HA slots with Only to increase weapon damage to 'maximum').

 

HM

 

 

 

Um... why?

 

The difference between those two options is SFX, which generally should not decide what game mechanic is used....

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

Um... why?

 

The difference between those two options is SFX, which generally should not decide what game mechanic is used....

 

 

Well, the phrase 'maximum damage' is a special effect as well. It's just a very vague one that holds different meanings for different people. I was just trying to clarify it's intended meaning.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

Well' date=' the phrase 'maximum damage' is a special effect as well. It's just a very vague one that holds different meanings for different people. I was just trying to clarify it's intended meaning.[/quote']

 

I don't think maximum damage is SFX, or at least, not inherently. I suppose you could work something up along those lines...

 

Regardless, that doesn't actually answer the question. I'm not trying to be picky or snarky, but rather to test my own understanding of Hero. If there's some reason why whether or not it's a magic item should affect HOW it's built (beyond specific Limitations unique to magic items in the gameworld in question) I would genuinely like to know.

 

If not, then I'd like to think I could help free up the discussion to focus where it "should."

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

I don't think maximum damage is SFX, or at least, not inherently. I suppose you could work something up along those lines...

 

 

Here's a plausible non-magical sfx for doing 'maximum damage' with a weapon:

 

Let's say the weapon is a Rapier which normally does 1d6K. If the source of the 'maximum damage' is the PC's extraordinary ability in using it then it's just a matter of having enough STR or CSL's to add +1d6K (2d6K being the maximum damage the weapon is capable of).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

If a weapon does the same damage every time it is used then it does maximum damage for that weapon every time. Maximum damage for a 1d6 HKA is an effect outside the game world - simply a matter of mechanics. As such I'm not sure that it makes a lot of sense to model it anyway.

 

In addition I think it would be a stretch to always do maximum damage with a weapon, no matter what the sfx: if it is a matter of great skill what happens when you are fighting someone of equal (or greater) skill: should that not affect how much damage you do?

 

If it is a matter of magic (which is always a bit of a 'soft' sfx anyway, equivalent, IMO, to saying 'It just does' unless you are playing in a game with clear rules for how magic works) then what happens if it is pitted against a more potent magic?

 

It is an interesting intellectual excercise working out how we would do this, but not of massive practival value.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

It's called Standard Effect in my book. Easy as pie.

[algesan]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

Is there an official standard effect for stun multipliers?

 

If so, '3' would seem to buck the trend: all other standard effect is LESS than average: the standard effect would be (following the trend) 3-1, or '2'.

 

That would then mean you did indeed only need 3 levels of increased STUN multiple (which could be treated as a limited advantage to reduce the cost) to always acheive maximum damage for a KA.

 

+5 STUN

(D6-1)+5 Roll would yeild 5,6,6,6,6,6 as results, which would be 35/6 = 5-5/6

 

We could go with +4, but that would give 4,5,6,6,6,6 or 33/6=5.5 and the standard damage does round down X.5 to X.

[Eosin]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

Like others, I am in need of an effect.

 

If Magic: i.e. Frey's Sword: Never Misses and Always Kills if within the blades power.

 

Standard Longsword: 2d6 HKA 12 STR Min

Frey's Longsword: 4d6 HKA (standard effect), debatable if STR or MA should add damage to this weapon.

 

If it is skill, buy a standard sword. Max out the weapons total DC (Str, MA, DC, Levels). Buy one or more levels of Deadly Blow.

 

If it is an inherent property of the character: 6d6 HKA standard effect, OAF weapon of Opportunity. Damage may not exceed weapon maximum.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Weapon always does maximum damage

 

Like others, I am in need of an effect.

 

If Magic: i.e. Frey's Sword: Never Misses and Always Kills if within the blades power.

 

Standard Longsword: 2d6 HKA 12 STR Min

Frey's Longsword: 4d6 HKA (standard effect), debatable if STR or MA should add damage to this weapon.

 

If it is skill, buy a standard sword. Max out the weapons total DC (Str, MA, DC, Levels). Buy one or more levels of Deadly Blow.

 

If it is an inherent property of the character: 6d6 HKA standard effect, OAF weapon of Opportunity. Damage may not exceed weapon maximum.

 

Bearing in mind that to reliably kill a mortal type with one blow will require you to do enough damage to get through the armour and reduce their BODY to (at least) zero, and a mortal can have up to 20 Body and might be wearing 10 DEF plate, you need to be able to do 30 Body reliably, or 10d6 killing standard effect.

 

Technically, of course, you should do 2xBody to actually kill someone, so even for an unarmoured starting character with 10 BODY you'd need to generate 20+ Body, or 7d6 standard effect.

 

Of course it might be easier (or at least cheaper) in a heroic campaign to buy 8 levels to always hit the head and, with disabling rules in place, even a 10 DEF 20 BODY uber warrior will only require 20 Body to kill (10 through defences taking into account the 2x BODY for a head shot).

 

It can be shockingly difficult to kill someone in Hero.