Strong OP?

[Blobathehutt]

In my many games, I have noticed that strong seems to be way better than attack. Now I know that OVA is not 100% balanced nor is it meant to be but it just seems to make any non-melee character underpowered and terms of raw damage even more so if you allow strong and attack to stack DX. So with this being said I do not think the Strong needs to be nerfed rather I think Attack or at least ranged attacks should be made to be more powerful. What do you all think?

[Sabersonic]

Well I have a different alternative inspired by a different, previous anime-based Tabletop engine that I will not name since I'm not familiar with the etiquette/rules about clearly mentioning if not promoting a compedator's product on the OVA section of the forum (even though it's now effectively defunct i.e. no official support from the new owners):
Put in a Custom Weakness that clearly state that Strong does not give DX bonus.

That way you get the narrative bonus of a physically strong character but without having to worry about unfair DX stacking.

[Clay]

Well, keep in mind OVA is a narrative system at heart. Objectively there's a lot of Abilities that are just demonstratively more useful than others. (Shall we compare Agile to Cute in the context of combat?)

But to play devil's advocate a bit, here's a few reasons Strong isn't necessarily better than Attack:

1) Strong does not apply to ranged attacks without paying an additional Perk cost.
2) Weak characters cannot purchase Strong (duh) but they can purchase Attack.
3) Strong, in general, is an attribute that is usually difficult to hide. Strong characters tend to look strong. Attack on the other hand?

And of course they DO stack, so there's rarely a case where you're forced to buy one over the other anyway.

Similar arguments can be made about Agile and Combat Expert and many other broad vs. specific pairings, and I'd have similar rebuttals. But the truth is when a system has a single point cost for all Abilities, questions of this being better than that are inevitable.

Anyway, Sabersonic, you may mention The System That Will Not Be Named™ at will.

[StarRaven]

In my many games, I have noticed that strong seems to be way better than attack. Now I know that OVA is not 100% balanced nor is it meant to be but it just seems to make any non-melee character underpowered and terms of raw damage even more so if you allow strong and attack to stack DX. So with this being said I do not think the Strong needs to be nerfed rather I think Attack or at least ranged attacks should be made to be more powerful. What do you all think?

Most games do tend to be balanced so that the beefy melee fighters carry the biggest raw damage (not counting attacks which make use of a limiter like MP.)

Probably the reason strong melee fighters seem more powerful than other attackers isn't because they are using Strong and not Attack, but because they're using both of them together. (Unless you ruled that players can make attacks without the Attack Ability, they're pretty much guaranteed to have it.) So in terms of sheer numbers, yeah, their base DX is gonna be higher.

One thing you can do is to make use of more ranged enemies. Ranged characters will look a lot stronger when they're the only ones who can hit the bad guys. Enemies that can fly/levitate or teleport, of course, but also just enemies that appear at range. You can tell your group, "the zombies are down the street and it'll take you three turns to get there if you want to go after them," for example. Ranged attacks now get three rounds of extra damage before melee attacks can get into range. (My group doesn't use a battle map for OVA but we do put some dice and whatnot on the table to show general positions of characters and enemies -- something like that might help?)

[Maverick Arkguard]

As far as I understand it, you can always make attacks without the attack ability. You'd make them just like any other, but your default DX is 1 (unless you have anything that would make it less).

Like anything that needs a GM, tailoring the adversaries for your group of heroes is part of how the system will feel in use and how you want it to feel.

[E Nymton]

Here is a crazy idea. Make perceptive add to ranged damage the way strength does to melee, and make ranged a +5 perk.

[Blobathehutt]

Here is a crazy idea. Make perceptive add to ranged damage the way strength does to melee, and make ranged a +5 perk.

That's not a bad idea.

[Clay]

That is an interesting idea. Early on, I had considered having Perceptive add to Attack ROLLS when using ranged attacks, but I don't think using it as an equivalent of Strong came to mind. It's a bit of an abstraction, since by OVA logic it's the attack roll that makes you hit BETTER, while the DX only changes with your ability to hit HARDER. So Perceptive adding to DX flies in the face of that a bit...

But it's a game, I wouldn't sweat that kind of thing if you feel like this improves your game!

[E Nymton]

That is an interesting idea. Early on, I had considered having Perceptive add to Attack ROLLS when using ranged attacks, but I don't think using it as an equivalent of Strong came to mind. It's a bit of an abstraction, since by OVA logic it's the attack roll that makes you hit BETTER, while the DX only changes with your ability to hit HARDER. So Perceptive adding to DX flies in the face of that a bit...

But it's a game, I wouldn't sweat that kind of thing if you feel like this improves your game!

Well I did say it eas a crazy idea. In part because like you say it feels a bit of to add to the DX rather than the attack roll. Maybe letting it add to the atrack roll rather than the DX would 'work just as well'. Still not sure I would do it myself.

[Pooftopay]

So far Week 5 is the toughest and I have Depression for the first time in my life, anxiety like never before, lower back pain, sleep sucks, knees aching, ZERO energy, no sex drive, ED, and swollen prostate with irregular bowel movements <a href=https://enhanceyourlife.mom/>priligy (dapoxetine)</a> Finally, the specific criteria for establishing HRS in patients were not provided in most studies