Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

[bcaplan]

One of the main trouble spots in the Hero system, as I see it, is that there is a strong incentive to pour a lot of points into one really big attack power. Since you need to exceed someone's defense to do any damage at all, weak attacks are virtually useless.

This, presumably, is the main reason why a lot of campaigns impose Active Point limits. The trouble with AP limits, though, is that they lead to a high level of uniformity. If you have a 60 AP limit, then every well-designed character is going to have a 60 AP attack. It might be a 12d6 Energy Blast, or an 8d6 Armor Piercing Energy Blast, or a 2d6 Autofire RKA with 1/2 End, but it's going to have 60 APs.

This is where my proposed solution comes in: Give PCs a "standard" AP limit, and let them pay points if they want to increase it (or give them points back if they reduce it).

For example, suppose you run a Superheroic game with a standard 60 AP limit. This you get for free. If you want a higher AP limit, however, it will cost you, say, 3 CPs per +1 AP. If you want an 80 AP limit, you pay 60 CPs purely for the option to buy powers with up to 80 APs.

Similarly, if you are willing to reduce your AP limit down to 50 APs, you would get 30 CPs back to spend any way you like - as long as none of your powers exceed 50 APs.

What do you think? Does the 3 CPs per +1 AP price seem reasonable?

P.S. You could easily adapt this system to other systems with similar problems, like Mutants and Masterminds.

[The Main Man]

That is an interesting proposition, it's similar to NCM but for powers.

What happens if you raise the Active Point limit later on?

It makes for a neat house rule.

[Comic]

Interesting.

I wonder how it would balance with the UEP optional special effect rules?

For instance, someone with Ice/Cold powers (-1/2) is going to lose 1-2 DC's and 1-2 DEF (or so) against fairly common special effects.

Assume 60 APs, and a simple character, that's 20 pts saved on the attack and 20 pts saved on the defense.

Pay 30 pts saved for the UEP limitation to increase the DC's of the top attack by 2, and your Ice Projector is extra effective against targets who don't benefit from interaction of special effects, and AP-limit effective against those who do... and they have 10 pts left over for END and REC to pay for the extra 1 END/Phase.

In this case, it looks like 3 CP's/1 AP may be slightly too cheap, but not everyone uses UEP, and there are many more important factors to consider.

I'm used to balancing DC's with CV's and SPD myself, but this mechanism could well work out very nicely for some campaigns.

[Alibear]

I wouldn't use it, I don't have a cap. I have a reccomended level of 15d6 and on top of that I allow a one of special power of much greater potency but with lots of limitations.

I find any lower than 15d6 and the fights start to drag on a bit. I want two good hits and the bad bloke is out.

[Sean Waters]

I wouldn't use it, I don't have a cap. I have a reccomended level of 15d6 and on top of that I allow a one of special power of much greater potency but with lots of limitations.

I find any lower than 15d6 and the fights start to drag on a bit. I want two good hits and the bad bloke is out.


...or the good bloke is out :)

It is an interesting idea but, as the campaign progresses might become a hinderance - you will either need to recalculate costs if you change the cap, or keep it, and you will find it places a different kind of evolutionary pressure on characters - they will probably get a wider range of different powers rather than just improving the ones they have.

Now, I'm not sure the right way to go about this. I agree you can get uniformity, but I'm increasingly wondering whether you can address this through points. I mean, there is a limit to how well points can indicate balance anyway: if someone came to me with a 15d6 attack in a 12DC game but had a character who, for instance, has a low OCV, or SPD, I might well allow it - the eyeball balance test can work well.

Very often, synergy is the key - not just point totals or even DCs.

[bcaplan]

I mean, there is a limit to how well points can indicate balance anyway: if someone came to me with a 15d6 attack in a 12DC game but had a character who, for instance, has a low OCV, or SPD, I might well allow it - the eyeball balance test can work well.

Very often, synergy is the key - not just point totals or even DCs.True enough, but one of the main benefits of having a point system is to cut down on the amount of eye-balling the GM has to do. :)

There's no formula complicated enough to capture all the synergies, but I think adding an explicit cost for AP limits gives a better summary of a character's power without raising the computational complexity very much.

(In contrast, we could switch from linear pricing of attack powers to quadratic pricing, or something along those lines, but the extra computional complexity just wouldn't be worth it. See http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51289&page=3).

[bcaplan]

That is an interesting proposition, it's similar to NCM but for powers.

What happens if you raise the Active Point limit later on?

My thinking is that if players want higher AP limits, they can pay for them with their XP. But of course if you wanted to raise them for everyone, you could just give a CP refund to everyone who already paid for it.:)

[Hyper-Man]

Looks like a workable approach.

The system that our group used in our last Champions game was a 75/60 split.

75 Active points max
60 points max in Damage Class max

This allowed Blasters to balance a little better vs. Bricks by letting them have a 12d6 1/2 END EB vs. a 12d6 base punch before movement maneuvers.

It also allowed other more interesting constructs that are just not useful with a 60 pt hard cap without making the characters pay extra.

So a 10d6 AP EB was OK but a 15d6 EB was not.
An 8d6 x2 KB EB was possible but a 5d6 RKA was not.
etc...

[The Main Man]

My thinking is that if players want higher AP limits, they can pay for them with their XP. But of course if you wanted to raise them for everyone, you could just give a CP refund to everyone who already paid for it.:)
I was pretty much thinking that that would be the logical step to take.

I figure you could experiment with a separate campaign, maybe even report the results.

[PhilFleischmann]

What do you think? Does the 3 CPs per +1 AP price seem reasonable?
No! That's way too expensive. Note that there's nothing else in the game that requires you to pay points for no direct benefit, but only the potential to buy something else (for more points). Your price means that additional APs cost 4-for-1!

I could see it being the other way around: 1 CP per +3 AP limit.

But I understand and sympathize with what you're trying to do. It seems to me that the way the system is, there's a very strong temptation to buy very high defenses. Defenses are so cheap, 60 points of ED is more powerful than 60 points of EB.

I've been thinking about making such an adjustment, but from the other end: increasing the price of Defensive Powers. That will lead to lower defenses, which makes low-DC attacks more useful.

Just a thought.

[The Main Man]

Actually, as far as Defense goes, I limit the Active Points based on PD + ED + Resistance AP + Hardened AP.

This controls Defense pretty well.

[Fedifensor]

I base recommended and maximum Active Point values for attacks on Speed, and Defense values on the character's DCV. It comes out to look something like this:


Speed Attack Power Range Maximum Attack Defenses DCV
4 12-14 DC (12d6 to 14d6) 15 DC (15d6) 28-30 PD/ED <7
5 10-12 DC (10d6 to 12d6) 13 DC (13d6) 24-27 PD/ED 8
6 8-11 DC (8d6 to 11d6) 12 DC (12d6) 20-23 PD/ED 9-10
>7 7-10 DC (7d6 to 10d6) 11 DC (11d6) 18-20 PD/ED 11
Basically, the slow characters need to hit harder because they don't hit as often, and the hard to hit characters have lower defenses because they aren't hit as often.

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, based on the specifics of the attack or defense, and other factors outside of those listed above. For example, if a character has a very high Recovery and a lot of extra STUN, I'll probably lower his PD and ED a few points to compensate. This is why game balance is as much of an art as it is a science.

I really don't think paying points for going past limits is the way to go. You'll just end up with people spending less on noncombat skills in order to pay the points so their combat skills can go into the stratosphere.

[Hugh Neilson]

I base recommended and maximum Active Point values for attacks on Speed, and Defense values on the character's DCV. It comes out to look something like this:


Speed Attack Power Range Maximum Attack Defenses DCV
4 12-14 DC (12d6 to 14d6) 15 DC (15d6) 28-30 PD/ED <7
5 10-12 DC (10d6 to 12d6) 13 DC (13d6) 24-27 PD/ED 8
6 8-11 DC (8d6 to 11d6) 12 DC (12d6) 20-23 PD/ED 9-10
>7 7-10 DC (7d6 to 10d6) 11 DC (11d6) 18-20 PD/ED 11
Basically, the slow characters need to hit harder because they don't hit as often, and the hard to hit characters have lower defenses because they aren't hit as often.

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, based on the specifics of the attack or defense, and other factors outside of those listed above. For example, if a character has a very high Recovery and a lot of extra STUN, I'll probably lower his PD and ED a few points to compensate. This is why game balance is as much of an art as it is a science.

I really don't think paying points for going past limits is the way to go. You'll just end up with people spending less on noncombat skills in order to pay the points so their combat skills can go into the stratosphere.

This is a very good point.

Main Man, it sounds like your game has pretty tight controls on attacks and defenses. With that in mind, let's consider the options. A player under the structure you suggest can boost his EB by 1d6 for 20 points. Alternatively, he can:

- buy +4 DCV
- buy +2 Speed
- Buy 25% Physical and Energy Resistant Damage Reduction, -1/2 STUN Only
- Buy +10 DEX (selling back the extra SPD point
- Buy +4 levels with his main form of combat

How competitive is +1d6 to your Energy Blast compared to those alternatives?

[BNakagawa]

It's an interesting approach, but it does end up being a little inflexible. I mean, with those limits, you can't have a low SPD character with a good DCV or many other combos.

what I would do, is to reverse the order of the first column (combine column 2 and 3) and say this:

You can pick any combination of limits as long as they add to 10 (or more) Picking the best entry adds one point, picking the worst adds 4.

This way, you could have the best SPD, and you could also have the best defenses, but to balance it, you would have to have the worst CVs and the lowest attacks.

Similarly, you could have the worst SPD, lousy attacks, but awesome defenses and DCV.

Imbalanced? Potentially. But more flexible. I like that.

[Kdansky]

We tried an approach like this once. It was low powered (150 cp) with the following rule: every AP from 21 to 40 you pay 50% extra, and for every AP after that (41+) you pay it twice.

Advantages: Big things got really expensive, whereas lots of small things were rather cheap. Did what it was planned to do, more or less.

Disadvantages: Lots. And even more. CVs and Speed got really attractive, calculations were really difficult and limitations were a MUST. It just was not feasible to pay 40 (+ 10 +20) = 70 points for a 8d6 Attack, so everyone just took lots of limitations. Note that limitations increase in relative power in this system. Even a small -1/2 limitation instantly saves many, many points.

I'm not using that house rule again, I'd rather eyeball, even though I dislike it.

[ghost-angel]

You could do an approach where each character has a Schtick Power that lets them really shine; the AP Cap is 60 Active, but they each have one Power that truly stands out from the rest and goes up to 75 Active. If the Schtick is Defenses, allow 50% greater Defenses than the campaign maximum as a possibility.

Personally... I like the 12 Damage Class/75 Active Point method myself.

[Killer Shrike]

Let me get this straight:

You think artificial caps are bad (which I definitely agree with for supers, though they do have their uses in more heroic campaigns), and your solution is to impose soft caps with a opt in / opt out scheme to "solve" it?

Why not just get rid of it altogether and allow / veto power levels on a holistic, ie "total character", basis?


However, in the interests of being constructive if I were to institute something like this I would do it based on a formula of Total Character Points / 6 rounded to the nearest 5 points. So for 350 point characters, the cap is 58.333 rounded up to 60. As the characters gain XP their AP cap slowly rises.

[The Main Man]

However, in the interests of being constructive if I were to institute something like this I would do it based on a formula of Total Character Points / 6 rounded to the nearest 5 points. So for 350 point characters, the cap is 58.333 rounded up to 60. As the characters gain XP their AP cap slowly rises.

That is almost the exact same system I use, except I find 6 to be a somewhat goofy divider, not there isn't logic behind yours, but I use 5 for a slightly higher powered game whose AP goes up +1 for every +5 CP gained.

Granted, I only officially award the experience after a finished arc.

[Sean Waters]

One point that we have not considered is frameworks. One thing about removing AP limits for schtick powers, certainly for MPs and VPPs, is that it discourages the use of such frameworks, or messes with the cost utility, because it is rarely efficient to have a single power in a framework that is a bit bigger than the rest in AP terms.

Of course you could also use a MP to solve the problem:

MP 120 points pool
1. 16d6 EB u 8 points
2. 12d6 EB u 6 points
3. 20/20 FF 0 END Lockout SLOT 4 u 4 points
4. 16/16 FF 1/2 END u 4 points

So you can turn on the 12d6 EB and the 20/20 FF, or have a lesser powered defence and a more powerful EB. You are not building for utility so much as concept, i suppose, but it is an approach wotrth considering.

[ghost-angel]

I have more than a few characters who have Frameworks larger than the highest AP of any power, mostly VPP so I can use lots of things at once with fewer limitations.

But the occasional MP for the same reason, you may not be able to Multiple Power Attack with several slots, but a few Constant Powers in an MP coupled with some Attacks is a nice one (I'm fond of Darkness+Attack Power myself).

[Kdansky]

On the other hand, if you want to use two powers at the same time, both which really do only shine if used at max-AP (attacks, mind control, etc, but e.g. flight is also useful at 10 pts), you would probably not use a MP to build them. EC (or just buing seperately) is quite better. VPP is something else, because you're not paying for slots.

Rarely we see someone hitting the AP limits with darkness (except AoE, Selective, Megascale, Continious, Zero End, .....), but it's always KA and EB.

I like the Schtick Power. But that results in everyone having one big 75 cp attack I suppose. That's 3 DC through any armor, since enemies will be built at a "non-schtick attack is also good" level.

[Remjin]

This will likely alwyas be an issue as people see things in a lot of different lights. No one mechanic is likely to solve all problems since there are so many different mechanics to deal with.

Personally, I prefer to set a certain standard in line with the campaign world, try to confer the overall feel of the game to players, and let them build what they want. I won't play with people I can't trust to work towards the ultimate goal: everyone to have fun. Thus, no AP or damage caps of any kind. This is likely different from some people's games and groups, but our group tends to self-regulate.

The idea is that everyone stays in genre, gets to make what they want, has an idea of how powerful that will be in the game, and provides their own limitations to big powers (either through rules or roleplay) and its all good. There's oversight to make sure everything jives and that everyone is on board. Questions before play initiated by players is usually takes care of most issues. With the way things work, misconceptions or things turning out to be more powerful than expected, usually the players volunteers to bring it down a notch before anything needs to be said.

This allows for players to have their "big gun/sword/whatever" if they really want it, or to be ridiculously tough in certain situations, but leaves them with vulnerabilities to be exploited and schticks well defined. We try not to tread on each other's schticks and we try to keep the game challenging and fun. Its not very technical, obviously, but technical solutions just tend to add confusion and you end up with the same problems in conformity.

An example through our current party: I have a fast-drawing cowboy type schtick with an oversized hand cannon... except he seldom uses it. He has various rounds to deal with various types of baddies, but not many. That is his main attack outside of the shotgun he ocassionally employs. Our trick arrow guy has a bit more accuracy and a lot more variety. He's allowed higher AP since few of his arrows do much damage.

[Remjin]

Had to continue in a separate post...

since our archer has the trick shot schtick, he has higher CSLs to allow for bounces and other amusement. He limits his damaging arrows to less than campaign standard to better simulate what he's doing. He uses his RKA arrows mostly for sticking people to walls and such.

Our flame blaster actually works at campaign standard damage, but has quite a few "other" effects. Her concept is sich that she feels no need to exceed the basics as her powers are already pretty radical for the world we're playing in.

Our tough guy is scarie bad in a fistfight, and has claws that are brutal. He seldom uses these, though they're on the highest end of damage and hates it when he is forced to use them. He is also our 2nd best stealth guy. When serious firepower comes out, he gets in a lot of trouble as he isn't very bullet resistant to anything above handguns of the moderate order.

There are others, but it serves to illustrate. Our APs cross the spectrum from 5 to 120 but it doesn't really affect things.

Sorry to ramble, but I felt talkative today. :D

[Kdansky]

Remjin's example shows well how the system currently works: We treat the points as guidelines and then we eyeball for balancing. By the way, I once played a short adventure where our characters had neither point limits nor the same overall maximum. It works rather well.

What I would like to have: If you spend 150 points in an obviously meaningful way, then you are useful. If you powergame as much as possible, you are about as strong as the 150 cp character if he got 15 exp. Result: We powergamers would be allowed to do it because it had nearly no consequences (10% improvement is tiny) but we (at least I) enjoy building something with high synergy a lot.

Sadly, this is probably an impossible problem, at least in P. :P

[Alibear]

The Mark I Human Eyeball is always the best tool to check this stuff.

[Sean Waters]

Absolutely: I've seen powers that grossly exceed campaign limits for active points, but still balance nicely, and I've seen powers that are under the wire but are still unbalanced. Character points are a useful starting point, but not, by any means, an end to it.

[Kdansky]

Yeah, but this makes me ponder:

Do I really need the points at all? Do I need an active point limit? Do all characters have to be on the same point pool?

[Trebuchet]

We don't tend to like caps in our campaign as they seem to create more problems than they fix. We prefer some basic guidelines and a more (to use a term used upthread) "holistic" approach to characters. No one item will generally make a character too unbalancing; it will almost always be some combination of elements. High defenses and attacks = OK. High defenses, attacks, and OCV = too much.

[Markdoc]

Yeah, but this makes me ponder:

Do I really need the points at all? Do I need an active point limit? Do all characters have to be on the same point pool?

In order, yes, no, and generally not.

Yes, you do need points (or something equivalent) simply because you need some way to bring the players and the GM all onto the same page. A purely soft text description "I have a powerful energy blast" likely means two different things to two different people, which doesn't make for smooth gaming.

No, you don't need active point caps. I've always found them to be the source of significant problems and the benefits are largely theoretical, as far as my experience goes. As already noted by others, it's quite possible to build lethal attacks under most AP caps and attacks over the caps that are not out of line. They tend to promote "samey" characters and bias the game in unpredictable ways, depending on what's capped and what isn't. All powers need to be viewed in context and that context is going to vary from PC to PC and game to game.

As to equal points, I have played in and GM'ed games with quite divergent point totals. That can certainly work, but your players need to be up for it. In the end, I don't think it works well for long-term campaigns - even the most reticent player will likely get tired of being the group's henchman after a year or two. Unless there's a compelling reason to do it, I'd avoid starting with imbalanced PCs and although some imbalances arise in gameplay, I try and keep them from getting too out of whack.

cheers, Mark

[jaws]

<Sniped>
Very often, synergy is the key - not just point totals or even DCs.

I' making it a habit to quote Sean Waters ;) But seriously It is all about synergy. You can limit or not limit all you want, the proper synergy will always work around limits easily and nicely. It takes eyeballing and a willingness on the players part to create a credible balanced concept with in the game.


<Sniped>

Why not just get rid of it altogether and allow / veto power levels on a holistic, ie "total character", basis?

However, in the interests of being constructive if I were to institute something like this I would do it based on a formula of Total Character Points / 6 rounded to the nearest 5 points. So for 350 point characters, the cap is 58.333 rounded up to 60. As the characters gain XP their AP cap slowly rises.

What I try to do on both counts. Auto scaling meaning no recalculations and


<sniped>

What I would like to have: If you spend 150 points in an obviously meaningful way, then you are useful. If you powergame as much as possible, you are about as strong as the 150 cp character if he got 15 exp. Result: We powergamers would be allowed to do it because it had nearly no consequences (10% improvement is tiny) but we (at least I) enjoy building something with high synergy a lot.

<Sniped>

I ave to disagree, my power gamers will get a lot more than 10% percent out of their meddling if I let them. Sadly I lost a player over this (not too much because we are still great friends) but the game is so much better for it. Enjoyment levels increased at least 50% if there was an objective way to measure it.

And it is not a systemic problem as it was the same issue with d20 when we played that. Finally the other players just said... hey we like this guy but he need to bring his character down a notch. When we broached the subject, he said I'd rather not play.

Honestly my monitoring of the rest of the characters is hardly necessary. AP guidelines are there but they are NOT limits. My players just build knowing what their power level needs to feel like and limit or role play accordingly.

By the way we are all new (read under 1 year) to actually playing the system and are doing fine.

[Checkmate]

I think you're definition of "uniformity" and mine are very different. To me an 8d6 AP EB is a lot different than a 12d6 EB or a 6d6 NND. Even if two characters have exactly the same powers, they can be incredibly unique is SFX and the way they're played. I mean every character is built with 350 points, does that make them all uniform?

[Thia Halmades]

One of the main trouble spots in the Hero system, as I see it, is that there is a strong incentive to pour a lot of points into one really big attack power. Since you need to exceed someone's defense to do any damage at all, weak attacks are virtually useless.

This, presumably, is the main reason why a lot of campaigns impose Active Point limits. The trouble with AP limits, though, is that they lead to a high level of uniformity. If you have a 60 AP limit, then every well-designed character is going to have a 60 AP attack. It might be a 12d6 Energy Blast, or an 8d6 Armor Piercing Energy Blast, or a 2d6 Autofire RKA with 1/2 End, but it's going to have 60 APs.

This is where my proposed solution comes in: Give PCs a "standard" AP limit, and let them pay points if they want to increase it (or give them points back if they reduce it).

For example, suppose you run a Superheroic game with a standard 60 AP limit. This you get for free. If you want a higher AP limit, however, it will cost you, say, 3 CPs per +1 AP. If you want an 80 AP limit, you pay 60 CPs purely for the option to buy powers with up to 80 APs.

Similarly, if you are willing to reduce your AP limit down to 50 APs, you would get 30 CPs back to spend any way you like - as long as none of your powers exceed 50 APs.

What do you think? Does the 3 CPs per +1 AP price seem reasonable?

P.S. You could easily adapt this system to other systems with similar problems, like Mutants and Masterminds.

Actually, I do something ... rewrite. I saw the same problem and addressed it, and my solution was:

* Cap defenses at the appropriate level to avoid that sort of thing,
* Use two caps; your 'power' cap, i.e., 45 AP (a 3d6 killing attack, tops) and 60 AP, only to be used for advantages. When your game is full of guns this isn't a big deal, but when people are slinging around powers, it becomes quite relevant. Now no one can build a 4d6 attack, so they tend to rethink their whole plan, and come up with more diverse powers.

Then be fair in how you adjudicate your defenses, so damage is done on all sides.

[Thia Halmades]

I think you're definition of "uniformity" and mine are very different. To me an 8d6 AP EB is a lot different than a 12d6 EB or a 6d6 NND. Even if two characters have exactly the same powers, they can be incredibly unique is SFX and the way they're played. I mean every character is built with 350 points, does that make them all uniform?

I know what he means; this is the reason I'm so high on Ultimate Energy Projector, it really adds a LOT of flavor to the game. However, d20 is no different; listed SFX /=/ variety. Every 10th level mage throws the same Fireball, and that ain't a problem in HERO.

That, and I have the added advantage that barring one guy, none of my players ever just go sixty AP! YAY! FULL POWER ATTACK! I don't run into that problem, for which I'm eternally grateful.

[Remjin]

I know what he means; this is the reason I'm so high on Ultimate Energy Projector, it really adds a LOT of flavor to the game. However, d20 is no different; listed SFX /=/ variety. Every 10th level mage throws the same Fireball, and that ain't a problem in HERO

I actually asked a DM of a D&D game once if I could just buy whatever magical spells and have them "look like" ice spells instead of fire. No difference, except maybe things froze instead of caught on fire, or whatever... basically, wanted to change sfx to something else to "theme" my sorcerer. Got a big paranoid "NO." The difference? Nothing. Though, as it turned out, we fought a bunch of fire-based creatures who were particularly vulnerable to cold. :rolleyes: Bad time to ask, I guess.

[Tonio]

I actually asked a DM of a D&D game once if I could just buy whatever magical spells and have them "look like" ice spells instead of fire. No difference, except maybe things froze instead of caught on fire, or whatever... basically, wanted to change sfx to something else to "theme" my sorcerer. Got a big paranoid "NO." The difference? Nothing. Though, as it turned out, we fought a bunch of fire-based creatures who were particularly vulnerable to cold. :rolleyes: Bad time to ask, I guess.

You'd get a "no" from just about every DM out there, since there are Metamagic Feats you need to take to acheive that sort of thing. Like to let you cast Acidball instead of Fireball, Acid Hands instead of Burning Hands, etc.

[Thia Halmades]

You'd get a "no" from just about every DM out there, since there are Metamagic Feats you need to take to acheive that sort of thing. Like to let you cast Acidball instead of Fireball, Acid Hands instead of Burning Hands, etc.

Actually, I did allow this for an individual in my campaign, and in fact the individual wanted all ice, all the time, so I gave it to him. He also insisted he would "beat the game" with a Cantrip. That didn't go over quite as well. :ugly:

[Tonio]

He also insisted he would "beat the game" with a Cantrip. That didn't go over quite as well. :ugly:

Haha, how did he plan on doing that?!

[Thia Halmades]

We never quite figured it out. At the time d20 had worn out it's welcome and I switched to HERO, the game got put on hold and has yet to be activated. By this time the HellSpawn Wars were starting, there were a ton of political players as well as infernal characters involved, the Empire was about to erupt and they'd just gotten back from Ravenloft. The party was edging towards 12th/13th level and it was clear that the fights were getting more and more cataclysmic. How "a cantrip" was going to beat the game was beyond me.

However, I don't put much past Mike. I don't know if his crazy ass plan would work, but I guarantee you he would've freaking tried.

[Sean Waters]

I tell you what, while we are on the subject. Yes, in a 60 AP game, everyone tends to take a 12d6 EB or a 4d6 RKA, so it can all look a bit samey, but it needn't.

You rarely if ever see it, except in a MP, but an 2d6+1 AP RKA is pretty effective, and a 6d6 NND EB does the trick (well against the majority of opponents). Why is it that advantaged attacks, and stuff like 4d6 Ranged Stun Drain tend to only appear in MPs; they never seem to be the sole main attack.

It is because there is a perception that maximum damage = maximum combat efficiency, and we might be right.

Sod that. Build interesting and unusual characters, and they won't all look the same, even if they are built on identical attack point limits.

Anyway, it is sloe gin season so I'm offski.

[Remjin]

I must say I wasn't aware there was a mechanic for changing sfx. At the time, I only had the core books, and since then I've only bought The Complete Warrior and the Iron Kingdoms books. Was that in the core book? Sheesh. I seldom play spellcasters, really. I never enjoyed the mechanics, and I usually went the cleric route when I did.

As for the multi-power thing... I usually take every blast in one of those so I can have the variety. Armor piercing, penetrating, and double knockback are favorites... along with small autofire penetrating RKAs and the like. My favorite was the 1 point RKA with continuous and double penetrating.... a small laser cutter. :D Course, that was another player's, but I'm stealing it.

Its not the size but how you use it! Yay, its finally true! hehe.

[Thia Halmades]

I must say I wasn't aware there was a mechanic for changing sfx. At the time, I only had the core books, and since then I've only bought The Complete Warrior and the Iron Kingdoms books. Was that in the core book? Sheesh. I seldom play spellcasters, really. I never enjoyed the mechanics, and I usually went the cleric route when I did.

No, that was so far out of the guidelines besides Rule Zero that it isn't even worth discussing. d20 balance (such as it is) is predicated on playing the game RAW (Rules As Written). Failure to abide by RAW generally leads to unbalance all around. However, since I consider the core rules to be bollocks to begin with, it was a small matter of rewriting the mess as necessary to create rules with which I was more comfortable.

And, generally, since there were no 'sfx' rules (other than what the book said) making "Magic Missile" "Ice Dart" didn't have a net effect on gameplay, except occassionally he would fire it at something immune to cold or vulnerable to it. This is why you hear me giving so much loving to the UEP.

[Remjin]

No, that was so far out of the guidelines besides Rule Zero that it isn't even worth discussing. d20 balance (such as it is) is predicated on playing the game RAW (Rules As Written). Failure to abide by RAW generally leads to unbalance all around. However, since I consider the core rules to be bollocks to begin with, it was a small matter of rewriting the mess as necessary to create rules with which I was more comfortable.

And, generally, since there were no 'sfx' rules (other than what the book said) making "Magic Missile" "Ice Dart" didn't have a net effect on gameplay, except occassionally he would fire it at something immune to cold or vulnerable to it. This is why you hear me giving so much loving to the UEP.

Ah, okay, I thought I missed it or something. =) I have no idea what "Rule Zero" is. I'm not exactly a fan, though I don't mind playing the game. I don't really look for "balance" in those games since it has never existed... but as is, its still fun if you keep out the the usual game-breakers and other assorted brat players. As stated earlier, I only really play with people who can enjoy any game as intended without the min/maxing issues. =)

[Kabluey]

In the last Champions campaign I ran, I used a table of limitations, such as AP, Damage Class, OCV/DCV, PD/ED, etc. Each limitation had a level, Low, Standard, or High. So, for example, the standard DC limit was 14, but the Low limit was 12 and the High was 16. There were a few other things that only had a High limit, such as having Damage Reduction or Power Defense. That is, by default you couldn't take these, but you could take them with a High limitation.

So when you built your character, you got to pick one High limitation for free, but for each one thereafter, you had to pick a Low limitation (assuming there was a valid Low limitation - you couldn't take the Low limitation of no Damage Reduction, because the Standard was no Damage Reduction, for example).

So this gave a character a chance to pick where he wanted to shine. You want a high damage blaster who also has a high SPD? No problem, just pick a low defense or a low CV or whatever (I don't recall all the limitation categories that I had). You want a character who can't be hit? Take a High DCV limitation.

Don't like the system? Fine, just opt out and take everything as Standard.

It allowed characters to pick one or two areas to excel, but also meant that they had to take trade-offs. And if they didn't like the system (and I had one or two players that didn't), they could just not worry about it and still build characters who were reasonably balanced with the others.

[Thia Halmades]

Ah, okay, I thought I missed it or something. =) I have no idea what "Rule Zero" is. I'm not exactly a fan, though I don't mind playing the game. I don't really look for "balance" in those games since it has never existed... but as is, its still fun if you keep out the the usual game-breakers and other assorted brat players. As stated earlier, I only really play with people who can enjoy any game as intended without the min/maxing issues. =)

Oh. Rule Zero, aka, Game Master's Option, also called "What Thia says, goes."

[Markdoc]

I tell you what, while we are on the subject. Yes, in a 60 AP game, everyone tends to take a 12d6 EB or a 4d6 RKA, so it can all look a bit samey, but it needn't.

I think the problem is more that it outlaws the concept of "I''m badass - I can really lay the smack down" since the STR15 martial artist and the STR60 brick do the same amount of damage



Anyway, it is sloe gin season so I'm offski.

Meh. It's post-Julfrokost here. That translates to "get drunk at employer's expense"

It's really hard to type while drunk......:doi: (We don't have a drunk emoticon, but if we did, I 'd use it.....)

Cheers, Mark

Oh, and have a good weekend, y'all :doi:

[Warp9]

(We don't have a drunk emoticon, but if we did, I 'd use it.....)


:drink:

[Kenn]

While I agree that the points are needed for bookkeeping and such, I have found that AP caps and such are more of a hinderance than a help. Especially when a game has run long enough that some established characters were in excess of 500 or more points. No matter the point cap new players were ALWAYS at the disadvantage.

My eventual solution was to try to give up point caps, and go so far as to have flexible numbers of Base Point available.

[SteveZilla]

One of the main trouble spots in the Hero system, as I see it, is that there is a strong incentive to pour a lot of points into one really big attack power. Since you need to exceed someone's defense to do any damage at all, weak attacks are virtually useless.

Only if all the opponents are made with equal defenses built to the level of the highest attack available to the PC group.


This, presumably, is the main reason why a lot of campaigns impose Active Point limits. The trouble with AP limits, though, is that they lead to a high level of uniformity. If you have a 60 AP limit, then every well-designed character is going to have a 60 AP attack. It might be a 12d6 Energy Blast, or an 8d6 Armor Piercing Energy Blast, or a 2d6 Autofire RKA with 1/2 End, but it's going to have 60 APs.

This is where my proposed solution comes in: Give PCs a "standard" AP limit, and let them pay points if they want to increase it (or give them points back if they reduce it).

For example, suppose you run a Superheroic game with a standard 60 AP limit. This you get for free. If you want a higher AP limit, however, it will cost you, say, 3 CPs per +1 AP. If you want an 80 AP limit, you pay 60 CPs purely for the option to buy powers with up to 80 APs.

Similarly, if you are willing to reduce your AP limit down to 50 APs, you would get 30 CPs back to spend any way you like - as long as none of your powers exceed 50 APs.

What do you think? Does the 3 CPs per +1 AP price seem reasonable?

P.S. You could easily adapt this system to other systems with similar problems, like Mutants and Masterminds.

I see a potential avenue of abuse of such a system. Sell back one's AP limit to a fairly low level, then use the extra CPs to buy up one's SPD and DEX. Make the attack Autofire and Penetrating. Sure, each shot only gets though ~1 STUN, but when you are landing 10-15 each Segment because of your high SPD and DEX, you'll quickly whittle down most opponents. :eg:

If the GM assures the players ahead of time that they won't have to have at least one AP cap attack to be effective in combat (and they believe him), then it shouldn't be a problem. The GM can provide a wide variety of opponents that fit the full range of the PC's abilities. Look at the Justice League. How often does Batman go up against Darkseid, or Superman against Scarecrow/Joker/Riddler/Penguine?

[SteveZilla]

I think the problem is more that it outlaws the concept of "I''m badass - I can really lay the smack down" since the STR15 martial artist and the STR60 brick do the same amount of damage.

Some groups I've played with have tried limiting the AP cap of "pure" martial artists (i.e., highly trained "normal" human) to less than that of the rest of the characters. Which is why IMO nobody played them.

Other people I've played with (that had a better view IMO) took the tact that Martial Arts, in general, are about precision and not about raw power. Thus, Martial Artists's attacks inherently had the Beam Limitation.

Both the Brick and the Martial Artist can do a 12d6 attack. The Brick punches a concrete wall and smashes a man-sized hole in it. The Martial Artist puches the same wall, but only pokes a fist-sized hole though it.

I can see also making Martial Arts attacks inherently Knockdown-only (unless it's a special "super-knockback attack").

Changes that stress the Precision vs Raw Power aspects of Martial Arts IMO don't detract significantly from their overall effectivness. They just reduce the effects that one would normally get with raw power.

[Hyper-Man]

Saying that a Martial Artist and Brick both do a maximum of 12d6 damage is a potentially confusing statement that is comparing 'apples and oranges'.

What maneuver is the MA using to get to 12d6?
Does it add +4d6?

Is the Brick using the Haymaker maneuver?
If not he can actually reach 16d6 when he uses it.
The MA is already maxed at 12d6

[bcaplan]

I see a potential avenue of abuse of such a system. Sell back one's AP limit to a fairly low level, then use the extra CPs to buy up one's SPD and DEX. Make the attack Autofire and Penetrating. Sure, each shot only gets though ~1 STUN, but when you are landing 10-15 each Segment because of your high SPD and DEX, you'll quickly whittle down most opponents.

If you impose AP limits on Characteristics, too, as I do, this loophole is never open. Well, except that Speed is grossly underpriced, but I long since took care of that, too. :-)