Characteristics Issues

[Chris Goodwin]

If you strip leaping from strength, it's pretty cheap to get the same level of jump but strength gives less power for the cost. I'm really really opposed to changing costs of characteristics primarily because of the damage it does to older characters and builds.

Every edition has changed the costs of some Powers. From 3e to 5er, something like 80% of the Powers and Skills have changed costs. What are you worried about?

But stripping away free things strength gives you?

You mean like Figured Characteristics? :rofl:

Edit: Posted before refreshing... teach me to do that again...grumble

[Kenn]

In other words, to match the 100pts the Brick spent, the Energy Projector would have to spend:

60pts for 12d6EB
10pts for +10 PD
20pts for +10 REC
25pts for +25 Stun
10pts for +10" Leaping

A total of 125pts. The lifting, grabbing & bracing vs KB are at least partially balanced by the EB being ranged & spreadable. The Brick doesn't seem to come off so bad by spending 2 per point on STR.

No. To match the brick he'd have to spend 50 or 100 points in STR. Sorry, that's the only way to get all of the tactical benefits AND tactical limitations of being a brick is to be a brick.

Similarly, all of the tactical options and tactical limitations of being an energy projector is to be an energy projector.

And I happen to be one of those people who think the ability to use your offensive powers from far away from the other opponents is of more value than being the guy who is beat upon by everyone.

[BobGreenwade]

Seems easier just to make STR 2 points per. Bricks still get a deal, just not as large.Wouldn't halving the amount STR and CON contribute to Figured Characteristics do the same thing, only without screwing Active Point caps?

[ajackson]

That's why I say again: strip away some of the abilities strength automatically gives, don't change the cost. And I don't mean the figured characteristics.
Would you be happier if Strength didn't do damage? There are some mechanical benefits to structuring things that way (it makes the whole issue of 'strength adds damage' on HKAs/HAs go away, and it makes the 'brick powers' multipower a lot sounder expenditure of points), but it's rather unintuitive.

There really isn't anything else you can take away from Strength which would make it balanced. Even if you halved the cost of Rec and Stun, 5 Str would be giving you 3.25 points in figs, so all other benefits can't be worth more than 1.75 points.

[CTaylor]

From 3e to 5er, something like 80% of the Powers and Skills have changed costs. What are you worried about?

Which stat has changed cost? Your estimate is, I suspect, grossly overstated.

[ajackson]

Wouldn't halving the amount STR and CON contribute to Figured Characteristics do the same thing, only without screwing Active Point caps?
No. Reducing it to zero would do the same thing. The basic cost breakdown is that 5 Str gives you:

1d6 damage, touch range (value: 3.33)
x2 lifting (value: ?. Call it 2)
+1d6 to Grapple checks (call this a 3 point level, since it's usable both offensively and defensively. Alternately, call this and the x2 lifting equivalent to a 5 point level with all Strength checks)
+1" leaping (value: 1)
5.25 points in figured stats

Total value: 14.57. We can call it an EC and give it a bit of a discount, but given it's 9.33 without any figured stats at all, even a pretty generous discount isn't going to get it down to 5 points without completely deleting figured stats from the equation.

[ajackson]

Which stat has changed cost? Your estimate is, I suspect, grossly overstated.
Strength, actually ;). In 3rd edition, reduced END cost was nearly mandatory (60 Str would cost you 12 END per attack) and used a different pricing scheme than in 4th edition, so in effect Strength got cheaper in 4e.

Alternately, you can interpret the change as both END and REC (for END) being half cost in 4e.

[JmOz]

The main problem I have with decoupling is that I feel it upsets a delicate balance with EC's.

The argument that the brick is getting a points break rarely accounts for the fact that the Blaster is going to be saving points by putting his choice of powers into a Framework, especialy an EC. The EC saves less, I will admit, but the character does get to choose what is going in it, instead of the brick who has these things put in it. I am HOPING that if Figured characteristics are decoupled then the restrictions on EC's are looseded to allow bricks to use this as a way of saving points like other archtypes do

[Chris Goodwin]

Which stat has changed cost? Your estimate is, I suspect, grossly overstated.

I didn't say stats. However...

From 3e to 4e, not a complete list:

Armor changed from 5/3 to 3/2.

Adjustment Powers all changed, both in cost and how they are handled; Aid was added to the mainstream.

Size Change Powers changed in what Characteristics they provide; I think they also changed in cost.

Flight's method for determining noncombat multiples changed, therefore changing the cost for those for whom noncombat multiples were an issue.

Endurance: Both the END cost for Powers and the methodology for reducing END cost changed, effectively altering the cost of any Powers for which the Endurance cost was reduced. It also removed from the game entirely any correlation in END costs between 3rd and prior and 4th and following.

Enhanced Senses: The Senses themselves may or may not have changed; in 3rd and prior you got cost breaks for buying multiple Senses, which disappeared in 4th.

Invisibility changed cost.

Disadvantages changed cost.

From 4th to 5th, a few other things changed cost.

Point being, none of those have broken the game. Christopher (CTaylor), I know for a fact you've been around the game at least as long as I have, and none of those changes have been dealbreakers -- and you're worried about the costs of Characteristics?

Every edition change has required refiguring the costs of characters being translated -- and the "grandfather clause" has ensured none of them get screwed in the process.

[Chris Goodwin]

The main problem I have with decoupling is that I feel it upsets a delicate balance with EC's.

The argument that the brick is getting a points break rarely accounts for the fact that the Blaster is going to be saving points by putting his choice of powers into a Framework, especialy an EC. The EC saves less, I will admit, but the character does get to choose what is going in it, instead of the brick who has these things put in it. I am HOPING that if Figured characteristics are decoupled then the restrictions on EC's are looseded to allow bricks to use this as a way of saving points like other archtypes do

Bricks get one kind of cost break; Blasters get another kind of cost break. Congratulations; you've just invented character classes for Hero.

[Netzilla]

Wouldn't halving the amount STR and CON contribute to Figured Characteristics do the same thing, only without screwing Active Point caps?

I'm not a big proponent of Active Point caps these days. All too often APs don't end up being a good measure of a power's true ability for a whole host of reasons.

Also, I think that CON is actually priced pretty damn close to correct and halving it's contribution to Figured Chars would seriously under-value it.

As for STR, with halving it's FC contribution, the Energy Projector would have to buy:

12d6 EB (60 pts)
+5 PD (5 pts)
+5 REC (10 pts)
+13 Stun (13 pts)
+5" Leaping (5 pts)

A total of 93 pts. Still considerably more than 50 pts the Brick spent.

Looked at another way, for 50pts the Brick gets:
12d6 Hand Attack (36 pts)
+5 PD (5 pts)
+5 REC (10 pts)
+13 Stun (13 pts)
+5 Leaping (5 pts)

Total Value = 69 pts. That's a savings of around 28%.

It's more comparable to the value of an Elemental Control that the Energy Projector might be buying. Of course, I'm a tad skeptical of that comparison for a number of reasons. Here's a hand-full:
* ECs have an AP floor that Figured Characteristics do not. Thus, for a truly good comparison, your EC control would have to be around 10-20 pts (under current rules). Thus the savings isn't really the 50% every likes to compare to.
* A lot of the abilities put into an EC aren't directly analogous to Figured Chars (Flight is more accurate & maneuverable than Leaping, Force Field is resistant, etc)
* ECs are drained all at once while Figured Chars are not.
* ECs don't stack with other Frameworks while the Figured Stats from Primaries stack with the Figured Stats from other Primaries.

Still, I like your solution much better than doing nothing. However, the only way to tell which solution is better (doubling the cost of STR or halving it's FC contribution) would be to play-test them both. Unfortunately, I'm not likely to be doing that any time soon.

[Netzilla]

And I happen to be one of those people who think the ability to use your offensive powers from far away from the other opponents is of more value than being the guy who is beat upon by everyone.

Bricks can throw big heavy things (ranged & Area Effect) for free.

[Southern Cross]

This is true.However,there are a few problems with that approach:
(1)The brick needs something to pick up in order to throw it.If the brick is in midair this might be a problem.
(2)The brick will typically have a lower DEX than the rest of his (or her) teammates,and probably doesn't have any ranged Combat Skill Levels either.
Worse yet,anything large enough to be an area effect attack is probably either unaerodynamic or unbalanced (or both) so that's a further -2 (or -4 if both) to the character's OCV.

[ajackson]

(2)The brick will typically have a lower DEX than the rest of his (or her) teammates.
From where do you get this assertion? While it's true that bricks are often built at low Dex, the efficient brick has high dex as well as high strength.

[JmOz]

Bricks get one kind of cost break; Blasters get another kind of cost break. Congratulations; you've just invented character classes for Hero.

I feel that is misrepresenting what I said. What I was getting at was that there are multiple types of cost breaks, that tanks favor one kind (Characteristics based savings) just like other types benefit from it (Speedsters and Martial Artists for instance) while blasters (and mentalists, and some gadgetteers, and mages) save from another kind. I think it is important to recognise that some archtypes traditionaly use one cost break while others use another, and by eliminating one kind of cost break and assuming it will not effect this balance is not very accurate. This is far from the straitjacket approach of Character classes, but a recognition of that certain cost breaks do favor certain types of characters and that by eliminating specific cost breaks you will be changing the balance. You will note that I said that if they eliminate the cost break from figured that I hope they loosen up the restriction on EC's to allow characteristics to be placed in it to help balance things...

[Vondy]

But the point is that that's not all he gets for his Strength; he gets a number of things (including Recovery, PD, and possibly Stun) that the Energy projector will have to buy seperately. That's of course the argument the de-couple people are making, and I don't agree with the argument, but when assessing the value of the brick, I don't think you can forget that essentially everything he gets figured is useful to him, and he'd be buying anyway (as is the case with most martial artists, in fact, who will at least want the PD and the Stun, as DCV alone is too brittle an operating procedure in the game).

I'm well aware of what he gets, and I'm telling you not everything is in the raw numbers. I've been running this game for two decades now. I've been on the boards since the bad old days. I've seen all the number crunching. You aren't making an argument I haven't heard a score of times before. None of the accounting complaints have ever played out at run time - in any game I've run or played in. The actual edge it gives the brick is minimal. Most of what he gets is passive. With the exception of PD and STN everything else you mentioned is bupkis. At the DC disparity this introduces he wont ever get a recovery. He will be out of the fight before he gets a post-12 and when you are outgunned that much stopping to recover is seldom an option.

There are a few key metrics outweigh other factors in combat and a few meta-rules that are critical to balance. One of the biggest is 5 Points = 1DC. You've doubled the cost of the bricks damage classes and that means, very literally, that point for point every other concept will outclass the traditional strength based brick. Brass tacks at combat time is that point for point he's outclassed by 8 DCs that can be used at range - that's a firepower differential of 40%. That means the EB weilder will be doing an average of 70 stun per shot, which amounts to 28 stun more per shot than the brick can do at 12 DCs. +5 PD and +13 Stun is nothing. He'll take double that amount of stun from the DC disparity in the first hit alone. The nested recovery won't be a factor.

And since the energy projector spent as much on his EB as the brick did on strength, there's no reason to assume that, in addition to having a massive firepower advantage, the blaster isn't on par (or very close) with the brick in every other respect. Indeed, if the blaster made use of an elemental control, he may well outclass the brick in every other respect hands down. When you guys put these numbers out, do you even take into consideration the practical impact of a 40% disparity in firepower on the outcome of a battle? Let alone the fact that the nested points the brick gets go into things that can't be put into a framework (without an exception being made) while some concepts other than the brick naturally favor and leverage frameworks. Those more serve to balance out the brick's nested points. In practice, it sometimes more than balances it out when you use verasility as a metric.

I don't buy it. I won't buy it. The system has mechanisms other concepts can leverage to level the playing field or, well designed, even get ahead. You want to fix a minor edge the brick gets in terms of figured characteristics for straight point buys without frameworks by doubling the cost of his DCs - and thats before other concepts get huge framework discounts or leverage a moderate martial arts discount on DCs (4:1). In fact, the martial artist who doesn't use power based martial arts he can dump into a framework is the only concept that really suffers in the system, but well played he tends to hold his own as well.

I promise you - you build a brick on 350 points at 2:1 ST and I build a blaster on 350 points and I'll clean your clock. I will wipe the floor with you. Why? Simple: the small edge the brick has if I don't use frameworks will have been replaced by a massive differential in the cost effectiveness of our DCs. You'll be paying 10:1 for DCs while I pay 5:1. And once my EC is in play I won't be paying 5:1 for DCs. I'll be paying about 2.5:1 for them. I'll also be buying my movement and defenses at about a 30%+ discount so who gives a red cent for your neutralized nested characteristics and nested leaping?

I'll be getting my firepower at no less than half your cost. You're paying top end retail while I'm paying bargain basement wholsale for one of the most critical metrics in the system. Its not exclusively critical, but huge disparities in this department are decisive and render any benefit the brick gains moot. The edge the brick gains is minimal and easily neutralized by leveraging others parts of the character design system that balance the costs out (sometimes more than balance them off) and often provide more versatility.

As it is the balance issues in the system are minimal and easily dealt with by the GM. The nested points the brick gains are offset by the presence of power frameworks, the use of limitations on powers that don't easily apply to straight characteristic buys, and the fact that EB costs, point for point, the same as strength while being ranged. The only concept that really has trouble keeping pace with the brick as the martial artist who doesn't make use of power based martial arts. His discount in DCs doesn't make up for the difference. If we double the cost of strength we'll be introducing a significant active imbalance issue into the system where only a mild passive one exists today.

No dice. I ain't going for it.

[ajackson]

At the DC disparity this introduces he wont ever get a recovery. He will be out of the fight before he gets a post-12 and when you are outgunned that much stopping to recover is seldom an option.
What makes you think that Strength uses its point cost for DC caps? Presumably you just count your actual Strength DCs against the power limits, not your points spent, just like you do in 5e (in a '60 active point' game, a 2k6 HKA and a 30 Strength puts you at the active point limit, despite no power involved being anywhere close to 60 points).

[Vondy]

* ECs have an AP floor that Figured Characteristics do not. Thus, for a truly good comparison, your EC control would have to be around 10-20 pts (under current rules). Thus the savings isn't really the 50% every likes to compare to.
* A lot of the abilities put into an EC aren't directly analogous to Figured Chars (Flight is more accurate & maneuverable than Leaping, Force Field is resistant, etc)
* ECs are drained all at once while Figured Chars are not.
* ECs don't stack with other Frameworks while the Figured Stats from Primaries stack with the Figured Stats from other Primaries.

Still, I like your solution much better than doing nothing. However, the only way to tell which solution is better (doubling the cost of STR or halving it's FC contribution) would be to play-test them both. Unfortunately, I'm not likely to be doing that any time soon.

Odd, I've been play-testing the system for twenty years and have yet to see a strength based brick blow anyone out of the water because he got some nested points. Both frameworks and the fact that many limitations don't apply to characteristics but do apply to powers serve to balance his cost saving out. And a number of your assertions about elemental controls are spurious.

1) sometimes the savings really is close on 50%. its a question of the workmanship of the person creating it. Also, you don't have to get to 50% for it to swing the scale. Sometimes 30% is enough. the minimum buy in you mention is lower than half of the normal AP range for superheroic games, which means they will be hitting optimal savings if they dump their main powers into it.

2) this assumes that a relevant drain is brought into play more than once in a blue moon. It depends on the campaign, but there is a reason that lim on the ECs has been equated to a -1/4 limitation. Namely, its not common enough to be a significant hinderance. What's more, characteristic based drains are MUCH more common (at least in published materials). You are much more likely to get hit with a drain on your primaries than a drain on your EC. What's more, you don't have to drain all the primaries. You go to 0 in any one of them and you are effectively out of it - so what's the difference?

3) they "stack"? Of course they do - that's where the nested point savings comes from. The nested point savings of the EC comes of the EC buy in slot. To see who gets the bigger savings you have to sit down and crunch the numbers. IME a properly designed EC with 3-4 powers tends to even out point for point with the nested points the brick gets, and sometimes the EC character comes out ahead.

[Kenn]

The real problem is that for some people and some gaming groups they find the cost of STR, DEX, CON to low for the benefit they provide, along with the figured characteristics they also provide. Some people and gaming groups, myself included, however, do not. The fact that we have 100 pages of posts just in this thread discussing this, as well as however many dozens of other times this has been discussed.

The difference is that where in other times the topic would just kind of die as people got bored, this time, with the 6th Edition looming on the horizon, we each have too much emotional investment to let it drop. I know that in two years I would like DOJ to still be publishing supplements for a game system I use. Which means I want a 6th Edition that I will use. Therefore I do not want the balance in my campaign destroyed.

However, the fact that the argument continues indicates that there is no one right answer.

I will postulate that since different people get different results using the same rules that whatever problems exist with balancing characteristics, they are the result of players and play style, not the rules, because the existing rules have worked for some of us for several years, in many cases multiple decades.


For instance, a few posts back I stated that a brick cannot use blaster tactics. Someone countered that "bricks can throw things". However, in my experience, I have found that a] the damage of a thrown object is limited by its DEF and BODY, b] the distance an object can be thrown is limited by weight and shape, c] that an object with more BODY is frequently heavier all tend to counteract the effectiveness of throwing everyday objects as a combat tactic as to make it a rarely used option. And these are all considerations the typical blaster doesn't have to cope with. This is general.

Further more, in my campaign in particular, and within campaigns run by my gaming group in general, behaving responsibly and keeping property damage to a minimum is encouraged. In an urban environment, most large heavy objects belong to someone, and the character who chooses to use someone else's property as a weapon is still vandalising the property. This makes the throwing things tactic even less useful. But this is just us.

In someone else's campaign, rampant property destruction may be a desired (by the players and or GM) consequence of a large scale parahuman fight. Therefore, throwing a $30,000 car around like a dodgeball is then encouraged behaviour. And THAT makes strength worth more in that game than it is in mine.


Everyone wants to believe his or her gaming group is a typical gaming group. And therefore, they tend to believe that whatever issues they may have with the system are universal. But honestly, gaming groups are generally made up of people who are prone to be atypical, and as such I don't know if there is such a thing as "the typical gaming group." Which means some problems aren't universal. And in a gaming system that's been around for nearly 30 years and 5 editions, there's likely not to be that much which is universally broken. I don't think there is ONE single solution to the Characteristics conundrum. If they get changed, it will piss people off. If they aren't changed, or changed enough, it will piss other people off.

I think the suggestion that was made a few days ago is the best one. The 6th Edition should include multiple options for the characteristics. Include a discussion about what happens when STR costs 2 points instead of 1, or what happens when figureds are included.

Perhaps making "Gets Figured Characteristics" is an ability that may be disallowed, or could be purchased in some games (presumably for a high price), or be something that every character gets for free depending on the GM. Or "Gets No Figured" could be a Disadvantage similar to the Normal Characteristic Maxima.

But in any event, what is called for if the sixth edition are OPTIONS in the Characteristics section of the Hero toolkit..

[Netzilla]

This is true.However,there are a few problems with that approach:
(1)The brick needs something to pick up in order to throw it.If the brick is in midair this might be a problem.

Combats rarely take place on featureless plains. Also, how are you getting the brick into the air?

(2)The brick will typically have a lower DEX than the rest of his (or her) teammates,and probably doesn't have any ranged Combat Skill Levels either. Worse yet,anything large enough to be an area effect attack is probably either unaerodynamic or unbalanced (or both) so that's a further -2 (or -4 if both) to the character's OCV.

The Champions
Defender: DEX 25 +2 w/ multipower = OCV 10
Ironclad: DEX 20 = OCV 7
Nighthawk: DEX 25 +1 overall = OCV 9
Sapphire: DEX 23 = OCV 8
Witchcraft: DEX 20 +2 w/ multipower = OCV 9

None of them have Area Effect on their Ranged powers.
No one has PSLs vs Range Modifiers.

So, on average Ironclad ends up around 7 OCV at range with a potential -2 to -4 for unbalanced/unaerodynamic. That puts him on average at 3-5 OCV vs a 3 DCV hex. That compares fairly well to the rest of the team's average 8-10 OCV vs the Standard Superheroic DCV range of 7-13. Again, I don't see the brick coming off that bad.

[Vondy]

What makes you think that Strength uses its point cost for DC caps? Presumably you just count your actual Strength DCs against the power limits, not your points spent, just like you do in 5e (in a '60 active point' game, a 2k6 HKA and a 30 Strength puts you at the active point limit, despite no power involved being anywhere close to 60 points).

Which is either a straw man or totally missing the point. I never mentioned DC caps because they weren't an inherent part of the discussion, which was costs, not artificial [if wise] constraints. The point is, by doubling the cost of the traditional characteritic driven brick's strength you are doubling the cost of his damage classes which totally sunders one of the system's key balancing rules: 1 DC = 5 Points.

At 2:1 he pays 100 points for 12 DCs. For the same 100 points the blaster gets 20 DCs of EB. That's a 40% firepower differential on a point by point basis. If you have DC caps - again an artificial constraint that has nothing to do with the balancing of costs - then the blaster pays 60 points to match 12 DCs and can take those 40 points elsewhere. That's before he leverages the versatility a multipower would give him or starts taking the signficant cost break the EC provides.

Not all metrics are created equal and DCs are one of the most significant ones in the system. In fact, not all points are created equal. It depends where you spend them. The brick does get nested points and benefits from his lift and jumping kick-backs. No one is disputing that. But when the system is taken as a whole its not as dramatic an advantage as people make it out to be. A lot of what he gets is passive, and if you raise the cost of his DCs then point for point he's been undone. The nested points aren't in the right places to save him from the dramatic disparity of DC costs introduced.

I don't dispute DC limits are a good thing. I use them. But the 1 DC = 5 Points meta-rule is so central to the system, and so key to system balance in terms of point values, that dramatic shifts in it can't do anything but upset a system that is, on the whole, pretty well balanced. Charging 2:1 looks like it balances out when you look at overall points, but when you get down to brass tacks he's paying 2:1 for a key metric while other concepts can still make use of other parts of the system to make up for the nested points he got by focusing on characteritistics.

[schir1964]

I think the suggestion that was made a few days ago is the best one. The 6th Edition should include multiple options for the characteristics. Include a discussion about what happens when STR costs 2 points instead of 1, or what happens when figureds are included.

Perhaps making "Gets Figured Characteristics" is an ability that may be disallowed, or could be purchased in some games (presumably for a high price), or be something that every character gets for free depending on the GM. Or "Gets No Figured" could be a Disadvantage similar to the Normal Characteristic Maxima.

But in any event, what is called for if the sixth edition are OPTIONS in the Characteristics section of the Hero toolkit..
This is the first positive response to this suggestion I've seen.
While most people don't have a problem with it, they don't see it as an actual beneficial change.

- Christopher Mullins

[Vondy]

So, on average Ironclad ends up around 7 OCV at range with a potential -2 to -4 for unbalanced/unaerodynamic. That puts him on average at 3-5 OCV vs a 3 DCV hex. That compares fairly well to the rest of the team's average 8-10 OCV vs the Standard Superheroic DCV range of 7-13. Again, I don't see the brick coming off that bad.

So, we've gone from he has a signficant advantage to he's not coming off that bad? Maybe he's not really that imbalanced.

[Vondy]

This is the first positive response to this suggestion I've seen.
While most people didn't have problem with it, they didn't see it as an actual beneficial change.

- Christopher Mullins

I'm all for options (i.e., tool-kitting). I'm not for dramatic changes to the baseline system that are only an improvement on a subjective level.

[ajackson]

At 2:1 he pays 100 points for 12 DCs.
No, he pays 100 points for 12 DC and a lot of other stuff. If all you want is 12 DCs, just buy a 12d6 EB vs PD with No Range, for 40 points. Of course, in 5e that's a really stupid way to build a character, because Strength is so much better, but a 'brick' is more than just a guy who does damage in melee.

[Trebuchet]

Bricks get one kind of cost break; Blasters get another kind of cost break. Congratulations; you've just invented character classes for Hero.Hardly. I've seen any number of bricks with ECs or MPs; they just don't tend to put the same thing into them that blasters do. They each value different attributes more and spend their points accordingly. As long as a player has the option of using Frameworks or other point-saving techniques, it's premature to speak of character classes. Archetypes are another thing entirely; if only because the line is much more blurred.

[The Main Man]

I agree with Von D-Man.

5 (Base) Points buys 1 DC is one of the HERO System's cornerstones and to change that would most likely not streamline the system at all and would become a massive, untested overhaul.

Bricks get a slight cost break on Figured CHAR while Blasters get Range; it's really not that bad of a trade-off when all the STR in the world doesn't mean much when the other guy can take pot-shots at you.

Bricks are not imbalanced any more than Energy Projectors or Martial Artists are; it's all in how the gaming group uses and interprets them.

[Netzilla]

Odd, I've been play-testing the system for twenty years and have yet to see a strength based brick blow anyone out of the water because he got some nested points.

Odd, I've been playing just as long and I've seen bricks be the most abused archetype in the system.

Both frameworks and the fact that many limitations don't apply to characteristics but do apply to powers serve to balance his cost saving out. And a number of your assertions about elemental controls are spurious.

1) sometimes the savings really is close on 50%. its a question of the workmanship of the person creating it. Also, you don't have to get to 50% for it to swing the scale. Sometimes 30% is enough. the minimum buy in you mention is lower than half of the normal AP range for superheroic games, which means they will be hitting optimal savings if they dump their main powers into it.

And many times you want to be able to put Desolid, Invisibility or a whole host of other powers that cost less than 60 APs into your EC. In fact, I've seen far fewer 25 or 30 EC controls than I have in the 10-20 range. Even the published materials don't usually put their attacks in ECs. Instead they reserve them for defenses and movement powers in the 30-40 AP range. That doesn't seem like a spurious point to me.

2) this assumes that a relevant drain is brought into play more than once in a blue moon. It depends on the campaign, but there is a reason that lim on the ECs has been equated to a -1/4 limitation. Namely, its not common enough to be a significant hinderance. What's more, characteristic based drains are MUCH more common (at least in published materials). You are much more likely to get hit with a drain on your primaries than a drain on your EC.

And -1/4 limitations have a recommended frequency of 25% of the time (5ER 299). Since 5th Ed came out and made that change to ECs, I've seen that come up about as often as I've seen actual -1/4 limitations. That's purely a GMing style issue.

What's more, you don't have to drain all the primaries. You go to 0 in any one of them and you are effectively out of it - so what's the difference?

Not actually true as you can continue to function with negative characteristics in the current system. Yes, it sucks having to do so, but it can still be done. We've had several players and NPCs have to do so on multiple occasions in my group.

3) they "stack"? Of course they do - that's where the nested point savings comes from. The nested point savings of the EC comes of the EC buy in slot. To see who gets the bigger savings you have to sit down and crunch the numbers. IME a properly designed EC with 3-4 powers tends to even out point for point with the nested points the brick gets, and sometimes the EC character comes out ahead.

I was purely comparing STR to an EC. Almost all archetypes benefit from the Figureds offered by CON just as much as the Brick does. However, the Brick benefits from the STR savings far more often than any other archetype. Since the bonuses from ECs don't stack with CON Figureds, why should STR?

[The Main Man]

No, he pays 100 points for 12 DC and a lot of other stuff. If all you want is 12 DCs, just buy a 12d6 EB vs PD with No Range, for 40 points. Of course, in 5e that's a really stupid way to build a character, because Strength is so much better, but a 'brick' is more than just a guy who does damage in melee.

But to keep with logic, the costs of every Figured CHAR besides SPD would have to be refigured, both by base calculation and point for point.

While we are on that, CON seems to be overlooked, which figures into MORE Figured CHAR than STR, and Bricks typically max out that CHAR as well.

You are looking at STR (PD, REC, STUN) vs. CON (ED, REC, END, STUN).

If a Brick is paying 10 CP to get 1 PD, then CON should logically be adjusted to cost 4 CP to get the same amount of ED, but that would be way too expensive for what CON does.

[ajackson]

5 (Base) Points buys 1 DC is one of the HERO System's cornerstones and to change that would most likely not streamline the system at all and would become a massive, untested overhaul.
Well, I actually do favor leaving Strength at 5 points per 1 DC. I just want to decouple any figured stats from Strength. However, if figured stats are kept, Strength needs to cost x2.
Bricks get a slight cost break on Figured CHAR while Blasters get Range; it's really not that bad of a trade-off when all the STR in the world doesn't mean much when the other guy can take pot-shots at you.
If the Figured Char were such a 'slight' cost break, why would anyone object to removing them?

[Netzilla]

I agree with your general gist that what is true for one gaming group is not true for all. In fact, if I'd never seen how often the issue of STR being under-priced comes up on these boards, in the old Champs mailing list and with every single gaming group I've played Champions/Hero with, I'd be keeping my mouth shut right now. The fact that the issue is raised so often is why Steve Long specifically called out the price of STR as something to potentially be modified and why it's listed in the main rule book as an example of how to modify the system (5ER 562). Still, I freely admit that people can make use of the game system as-is without ever running into a balance issue. That does not mean that the issue does not exist. It just means that some groups have been more successful at consciously or unconsciously avoiding it.

However, I do feel compelled to respond to a couple specific points since they seem to be aimed at a post of mine.

For instance, a few posts back I stated that a brick cannot use blaster tactics. Someone countered that "bricks can throw things". However, in my experience, I have found that a] the damage of a thrown object is limited by its DEF and BODY, b] the distance an object can be thrown is limited by weight and shape, c] that an object with more BODY is frequently heavier all tend to counteract the effectiveness of throwing everyday objects as a combat tactic as to make it a rarely used option. And these are all considerations the typical blaster doesn't have to cope with. This is general.

A 60 STR brick can throw a 3 DEF/13 BODY (well over the 12 DCs for STR) compact car (5ER 476) a distance of 14" with a standing throw.

Further more, in my campaign in particular, and within campaigns run by my gaming group in general, behaving responsibly and keeping property damage to a minimum is encouraged. In an urban environment, most large heavy objects belong to someone, and the character who chooses to use someone else's property as a weapon is still vandalising the property. This makes the throwing things tactic even less useful. But this is just us.

In someone else's campaign, rampant property destruction may be a desired (by the players and or GM) consequence of a large scale parahuman fight. Therefore, throwing a $30,000 car around like a dodgeball is then encouraged behaviour. And THAT makes strength worth more in that game than it is in mine.

In many campaigns I've played in, it's more been a choice of: Do I let Grond continue to run amok, causing millions of dollars in property damages and endangering hundreds of people or do I raise this one person's car insurance premium?

[Hugh Neilson]

First off, Von D-Man's posts are excellent and repped.

In the context of a multi-player game, the most bang for the buck is a straight brick.

That, or any build that lets you trade ROF or accuracy for raw damage.

Then, you need to convince your teammates to set up targets for you to hammer into next week.

So if everyone plays a Brick, what happens? You're relying on character synergy, which relies on different character types. The same logic says that the Enhanced Senses character is the best archetype, since he can see through his teammate's darkness and attack blind enemies unhindered. The guy who puts all his points into a huge attack (let's say he spends 20 points on +10 OCV with Energy Blast and 300 on his 60d6 Energy Blast) is also the best, as long as his teammates put lots of points into defenses and Dive for Cover so they can block shots aimed at CannonMan until his phase finally comes around.

There are any number of ways to reduce an opponent's DCV. There are only a few ways to increase damage inflicted, most of them take extra time or have side effects you probably don't want to deal with.

Why would the Brick do the most damage? In most games, DC caps are enforced, so the Brick and the Energy Projector tend to have the same DC's.

In heroic scale games, on the other hand, melee combat is often to some degree part of everyone's operating procedure whether they want it to be or not; and the moment that's the case the net value of the stat at its current cost becomes almost overwhelmingly attractive.

Well, let's fix the Heroic scale games. Let's make characters pay CP for access to equipment. Voila - suddenly that extra STR, all by itself, is nowhere near as valuable. Alternatively, let's add INT-based magic items you can buy for cash. That 25 STR warrior can grab a large sword and do 2 1/2d6 KA damage. Our 30 INT (age disadvantage) Wizard spend the same 20 points and can grab a FireBolt Wand and do 3d6 RKA.

If you strip leaping from strength, it's pretty cheap to get the same level of jump but strength gives less power for the cost.

I am in favour of removing free leaping from STR. Here the link is not as strong. Many comic book Bricks (and who else gets enough leap to use it as a major movement power?) don't leap. Only a few do.

For example, is the ability to resist knockback something strength always should have, or something that you should buy to represent a certain kind of strength? That's the place you should be looking, not at cost.

I'd be OK removing this provided we also remove the same ability from Flight. Given both cut your DCV in half, I don't see these used very often anyway.

That's because he's not just getting 12d6 damage. He's getting a lot of other functionality at once. Specifically, he's getting:

The ability to lift 100 tons, which isn't terribly useful in combat but has a lot of non-combat utility
The ability to do (and escape) a Grab.
10 PD
10 Rec
25 Stun


The energy projector gets the ability to trade damage for OCV or multiple targets by spreading. My take on Figured's is that REC, STUN and END are overpriced. That would reduce this issue significantly.

Our EP buying a 60 point energy blast gets to save 30 points on his Force Field and 30 points on his Flight. How does our Brick do that? Alternatively, he gets to invest another 60 points and have four other attack types to change up with his EB by placing the five items (call it EB, Flash, Telekinesis, Ranged Stun Drain and an AVLD or NND) in a Multipower. How does the Brick leverage his STR in similar fashion?

Strength, actually ;). In 3rd edition, reduced END cost was nearly mandatory (60 Str would cost you 12 END per attack) and used a different pricing scheme than in 4th edition, so in effect Strength got cheaper in 4e.

In 3e, a 12d6 Energy Blast also cost 12 END per attack, so reduced END cost was nearly mandatory and used a different pricing scheme than in 4th edition, so in effect Energy Blast got cheaper in 4e.

This wasn't a cost reduction. It was a change in the way END worked.

I didn't say stats. However...

From 3e to 4e, not a complete list:

Armor changed from 5/3 to 3/2.

Finally rationalizing defenses to same or similar costs because Damage Resistance was fixed at the same time. A welcome fix.

Adjustment Powers all changed, both in cost and how they are handled; Aid was added to the mainstream.

Has there been an edition change where these have not evolved? And there are still problems to be fixed.

Size Change Powers changed in what Characteristics they provide; I think they also changed in cost.

What they gave you and what they cost were both reduced, making a growth or DI Brick at least somewhat viable. This, too, was a good change. They also eliminated the "grants figured" advantage on those powers.

Flight's method for determining noncombat multiples changed, therefore changing the cost for those for whom noncombat multiples were an issue.

Thus rationalizing these with other movement powers.

Enhanced Senses: The Senses themselves may or may not have changed; in 3rd and prior you got cost breaks for buying multiple Senses, which disappeared in 4th.

Invisibility changed cost.

Disadvantages changed cost.

From 4th to 5th, a few other things changed cost.

First, I don't think you're close to the 80% you claimed yet.

Second, all of these changes do make some sense. They were generally considered to be problematic.

Third, perhaps the fact that characteristics have not changed. One bit. Over four new editions, each of which made a material number of other changes might indicate, as Treb has stated a few times, that characteristics have worked well, and don't need to be changed.

As to grandfathering, how is it fair that Charlie's brick gets a 60 STR for 50 points, but because Fred started playing last week, his character has to pay an extra 50 points for exactly the same ability?

Also, I think that CON is actually priced pretty damn close to correct and halving it's contribution to Figured Chars would seriously under-value it.

Definitely

As for STR, with halving it's FC contribution, the Energy Projector would have to buy:

12d6 EB (60 pts)
+5 PD (5 pts)
+5 REC (10 pts)
+13 Stun (13 pts)
+5" Leaping (5 pts)

A total of 93 pts. Still considerably more than 50 pts the Brick spent.

See comments on how energy projectors can and do leverage their points differently. "Fair" is not always "equal". "Equal" is not always "fair". Tell you what - if your EP gives up the range on his 10d6 EB, the ability to place it in a framework and the ability to spread it for damage, I'll let it grant him:

resistance to energy damage (+10 ED), more rapid recovery (+10 REC) and staying power (+25 Stun) because he's full of energy and the ability to propel himself through the air (+10" Leaping). Any EP's want to take me up on that?

Of course, I'm a tad skeptical of that comparison for a number of reasons. Here's a hand-full:
* ECs have an AP floor that Figured Characteristics do not. Thus, for a truly good comparison, your EC control would have to be around 10-20 pts (under current rules). Thus the savings isn't really the 50% every likes to compare to.

And EC's have greater flexibility. The Brick probably wants extra defenses and damage resistance. Our EP with his 12d6 EB gets a +20/+20 Force Field at 0 END for half price - 30 point advantage to EP right there, before any other abilities (and there will be some) go into that EC.

* A lot of the abilities put into an EC aren't directly analogous to Figured Chars (Flight is more accurate & maneuverable than Leaping, Force Field is resistant, etc)

"Different but equivalent" seems fair. And it works.

* ECs are drained all at once while Figured Chars are not.[.quote]

As someone else noted, this assumes anyone drains them. Stats are drained far more often, and that EP with his STR drained still does 12d6 damage. How many EB Drains do you see compared to STR drains? That said, I'd be OK with drains getting both primaries and figured's, but it would be a math hassle.

[QUOTE=Netzilla;1572690]* ECs don't stack with other Frameworks while the Figured Stats from Primaries stack with the Figured Stats from other Primaries.

They don't? I can't have a Force Field slot in my MP add to the Force Field in my EC? I can't MPA with an EB from my EC and a Flash from my Multtipower?

Bricks can throw big heavy things (ranged & Area Effect) for free.

This is a problem in system and GM generosity. To allow a normal human-sized person, regardless of STR, to toss a 10 meter wide object at a paltry -4 OCV penalty is ridiculous. And some GM's don't even enforce that OCV penalty.

As well, if we look to the source material, those objects are not treated as AoE attacks. The Hulk throws a bus at SpiderMan and he leaps through a window on one side and out the other. MAYBE it's AoE - NonSelective. But in Hero, we get SpiderSplat due to automatic AoE. That should definitely be removed in 6e. In fact, I'd like to see the "use of objects" rules revisited to allow enhanced damage and penalize characters in other ways, such as reduced OCV. That damage would be on a sliding scale, though. A tire iron could add 2d6 to the mentalist's 3d6, but it wouldn't augment Ogre's 60 STR at all.

[The Main Man]

Well, I actually do favor leaving Strength at 5 points per 1 DC. I just want to decouple any figured stats from Strength. However, if figured stats are kept, Strength needs to cost x2.
For this response, refer to my post just before this one (I understand that you were probably already preparing this post prior to my posting such).

If the Figured Char were such a 'slight' cost break, why would anyone object to removing them?
For every 5 STR, I get the following:
+1 PD (1 CP)
+1 REC (2 CP)
+2.5 STUN (2.5 CP)
For every 5 STR, I save 5.5 CP

For every 5 CON, I get the following:
+1 ED (1 CP)
+1 REC (2 CP)
+10 END (5 CP)
+2.5 STUN (2.5 CP)
For Every 5 CON, I save 10.5 CP

If STR cost 2:1; for every 10 STR, I get the following:
+1 PD (1 CP)
+1 REC (2 CP)
+2.5 STUN (2.5 CP)
I would actually be spending an additional 0.5 CP for every 5 STR, and the situation would not only be reversed, but then it would bring the value of CON and Normal DEF into question and then Von D-Man has covered the rest.

[Netzilla]

So, we've gone from he has a signficant advantage to he's not coming off that bad? Maybe he's not really that imbalanced.

I was specifically responding to the "bricks suck at range" argument; as evidenced by the post I quoted in my reply. Please be careful not to take my arguments out of context.

[The Main Man]

If I remember correctly, TUB rules that Bricks have to spread their STR across large objects that would constitute AoE attacks, thusly not doing as much damage.

Don't forget that the Brick is also limited to doing as much damage as the DEF + BODY of the object or his STR dice, whichever is lower.

[Hugh Neilson]

Odd, I've been playing just as long and I've seen bricks be the most abused archetype in the system.

Kenn nails this one - different experiences indicate playstyle, not system, issues.

And many times you want to be able to put Desolid, Invisibility or a whole host of other powers that cost less than 60 APs into your EC. In fact, I've seen far fewer 25 or 30 EC controls than I have in the 10-20 range. Even the published materials don't usually put their attacks in ECs. Instead they reserve them for defenses and movement powers in the 30-40 AP range. That doesn't seem like a spurious point to me.

If you put your EB in that 30-40 AP EC, you still save 15 - 20 points. You don't HAVE to cap every power at your EC's doubled points level. The reason EP's rarely put their attacks in an EC is because they normally have them in a multipower so they can have greater versatility than the Bricks.

A 60 STR brick can throw a 3 DEF/13 BODY (well over the 12 DCs for STR) compact car (5ER 476) a distance of 14" with a standing throw.

With a -4 OCV because it's neither balanced nor aerodynamic, and a further -4 for range penalties. After spending 1 phase to Grab it (an attack action) and a second to throw it at a target (a second attack action; check the FAQ or the rules Q forum as it's in one of them).

I'd expand that to a further -3 since this is a weapon you are not proficient with (no WF or points paid for the weapon), but that seems to make Brick players cry. I wonder why, when they are already so "hugely advantaged" by the cost of STR. Oh, and I don't give that car automatic AoE - it gets its size modifier.

[nexus]

If the Figured Char were such a 'slight' cost break, why would anyone object to removing them?

Because they feel it complicates character generation by added additional steps and removes a logical connection between characteristics and a long standing aspect of Hero System for no real benefit except to ease the creation of fringe character types that can already be done.

Not every one that disagrees with removing Figured Chars is a power gamer upset about their point shaving technique will be gone. It's not that really a big deal since if they are decoupled more points will have to issued for character generation which may come out to be more than Figured saved them for some character type.

[ajackson]

The energy projector gets the ability to trade damage for OCV or multiple targets by spreading. My take on Figured's is that REC, STUN and END are overpriced. That would reduce this issue significantly.
Str doesn't give END, and I'm not all that bothered by the cost of Con, because Con doesn't do much other than give figs. However, this doesn't matter, because Strength, without any figs, is worth 1:1.

Let's reverse the analogy: how much would you charge an energy projector to be able to Grab people with his EB? How about the ability to pick stuff up and throw it around with his EB? Lemme think...perhaps there is a power that works like this... oh right, there is. It's called TK, costs 7.5 points per die of damage, and cannot be spread. If you take No Range, it costs 5 points per die, and acts just like Strength, except it doesn't give any figured characteristics and you can't use it to escape grabs.

[Hugh Neilson]

Str doesn't give END, and I'm not all that bothered by the cost of Con, because Con doesn't do much other than give figs. However, this doesn't matter, because Strength, without any figs, is worth 1:1.

Let's reverse the analogy: how much would you charge an energy projector to be able to Grab people with his EB? How about the ability to pick stuff up and throw it around with his EB? Lemme think...perhaps there is a power that works like this... oh right, there is. It's called TK, costs 7.5 points per die of damage, and cannot be spread. If you take No Range, it costs 5 points per die, and acts just like Strength, except it doesn't give any figured characteristics and you can't use it to escape grabs.

First off, Telekinesis at its base cost is also Indirect. 5 points x 2.25 (Ranged + Indirect) / 1.5 (No Figured) equates +5 STR to 7.5 points for 5 STR TK.

Second, it would cost the EP +20% or +10%, because he would put it in a Multipower slot, or a +1/2 advantage to convert his 12d6 EB into 60 STR Telekinesis.

[James Gillen]

I'm all for options (i.e., tool-kitting). I'm not for dramatic changes to the baseline system that are only an improvement on a subjective level.

Quite.

jG

[Netzilla]

<Snip evaluation of BobG's 1/2 value for Figureds suggestion>
See comments on how energy projectors can and do leverage their points differently. "Fair" is not always "equal". "Equal" is not always "fair". Tell you what - if your EP gives up the range on his 10d6 EB, the ability to place it in a framework and the ability to spread it for damage, I'll let it grant him:

resistance to energy damage (+10 ED), more rapid recovery (+10 REC) and staying power (+25 Stun) because he's full of energy and the ability to propel himself through the air (+10" Leaping). Any EP's want to take me up on that?


If you'll recall, in the post you're responding to, I considered his suggestion a valid compromise between leaving things as they are and doubling the cost of STR. In fact, I expressly pointed out that the only way to see which was better would be to play-test the two. I've played in games where STR was x2 cost and found they ballanced better than the current system. I have not tested BobG's suggestion.

And EC's have greater flexibility. The Brick probably wants extra defenses and damage resistance. Our EP with his 12d6 EB gets a +20/+20 Force Field at 0 END for half price - 30 point advantage to EP right there, before any other abilities (and there will be some) go into that EC.

"Different but equivalent" seems fair. And it works.

Our experiences differ. What can we do?


* ECs are drained all at once while Figured Chars are not.

As someone else noted, this assumes anyone drains them. Stats are drained far more often, and that EP with his STR drained still does 12d6 damage. How many EB Drains do you see compared to STR drains? That said, I'd be OK with drains getting both primaries and figured's, but it would be a math hassle.

As I mentioned earlier, the frequency of non-Characteristic drains is a GM style issue. Maybe I've been "fortunate" in that the GMs I've gamed under have been willing to enforce this particular limitation on ECs.

They don't? I can't have a Force Field slot in my MP add to the Force Field in my EC? I can't MPA with an EB from my EC and a Flash from my Multtipower?

Depends. Will it cause you to bust the campaigns DEF or DC caps? Still, you're right in that you can get some stacking going this way. I'm not sure it's equivalent to the staking of Figureds, but I don't feel strongly enough on it to argue it.

This is a problem in system and GM generosity. To allow a normal human-sized person, regardless of STR, to toss a 10 meter wide object at a paltry -4 OCV penalty is ridiculous. And some GM's don't even enforce that OCV penalty.

Well, that is the rules as written. I've felt guilty enough by pulling this stunt with my own bricks that I don't do it any more unless I've specifically bought an EB with OIF (object of opportunity), DCs limited to DEF+Bod of object, etc. I'd be all for that kind of thing being cannonized in the rules.

As well, if we look to the source material, those objects are not treated as AoE attacks. The Hulk throws a bus at SpiderMan and he leaps through a window on one side and out the other. MAYBE it's AoE - NonSelective. But in Hero, we get SpiderSplat due to automatic AoE.

Actually, I'd call that Dive for Cover, which has the advantage of blowing an action on Spidey's part in the rules as written.

That should definitely be removed in 6e. In fact, I'd like to see the "use of objects" rules revisited to allow enhanced damage and penalize characters in other ways, such as reduced OCV.

So would I (see above).

That damage would be on a sliding scale, though. A tire iron could add 2d6 to the mentalist's 3d6, but it wouldn't augment Ogre's 60 STR at all.

I could see that. Actually, making the x2 DC limit a rule at both Heroic and Superheroic and having it apply to normal as well as killing attacks would help a lot. Then that Tire Iron maxes at 4d6 damage regardless of who wields it.

[Trebuchet]

Odd, I've been playing just as long and I've seen bricks be the most abused archetype in the system.Just because an archetype like brick is abused in some campaigns (An experience I do not share) isn't evidence it's inherently suited for abuse. It may simply be evidence that certain types of players get a kick out of their character being überstrong and tough because it's fun to tear things apart with your bare hands, throw cars around, and generally wreak havoc while being tough enough to take enormous amounts of damage compared to other archetypes. IOW, it's probably just as likely some abusive players prefer bricks for those reasons as it would be that there's something wrong with the costing of STR. Abusers don't necessarily look for efficiency; that's only one type of abuse.

2008 will be my 26th year playing Champions and Hero; and I've seen every archetype abused and munchkinized. There's no reason my anecdotal evidence should trump yours, or vice versa.

[dsatow]

Just a comment here, but I'd like to see Presence attacks go against Ego.

Here's my reasoning,

As currently built, a Presence attack goes against itself. This is unbalanced since 5 points of PRE gives you 1d6 of Pre or 3.5 effect against 5 points of defense. Thus a person with a 15 Pre vs a person with a 20 Pre, on the average, the 15 Pre will not acknowledge the 20 Pre even though he's got twice as much Presence.

Secondly, there are many people who mentally aren't affected by the presence attacks of people but who aren't in and of themselves very presenceful. By separating the two, you can have showy people who are all show or not so dramatic people who won't be swayed by a showy person.

Example (current): Dark Invader wants to sway our hero, Duke, towards the Not So Bright Side. Dark Invader 40 Pre. Duke 30 Pre. Dark Invader PRE attacks Duke: "Duke, I am your mother!" Dark rolls average and get 28 points. Duke "Ehh, I'd rather jump."

Example (new design): RU12 (10 Pre/24 Ego) and CUL8R (15 Pre/10 Ego) are intelligent robots. Bitey (20 Pre/15 Ego) is an alien co-pilot with a bad temper. They are playing 3-D checkers. Bitey is losing and growls at the two robots and smashing the table, jostling the screen. Bitey's PRE attack is 4d6+2d6(growl+violent action) and gets a 21. CUL8R is shaken and tells RU12 to lose the game. RU12 complains but no one listens to his high pitched whines and he goes ahead and loses the game.

[Trebuchet]

Just a comment here, but I'd like to see Presence attacks go against Ego.PRE Attacks go against either PRE or EGO. That seems reasonable.

As currently built, a Presence attack goes against itself. This is unbalanced since 5 points of PRE gives you 1d6 of Pre or 3.5 effect against 5 points of defense. Thus a person with a 15 Pre vs a person with a 20 Pre, on the average, the 15 Pre will not acknowledge the 20 Pre even though he's got twice as much Presence.A person with 20 PRE has 5 more points or PRE than one with 15 PRE. There is no scale to suggest each +5 is twice as much PRE. The only Characteristic such a scale can be attributed to is STR, and that only to certain aspects such as lifting.

[Klaus Mogensen]

A 60 ST Brick will pay 100 Points for his ST [12d6]. When you consider an energy projector with the same investment can get a 20d6 EB it starts to look less balanced.
Very true. Which is why I favor decoupling STR from figured characteristics. Then the Brick would just pay 50 points for his 12d6 attack - which an energy projector would only get 10d6 for. Okay, he would have to buy his PD, Stun and Rec from scratch - but so would the energy projector.

- Klaus

[BobGreenwade]

If you'll recall, in the post you're responding to, I considered his suggestion a valid compromise between leaving things as they are and doubling the cost of STR. In fact, I expressly pointed out that the only way to see which was better would be to play-test the two. I've played in games where STR was x2 cost and found they ballanced better than the current system. I have not tested BobG's suggestion.I must have missed the response where you said that. And I thank you, too -- I was starting to wonder if anyone around here (except maybe Steve, who won't be making a decision for another year or so) was even willing to consider a solution other than decoupling, doubling the cost of STR, or leaving things as they are.

I had one other suggestion, too, that is separate from but not mutually exclusive with halving the formulas: using BODY instead of STR to figure PD and REC. So far that's only had one (frankly rather derisive) response that I've seen.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Wouldn't halving the amount STR and CON contribute to Figured Characteristics do the same thing, only without screwing Active Point caps?
Perhaps - but if you're going to fiddle with what figureds you get, you might as well go all the way and decouple them entirely.

Also, halving the amounts STR and COn contribute will make for even more coarse breakpoints: +1 PD and +1 REC per +10 STR, +1 STUN per +4 STR, etc.

- Klaus

[BobGreenwade]

Perhaps - but if you're going to fiddle with what figureds you get, you might as well go all the way and decouple them entirely.That assumes that decoupling them entirely is the correct course to take.

Metaphor: if you're piloting a ship at sea and notice that you're off course ten degrees to port, you adjust by steering ten degrees to starboard, not by "going on the way" and steering ninety degrees to starboard.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Our EP buying a 60 point energy blast gets to save 30 points on his Force Field and 30 points on his Flight. How does our Brick do that? Alternatively, he gets to invest another 60 points and have four other attack types to change up with his EB by placing the five items (call it EB, Flash, Telekinesis, Ranged Stun Drain and an AVLD or NND) in a Multipower. How does the Brick leverage his STR in similar fashion?

By saving 10 points on his PD, 20 points on his REC, 25 points on his Stun, and 10 points on his attack (12d6 only costs 50 points)
By being able to grab and escape from grabs (special attack, special defense)
By throwing small, heavy things (~ EB)
By throwing large, heavy things (~ AoE EB)
By getting a 12" Superleap for free
By being able to lift heavy objects (~ Telekinesis, no range)
By being able to add his movement to damage

STR is an Elemental Control all by itself - and a very effective one, at that.

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

That assumes that decoupling them entirely is the correct course to take.

Metaphor: if you're piloting a ship at sea and notice that you're off course ten degrees to port, you adjust by steering ten degrees to starboard, not by "going on the way" and steering ninety degrees to starboard.

Nor do you adjust by steering 1 degree to starboard.

[Klaus Mogensen]

5 (Base) Points buys 1 DC is one of the HERO System's cornerstones and to change that would most likely not streamline the system at all and would become a massive, untested overhaul.


HTH attacks are 1 DC per 3 points
Martial Strike gets you 2 DC and +2 DCV for 4 points
Offensive Strike gets you 4 DV, +1 DCV and -2 OCV for 5 points

Unless these things have been changed in 5e, 5 points per +1 DC is not a cornerstone at all.

- Klaus

[CTaylor]

Strength, without any figs, is worth 1:1.

That's not exactly true: even without figured characteristics each 5 points of strength gives:
-1D6 of hand to hand damage (5 points)
-1" of leaping (1 point)
-x2 lifting (? points)
-1" of knockback resistance with 1/2DCV (2 points)
5 STR to escape from grabs (1 point in martial arts)

...and so on. Dumping figured characteristics doesn't fix the price issues with strength, so that's no argument to strip figured characteristics.

[CTaylor]

Unless these things have been changed in 5e, 5 points per +1 DC is not a cornerstone at all.

Um... 5 points/DC is a basic concept for Hero games. The fact that you can find other cost structures doesn't change that.

[Netzilla]

Just because an archetype like brick is abused in some campaigns (An experience I do not share) isn't evidence it's inherently suited for abuse. It may simply be evidence that certain types of players get a kick out of their character being überstrong and tough because it's fun to tear things apart with your bare hands, throw cars around, and generally wreak havoc while being tough enough to take enormous amounts of damage compared to other archetypes. IOW, it's probably just as likely some abusive players prefer bricks for those reasons as it would be that there's something wrong with the costing of STR. Abusers don't necessarily look for efficiency; that's only one type of abuse.

2008 will be my 26th year playing Champions and Hero; and I've seen every archetype abused and munchkinized. There's no reason my anecdotal evidence should trump yours, or vice versa.

My intent was not to suggest that my anecdotal evidence trumped anyone's. If you'll recall, the message I was responding to (as quoted in my message) made the claim that the poster had never seen bricks being over-powered. My point was that I'd been playing just as long, and I'd seen them over-powered plenty. Thus, his anecdotal evidence was no stronger than mine (or anyone else's). In other words, I was making the same point you just did.

[Trebuchet]

My intent was not to suggest that my anecdotal evidence trumped anyone's. If you'll recall, the message I was responding to (as quoted in my message) made the claim that the poster had never seen bricks being over-powered. My point was that I'd been playing just as long, and I'd seen them over-powered plenty. Thus, his anecdotal evidence was no stronger than mine (or anyone else's). In other words, I was making the same point you just did.My point was that I've seen every archetype over-powered, not just bricks. Anecdotal or not, the fact many other players don't see bricks as over-powered argues strongly against that as a general rule. I should also ask whether an archetype which by definition is stronger and tougher than most others is "over-powered" or simply designed to concept. How can they be too tough any more than a speedster could be "too fast"? We don't have character classes here; every character has to be examined both in absolute terms and in relation to the campaign they're played in.

The sheer number of heated debates on "Bricks vs. MAs" we've seen over the years with no clear conclusion is at least partial evidence that bricks are not out of line so far as effectiveness goes. (At one point we had a "Bricks are too effective" and a "Bricks are hopeless when fighting Martial Artists" going at the same time. :D )

[Netzilla]

I must have missed the response where you said that. And I thank you, too -- I was starting to wonder if anyone around here (except maybe Steve, who won't be making a decision for another year or so) was even willing to consider a solution other than decoupling, doubling the cost of STR, or leaving things as they are.

It was near the end of my comparison and not very explicitly stated, so I can see how you might have missed it. In general, there's probably too little willingness to compromise on a number of issues: Figured Chars, COM (not that there's much compromise room there), Decimal vs Fraction, Elemental Controls are too effective and so on. The sad thing is that a number of good compromises might be getting lost in the shuffle (your suggestion on halving the amount of Figureds you get, limiting Decimals to increments of 0.2, replacing Elemental Control with Elemental Link (-1/2)).

Unfortunately, too many of us (and I've gotten caught up in it too) all think we have the right solution and want to stick to our guns. Something to do with obsessive geek behavior, I suspect. ;)

I had one other suggestion, too, that is separate from but not mutually exclusive with halving the formulas: using BODY instead of STR to figure PD and REC. So far that's only had one (frankly rather derisive) response that I've seen.

Might work. Currently 10 STR gets you:
+2 PD (2 pts)
+2 REC (4 pts)
+5 Stun (5 pts)
+2" Leap (2 pts)
+2d6 Hand Attack (6 pts)
For a total of 19 pts (47% savings) plus Lifting, Grabbing & Bracing.

Cutting Figureds in half you get:
+1 PD (1 pt)
+1 REC (2 pts)
+ 2.5 Stun (2.5 pts)
+1" Leap (1 pt)
+2d6 Hand Attack (6 pts)
For a total of 12.5 pts (20% savings) plus Lifting, Grabbing & Bracing.

Moving PD & REC from STR to BOD gives you:
+5 Stun (5 pts)
+2" Leap (2 pts)
+2d6 Hand Attack (6 pts)
For a total of 13 pts (~23% savings) plus Lifting, Grabbing & Bracing.

I could see either of these working. Again, needs play-testing, but so does any significant change to the system.

If you do both, you end up with:
+ 2.5 Stun (2.5 pts)
+1" Leap (1 pt)
+2d6 Hand Attack (6 pts)
For a total of 9.5 pts (5% penalty) plus Lifting, Grabbing & Bracing. Might be too far toward decoupling to make those happy with the current system willing to consider it.

[Netzilla]

My point was that I've seen every archetype over-powered, not just bricks. Anecdotal or not, the fact many other players don't see bricks as over-powered argues strongly against that as a general rule.

The fact that many players have seen bricks as over-powered strongly suggests that there is a problem. I don't think that there's any strong indication that either side has numbers on their side. However, the complaints about STR being under-costed go back at least to 3rd edition. So, I have to wonder if all this smoke might mean that there's something smoldering out there.

Regardless, my point is that neither of us can claim that the other side's experiences are invalid or less ubiquitous than the other's.

I should also ask whether an archetype which by definition is stronger and tougher than most others is "over-powered" or simply designed to concept. How can they be too tough any more than a speedster could be "too fast"? We don't have character classes here; every character has to be examined both in absolute terms and in relation to the campaign they're played in.

I believe that most people here saying that bricks are "over-powered" are using that term as equivalent to "over-effective". You'll note that none of the arguments suggest that Bricks do too much damage or that their defenses are too high. The argument is that they get to save too many points, allowing them to be just as effective in combat, and even more so in other areas (assuming they spend the saved points on non-combat abilities).

The sheer number of heated debates on "Bricks vs. MAs" we've seen over the years with no clear conclusion is at least partial evidence that bricks are not out of line so far as effectiveness goes.

Maybe not vs Martial Artists (but see below). That says nothing about how Bricks balance vs other archetypes.

(At one point we had a "Bricks are too effective" and a "Bricks are hopeless when fighting Martial Artists" going at the same time. :D )

I've seen people complain about Martial Arts being too efficient (especially in regards to END and CV bonuses; not as much on damage), but I've seen that as a general complaint as compared to all other archetypes. Steve Long did suggest that Martial Arts maneuvers might need to be re-costed. Maybe they do. I've not said much on that issue as I've not personally run into it as often nor have I "researched" it any.

[JmOz]

My point was that I've seen every archetype over-powered, not just bricks. Anecdotal or not, the fact many other players don't see bricks as over-powered argues strongly against that as a general rule. I should also ask whether an archetype which by definition is stronger and tougher than most others is "over-powered" or simply designed to concept. How can they be too tough any more than a speedster could be "too fast"? We don't have character classes here; every character has to be examined both in absolute terms and in relation to the campaign they're played in.

The sheer number of heated debates on "Bricks vs. MAs" we've seen over the years with no clear conclusion is at least partial evidence that bricks are not out of line so far as effectiveness goes. (At one point we had a "Bricks are too effective" and a "Bricks are hopeless when fighting Martial Artists" going at the same time. :D )

I remember that, that was hillarious

[Hugh Neilson]

By saving 10 points on his PD, 20 points on his REC, 25 points on his Stun, and 10 points on his attack (12d6 only costs 50 points)

What prevents the energy projector selling back his STR? You start with 10 STR. You don't have to keep it. I consider REC and STUN to be overpriced at the outset, as I have said several times before. If they weren't, characters might occasionally buy up STUN and REC, rather than defenses, to enhance staying power in combat.

By being able to grab and escape from grabs (special attack, special defense)

1" teleport escapes grabs. The EB user puts an Entangle in his Multipower and "grabs" at range with no OCV or DCV penalty, as well as a fire & forget feature.

By throwing small, heavy things (~ EB)
By throwing large, heavy things (~ AoE EB)

As noted above, I am all in favour of reducing the efficiency of these tactics even further. The OCV penalties and requirement to grab (one attack action) then target and throw (second attack action) seem always to be overlooked when this example is given.

By getting a 12" Superleap for free

Again, I am in favour of removal of leaping from STR. But that EC generally holds Flight, for the same cost as an equivalent number of movement inches.

By being able to lift heavy objects (~ Telekinesis, no range)

Try spot welding a bridge with your STR. Works much better with an EB. Most abilities come with some SFX-related benefits.

By being able to add his movement to damage


I see those used on occasion, but it's common only to characters designed for it, most typically speedsters using movement rather than bricks using STR. I see Energy Blasts spread a lot more often than I see move throughs by Bricks. And the one player who does use them on occasion uses them when he's outside a half move as a desparation tactic, not out of an expectation of success.

STR is an Elemental Control all by itself - and a very effective one, at that.

STR is, after a fashion, a frameowrk. It comes with a nice cost discount, but no choice at all as to what slots will be placed in it. That makes it a tradeoff.

[James Gillen]

The sheer number of heated debates on "Bricks vs. MAs" we've seen over the years with no clear conclusion is at least partial evidence that bricks are not out of line so far as effectiveness goes. (At one point we had a "Bricks are too effective" and a "Bricks are hopeless when fighting Martial Artists" going at the same time. :D )

Now I remember why I HAVEN'T been participating in the gaming forums.

jg

[ajackson]

The sheer number of heated debates on "Bricks vs. MAs" we've seen over the years with no clear conclusion is at least partial evidence that bricks are not out of line so far as effectiveness goes.
That argument has to do with the fact that Dex is also overpowered. Strength and Dex are the big offenders among the stats.

[Kenn]

STR is too cheap, so bricks are too effective.

DEX and Martial Arts are too cheap, so speedsters and martial artists are too effective.

Variable Power Pools are too cheap, so gadgeteers and mages are too cheap.

Elemental Controls give to many cost breaks, so energy projectors and egoists are too effective.

Am I missing any?

[Trebuchet]

That argument has to do with the fact that Dex is also overpowered. Strength and Dex are the big offenders among the stats.Not exactly. The threads I mentioned attempted to prove that bricks were too powerful against martial artists or that martial artists were too effective against bricks. Now if those two Characteristics are overpowered as you say, shouldn't there have been corresponding threads about how poorly mentalists or energy projectors fare against bricks and/or martial artists?

STR and DEX are certainly common in one respect: In film and fiction, those are the two attributes heroes are most likely to have which are above average. This game system is not a simulation of reality; it is a system which attempts to recreate the characters and actions of heroic fiction. As such, I think STR and DEX are in fact appropriately priced.

[Trebuchet]

STR is too cheap, so bricks are too effective.

DEX and Martial Arts are too cheap, so speedsters and martial artists are too effective.

Variable Power Pools are too cheap, so gadgeteers and mages are too cheap.

Elemental Controls give to many cost breaks, so energy projectors and egoists are too effective.

Am I missing any?No, I think that just about covers it. Everything is way too cheap, so every archetype is too effective. I propose we solve this problem by a simple expedient: Double the cost of everything; then give characters 2X as many starting points. That should fix things perfectly. :winkgrin:

[BobGreenwade]

Might work. Currently 10 STR gets you:
+2 PD (2 pts)
+2 REC (4 pts)
+5 Stun (5 pts)
+2" Leap (2 pts)
+2d6 Hand Attack (6 pts)
For a total of 19 pts (47% savings) plus Lifting, Grabbing & Bracing.

Cutting Figureds in half you get:
+1 PD (1 pt)
+1 REC (2 pts)
+ 2.5 Stun (2.5 pts)
+1" Leap (1 pt)
+2d6 Hand Attack (6 pts)
For a total of 12.5 pts (20% savings) plus Lifting, Grabbing & Bracing.

Moving PD & REC from STR to BOD gives you:
+5 Stun (5 pts)
+2" Leap (2 pts)
+2d6 Hand Attack (6 pts)
For a total of 13 pts (~23% savings) plus Lifting, Grabbing & Bracing.

I could see either of these working. Again, needs play-testing, but so does any significant change to the system.

If you do both, you end up with:
+ 2.5 Stun (2.5 pts)
+1" Leap (1 pt)
+2d6 Hand Attack (6 pts)
For a total of 9.5 pts (5% penalty) plus Lifting, Grabbing & Bracing. Might be too far toward decoupling to make those happy with the current system willing to consider it.Personally I'm with the crowd (which I think is an overwhelming majority) that's agreeing with Steve's proposal to take away the Leaping benefit from STR as illogical, unrealistic, and unnecessary. And my proposal for halving the formulas didn't apply to STUN (nor to SPD), so there's really no mathematical difference to STR in doing that when PD and REC are moved to BODY.

But thanks for the work. It helps see my thoughts broken down into numbers. :)

[Markdoc]

And if you decouple those Characteristics from STR, *then* double its cost, it becomes that much less effective. :p

jg

Right: but I think the discussion is "either/or", not both. If you decouple figureds, then the Brick gets 12d6 (unranged) for 50 points plus some extra utility from grabbing, escape and lifting capacity vs 10d6 (ranged) for the blaster. That's much more balanced. The difference between them doesn't change much as they go up in points.

If you instead choose to go 2 points per, then for 50 points he only gets 7d6 vs 10d6. He can jump to 10d6 if he sells off the extra stun and leaping he gets for HA (I'm assuming HA moves up to 5 pts per dice to maintain parity with STR) - leaving him with a similar DC attack to the blaster. He lacks range but that's compensated to some extent by higher PD, REC and the advantages on grabbing, escape and lifting capacity. He's still comparable to the Blaster, but he's clearly more fragile than the current Brick design. In this setting as you move up to higher damage totals, relying on solely on STR becomes less effective. But then, I can't recall a game where any blaster ever bought their main attack straight up either - it was always packaged into some kind of framework or limited package.

Dropping both of those changes together would be unreasonably punitive, IMHO - but then I've never seen it seriously suggested. Either one alone can work, though.

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

I was specifically responding to the "bricks suck at range" argument; as evidenced by the post I quoted in my reply. Please be careful not to take my arguments out of context.

Please be careful to give more context.

[Vondy]

Double the cost of everything; then give characters 2X as many starting points. That should fix things perfectly. :winkgrin:

:thumbup:

[Hugh Neilson]

No, I think that just about covers it. Everything is way too cheap, so every archetype is too effective. I propose we solve this problem by a simple expedient: Double the cost of everything; then give characters 2X as many starting points. That should fix things perfectly. :winkgrin:

With the added benefit that we no longer have stats that cost 1/2 point - this seems to solve it! "You must spread REP around". sigh

Right: but I think the discussion is "either/or", not both. If you decouple figureds, then the Brick gets 12d6 (unranged) for 50 points plus some extra utility from grabbing, escape and lifting capacity vs 10d6 (ranged) for the blaster. That's much more balanced. The difference between them doesn't change much as they go up in points.

Again, what stops the EP from selling back his STR to pay a net of 50 points for his EB? 60 STR costs 60 points, but you get 10 by default. I wasn't for it initially, but the seeming inability to comprehend this evidenced by many posters is a good argument for starting everything at a 0 base. Then it's clear that 60 STR and a 12d6 EB have the same cost.

If you instead choose to go 2 points per, then for 50 points he only gets 7d6 vs 10d6. He can jump to 10d6 if he sells off the extra stun and leaping he gets for HA (I'm assuming HA moves up to 5 pts per dice to maintain parity with STR) - leaving him with a similar DC attack to the blaster. He lacks range but that's compensated to some extent by higher PD, REC and the advantages on grabbing, escape and lifting capacity. He's still comparable to the Blaster, but he's clearly more fragile than the current Brick design. In this setting as you move up to higher damage totals, relying on solely on STR becomes less effective. But then, I can't recall a game where any blaster ever bought their main attack straight up either - it was always packaged into some kind of framework or limited package.

Why would HA be 5 points per d6? An energy blast costs 5 points, comes with range and can be spread. A Hand attack gets no range and no spreading. Sure, it adds STR. That's because it's really STR with limitations (could buy "no PD, REC, grab, escape and lifting capacity"). An EP can buy +4d6 EB, no range, cannot be spread for much less than 20 points and the damage will add to his existing energy blast.

I would be inclined to ditch Hand Attack entirely and simply provide it as an example of limited STR.

[Klaus Mogensen]

What prevents the energy projector selling back his STR? You start with 10 STR. You don't have to keep it. I consider REC and STUN to be overpriced at the outset, as I have said several times before. If they weren't, characters might occasionally buy up STUN and REC, rather than defenses, to enhance staying power in combat.
If the energy projector wants to be so physically weak that he can't lift a child, then he can buy back his STR. IME, I haven't seen that happen, except once when a character had STR 8 (which gives almost the same figureds as STR 10). In fact, more energy projectors IME buy their STR to 13 or 18 because of the nice figureds.

1" teleport escapes grabs. The EB user puts an Entangle in his Multipower and "grabs" at range with no OCV or DCV penalty, as well as a fire & forget feature.
You can't buy just 1" teleport. And if the energy projector is forced to put both Teleport and Entangle into a framework to get something like what the brick gets just from buying STR, then it soon becomes expensive. MP/EC slots are cheap, but not free.

While a brick can't fire-and-forget with his grab, he has options that Entangle doesn't give: He can squeeze for damage, or he can throw his opponent at a wall or even at another opponent.

Try spot welding a bridge with your STR. Works much better with an EB. Most abilities come with some SFX-related benefits.
In the comics, it is not rare to see bricks squeeze-welding girders or tying cables into knots. Different SFX, same results.
BTW, try spot-welding a bridge with a cold-based EB. ;)

STR is, after a fashion, a frameowrk. It comes with a nice cost discount, but no choice at all as to what slots will be placed in it. That makes it a tradeoff.
Very true. However, I think that right now, the tradeoff is a no-brainer with all the benefits you get. You yourself argue that throwing should be made less effective and Superleap should be removed as a figured. I just want to go a bit further by removing all figureds (but in return leave throwing alone).

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[Hugh Neilson]

A comment on the "bump the cost of DEX" theory. Let's assume we dump the SPD figured, but keep the cost of DEX at 3 points. Let's further assume everyone spends the same points, so they drop their purchased DEX by 1/3, more or less (they'll buy up or round down any fractions based on breakpoints - that's a 2 point investment at most). What happens?

15 DEX becomes 14 DEX - still 5 CV
18 DEX becomes 16 DEX - 6 CV falls to 5 CV
20 DEX becomes 17 DEX - 7 CV falls to 6 CV
23 DEX becomes 18 DEX - 8 CV falls to 6 CV
26 DEX becomes 20 DEX - 9 CV falls to 7 CV
30 DEX becomes 23 DEX - 10 CV falls to 8 CV
33 DEX becomes 26 DEX - 11 CV falls to 9 CV
35 DEX becomes 26 DEX - 12 CV falls to 9 CV

At the very peak, characters lose 3 CV. Typical Supers will lose 2 CV. The very slowest will lose 1 CV. The difference in combat will not be all that significant. Why? Because DEX is a relative stat. If every character in the game dropped 12 points off their DEX, they would still have exactly the same chance of hitting, or being hit by, every other character in the game.

DEX is inflated because the 1st Ed sample characters assumed a typical Super would have a DEX of 18 - 23 (well above the 10 base score) instead of 8 - 12 (hovering around the 8 - 12 base score). Most players followed that theory, so we end up with the "typical Brick is as agile as an olympic gymnast" result we see today.

[Klaus Mogensen]

STR is too cheap, so bricks are too effective.

DEX and Martial Arts are too cheap, so speedsters and martial artists are too effective.

Variable Power Pools are too cheap, so gadgeteers and mages are too cheap.

Elemental Controls give to many cost breaks, so energy projectors and egoists are too effective.

Am I missing any?
Nice argument. :)

However, I think that the fact that most energy projectors buy some extra STR and that most bricks buy up their DEX quite a lot suggests that these characteristics are a universally good deal.

I also think that the reason why Martial Arts has been made so cheap is that otherwise people would just buy STR and DEX instead, because these are great deals.

I don't like ECs much, but that's not so much because they are cost breaks, but because they aren't anything but cost breaks. MPs and VPPs, while also being good cost breaks, at least add some features and limitations in that you can't use all the powers at the same time. Anyway, the Frameworks thread discusses these things.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[BobGreenwade]

You can't buy just 1" teleport.Yes, you can. There's no rule forbidding it, and many published builds use Teleportation 1".

[Netzilla]

Personally I'm with the crowd (which I think is an overwhelming majority) that's agreeing with Steve's proposal to take away the Leaping benefit from STR as illogical, unrealistic, and unnecessary. And my proposal for halving the formulas didn't apply to STUN (nor to SPD), so there's really no mathematical difference to STR in doing that when PD and REC are moved to BODY.

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. Still, just moving PD & REC over to Body would probably be enough to better balance STR. I think CON & Body work fine as is. While both have an important non-Figured function (resistance to Stunning and resistance to Dying respectively) those two effects are so narrow in effect & application that they don't approach the non-figured bennies offered by STR & DEX. In your 1/2 Figured proposal, are you including CV as a Figured? I've been assuming not. If not, then I'd still rather see SPD decoupled from DEX rather than seeing its contribution halved. That just doesn't seem like enough of a change.

Let's see, if we move PD & REC over to Body, divorce Leaping from STR, divorce SPD from DEX and leave everything else as-is, you'd end up with:

10 STR (10 pts)
* +2d6 HA (6 pts)
* +5 Stun (5 pts)
For a total of 11 pts (10% savings) plus Lifting, Grabbing & Bracing

10 CON (20 pts)
* +2 ED (2 pts)
* +2 REC (4 pts)
* +20 END (10 pts)
* +5 Stun (5 pts)
Total = 21 (5% savings) plus resistance to Stunning

10 Body (20 pts)
* +2 PD (2 pts)
* +2 REC (4 pts)
* +10 Stun (10 pts)
Total = 16 pts (40% penalty) plus resistance to Death (and Impairment/Disabling if using those rules)

15 DEX (45 pts)
* +5 OCV (25 pts)
* +5 DCV (25 pts)
* +15 Init (10 pts based on Lightning Reflexes)
* +3 w/ all DEX based skills (15 pts)
Total = 75 pts (~67% savings).
* If CSLs to OCV/DCV were reduced to 3 per then it's 55 pts (~22% savings) -> this would be my preference

15 EGO (30 pts)
* +5 EOCV (25 pts)
* +5 EDCV (25 pts)
Total = 50 pts (~67% savings) plus resistance to Mental/Presence Attacks
* If CSLs to OCV/DCV were reduced to 3 per then it's 30 pts (0% savings) plus resistances. -> again, I'd prefer this

10 INT (10 pts)
* +2 levels with INT skills (10 pts)
* +2 levels with Perception (4 pts)
Total = 14 pts (40% savings)
* If you divorce Perception, then it's no savings. -> I'm largely ambivalent as INT offers no other bonuses.

10 PRE (10 pts)
* +2 w/ all PRE Skills (10 pts)
Total = 10 pts (0%) plus +2d6 PRE Attacks & resistance to PRE Attacks.

10 COM (5 pts)
* +2 w/ PRE Skills (10 AP), RSR COM Roll w/ no AP penalty (-1/4), Only vs those influenced by looks (-1/4) (~7 pts)
Total = ~7 pts (40% savings)

Overall, I'd say the stats to end up balancing better against each other with the above changes. Probably not exactly what you were thinking of but I like it anyway. :)

But thanks for the work. It helps see my thoughts broken down into numbers. :)

No sweat. I'm a number-cruncher by nature.

[Paragon]

And if you decouple those Characteristics from STR, *then* double its cost, it becomes that much less effective. :p

jg

I don't recall seeing anyone suggest doing both; in most of the arguments I've seen its an either/or suggestion.

[Paragon]

Wouldn't halving the amount STR and CON contribute to Figured Characteristics do the same thing, only without screwing Active Point caps?

I have the same objection to this that I do to decoupling in the first place; I don't think it represents the relationship properly at that point for default cases.

[Paragon]

I'm well aware of what he gets, and I'm telling you not everything is in the raw numbers. I've been running this game for two decades now. I've been on the boards since the bad old days. I've seen all the number crunching. You aren't making an argument I haven't heard a score of times before. None of the accounting complaints have ever played out at run time - in any game I've run or played in. The actual edge it gives the brick is minimal. Most of what he gets is passive. With the exception of PD and STN everything else you mentioned is bupkis. At the DC disparity this introduces he wont ever get a recovery. He will be out of the fight before he gets a post-12 and when you are outgunned that much stopping to recover is seldom an option.



And I'm arguing that the edge is significant, and we're playing the time game, I've been involved with Hero since technically it wasn't even Hero yet. As I said, if there's a character build I ever saw with significant slack outside its basic operating procedure, it was a brick. So if we're going to compare experiences, I don't see mine as more or less valid than yours.

That being the case, we effectively can talk the numbers or talk nothing. Which would you like?


There are a few key metrics outweigh other factors in combat and a few meta-rules that are critical to balance. One of the biggest is 5 Points = 1DC. You've doubled the cost of the bricks damage classes and that means, very



This just means you need to assess the damage component of their contribution seperate from the overall cost of the Strength. I don't see that as any great evil; its not like there aren't cases within the rules where you need to do that anyway to get a sane result (you get a ridiculously overstated value of an attack power if you count its Reduced END in that caluculation, since you could get the same amount of functionality without changing the AP by buying an End Reserve for the power without changing its its Active Points from its base value at all).


I don't buy it. I won't buy it. The system has mechanisms other concepts can



That's your choice, but don't expect me to change my opinion because of arguments like the above.


As it is the balance issues in the system are minimal and easily dealt with by the GM. The nested points the brick gains are offset by the presence of No


I can bloody well guarentee they aren't easily dealt with in heroic games.



dice. I ain't going for it.

Your choice.

[Paragon]

So, we've gone from he has a signficant advantage to he's not coming off that bad? Maybe he's not really that imbalanced.

In superheroic games it's _not_ that imbalanced; to some extent the very clutter caused by power frameworks and other design features tends to kick enough dirt over everything that its less than clear-cut, though I stand by my opinion if anyone is going to find free points to play with after its all said and done, its the brick.

But the moment you hit a game where powers aren't present on most characters, there's serious balance issues between anyone who invests seriously in Strength and anyone who doesn't, and superheroes aren't the whole of the Hero System.

[Markdoc]

Again, what stops the EP from selling back his STR to pay a net of 50 points for his EB? 60 STR costs 60 points, but you get 10 by default. I wasn't for it initially, but the seeming inability to comprehend this evidenced by many posters is a good argument for starting everything at a 0 base. Then it's clear that 60 STR and a 12d6 EB have the same cost.

What's not to comprehend? Of course that's the case. But as to the blaster selling back his STR, how many characters do you know of with a STR of 0? None? They'd be literally unable to move around without the use of powers. It's more common to see blasters in the STR 20-40 range. You could change the system to make it so, no doubt, but currently 60 STR and 12d6 EB do NOT in fact have the same cost. We're talking about 2 DC, so I don't see it as a big deal, but there's no denying that that's how it is currently.

Why would HA be 5 points per d6? An energy blast costs 5 points, comes with range and can be spread. A Hand attack gets no range and no spreading. Sure, it adds STR. That's because it's really STR with limitations (could buy "no PD, REC, grab, escape and lifting capacity").

I assume the cost of HA would change for exactly the reason you state - it's really a form of limited STR, and changing the cost of STR would therefore also suggest a change in the cost of HA. It can't be spread, but it can be swept and added to STR-based maneuvers such as haymaker and it brings us back to the 1DC/5 points paradigm and prevents the need for workarounds to avoid things like HA (usable at range, +1/2) 5 pts/DC.

STR already breaks that 5 pts/1 DC paradigm, because it's actually 5 pts - 5.5 pts in Figured = 1 DC.

An EP can buy +4d6 EB, no range, cannot be spread for much less than 20 points and the damage will add to his existing energy blast.

Unranged attacks obviously cannot be spread, so you get no extra limit for that - so you are essentially paying 3 points/per for some extra d6 of EB that you can only add to your EB in HTH combat. I'm not seeing how that's different to limiting HA - say HA (OIF, Incredibulium Gauntlets), also 3 points per d6. That costs the same as your example and also adds to damage, as in your example.

cheers, Mark

[ajackson]

This just means you need to assess the damage component of their contribution separate from the overall cost of the Strength.
There's actually some decent logic for doing exactly that. One of the flexibility problems with bricks is that, if you want to do something other than punch, you either pay for two different attacks (your strength and your attack multipower) or you toss your strength into your attack multipower (in which case your carrying capacity suddenly plummets if you use the non-Strength attack ability).

If, on the other hand, we simply buy the damage component of strength separately, you can just put your strength damage into your attack multipower, like any other attack. This may result in some cognitive dissonance (what do you mean, strength doesn't do damage?) but there is a certain balancing logic.

[Kenn]

how many characters do you know of with a STR of 0? None? They'd be literally unable to move around without the use of powers. It's more common to see blasters in the STR 20-40 range.

If you've never seen a character with a STR of 0, then ANY thing you have seen once is "more common."

That said, there is one character in the RCU who has a natural STR of zero. Granted her robot body gives her 50 STR for functional use, but her actual STR is zero.

But as far as blasters in the 20-40 range being "common"... Not in my experience. Yes it happens. But at least my gaming world most blasters have STR in the 10-18 category.

But this goes back to what I said yesterday. We each have had different experiences but with same toolkit.

But no matter how much you argue about the math, it doesn't change that for 20 years, for me and my friends the way the figured characteristics work THEY HAVE WORKED AND WORKED WELL. I don't know what we're doing differently that some of you haven't been doing.

[Markdoc]

If, on the other hand, we simply buy the damage component of strength separately, you can just put your strength damage into your attack multipower, like any other attack. This may result in some cognitive dissonance (what do you mean, strength doesn't do damage?) but there is a certain balancing logic.

The cognitive dissonance is too great. I don't want to deal with games where a hugely strong brick, whose massive biceps are dense enough that they have noticeable gravitational effects, who can lift a battleship over his head ..... can't pull an old lady out of her walker, because "The old B***h was holding on"

There is a point at which the quest for simplicity folds on its own internal axis and becomes simply absurdist and we don't want to go there.

cheers, Mark

[Paragon]

There's actually some decent logic for doing exactly that. One of the flexibility problems with bricks is that, if you want to do something other than punch, you either pay for two different attacks (your strength and your attack multipower) or you toss your strength into your attack multipower (in which case your carrying capacity suddenly plummets if you use the non-Strength attack ability).

If, on the other hand, we simply buy the damage component of strength separately, you can just put your strength damage into your attack multipower, like any other attack. This may result in some cognitive dissonance (what do you mean, strength doesn't do damage?) but there is a certain balancing logic.

Well, that wasn't quite what I meant, though you have a certain point; what you really need is the ability, in some cases, to do what you might consider a "fractional" multipower off the damage component of Strength to get value out of it when you're doing something else.

What I meant, though, was that in terms of damage DCs, you really shouldn't consider the whole cost of Strength in that if you charge 2/rank, because the whole cost isn't damage. Apparently that wasn't what Von D-Man was talking about though, from his later responses, but it appeared so at the time.

[ajackson]

The cognitive dissonance is too great. I don't want to deal with games where a hugely strong brick, whose massive biceps are dense enough that they have noticeable gravitational effects, who can lift a battleship over his head ..... can't pull an old lady out of her walker, because "The old B***h was holding on"
Huh? That's not what I was proposing. He just can't actually hurt her with his massive strength, which I admit is also weird, but it's not the same weird as your idea.

[James Gillen]

I don't recall seeing anyone suggest doing both; in most of the arguments I've seen its an either/or suggestion.

As Markdoc said. But Steve's current proposal seems to be: Decouple the Figureds, leave base costs as they are. If we're assuming that decoupling Figureds will happen (I'd personally prefer to keep Figureds) then the argument is what happens when we double STR cost. Most of the rebuttals to doubling STR don't even consider the costs for removing the Figured stats *in addition* but the results are bad enough, as VDM explained. There are exactly two genres where you would need more than 20 STR for anything: Fantasy (where warriors wield powerful weapons and heavy armor) and Superhero (where we have Bricks). And in Fantasy we (currently) have Normal Characteristic Maxima, and even considering that a warrior might be able to afford 30 points to boost his STR to 30 (or, if we make STR 2 points in all circumstances, 30 points would still buy a 25 STR).

So at that point, even with higher costs, what's to prevent a Fantasy character from buying STR of 25 or more? Answer: The same thing that prevents you from buying a "normal human" 25 STR in an Espionage or Science Fiction game. ;)

JG

[James Gillen]

What's not to comprehend? Of course that's the case. But as to the blaster selling back his STR, how many characters do you know of with a STR of 0? None? They'd be literally unable to move around without the use of powers. It's more common to see blasters in the STR 20-40 range. You could change the system to make it so, no doubt, but currently 60 STR and 12d6 EB do NOT in fact have the same cost. We're talking about 2 DC, so I don't see it as a big deal, but there's no denying that that's how it is currently.

There's also the fact that everybody has 10 STR (well, 8). As you say, the only way to "equalize" it would be for the 12d6 Blaster to buy his STR down to 0. But that's because everybody has that much STR; not too many people have 12d6 Energy Blast. We might as well pay 25 points for Normal Sight because the game system determines that's how many points you get for being blind.

Again: buying a Characteristic (even if it happens to be the base for HTH damage) to superhuman levels simply means buying more of that Characteristic. Buying An Energy Blast or an Enhanced Sense is buying a capability no normal human could have. The first is a difference of scale, the second of kind. That's not "fair" but that's also not the point.

JG

[Paragon]

As Markdoc said. But Steve's current proposal seems to be: Decouple the Figureds, leave base costs as they are. If we're assuming that decoupling Figureds will happen (I'd personally prefer to keep Figureds) then the argument is what happens when we double STR cost.



Well, I've not been arguing to do it if you're going to decouple figureds. If you do that I think Strength is fine and Con is too expensive and should be made cheaper.


and heavy armor) and Superhero (where we have Bricks). And in Fantasy we (currently) have Normal Characteristic Maxima, and even considering that a warrior might be able to afford 30 points to boost his STR to 30 (or, if we make STR 2 points in all circumstances, 30 points would still buy a 25 STR).

So at that point, even with higher costs, what's to prevent a Fantasy character from buying STR of 25 or more? Answer: The same thing that prevents you from buying a "normal human" 25 STR in an Espionage or Science Fiction game. ;)

JG

It isn't superhuman Strength in Fantasy games that's the problem, but that virtually _everyone_ gets enough benefit to taking it up to normal maximum (in fact, this is largely true in any heroic game with combat, though in some SF games it becomes less true because they're _so_ gun-centric).

[Markdoc]

That said, there is one character in the RCU who has a natural STR of zero. Granted her robot body gives her 50 STR for functional use, but her actual STR is zero.

So actually, she has a STR of 50. Saying "I personally have a STR of 0, but my body has a STR of 50" is just special effects. Now if we look around you can probably find a few characters with STR 0. BUt it's certainly not a common option, or even an unusual one. It's damned rare.

But as far as blasters in the 20-40 range being "common"... Not in my experience. Yes it happens. But at least my gaming world most blasters have STR in the 10-18 category.

Actually the numbers you posted from your own game* on the STR thread showed that well over half (265) of all the characters and NPCs had 20+ STR, while fewer than a quarter had less than 15. The breakdown at STR 30 (a common breakpoint for blaster in my experience) shows that sligh