STR discussion

[RadeFox]

From the Thread Yamo started about plate mail being overly effective, I saw an interesting idea. Keeping in mind the core rule for Hero, the more USEFUL something is, the MORE points you pay. A Disad that never come into play, you get 0 pts. DEX, used for loads of stuff, you pay 3 per 1. The idea briefly posed and lost in the thread was this:

STR could cost 2 pts per 1 STR bought.

Thinking on how MUCH more useful in a FH setting STR is (Not too mention its cascade effect into secondary stats!), then in just about any other setting, I sort of like this idea. So I put it forth to all us assembled Hero players and GM's, what do you think of this idea, bearing in mind the 'spirit of Hero' rules ideas.

[Derek Hiemforth]

This is an extremely old, well-worn, and controversial idea, with embittered, battle-scarred veterans on each side of the issue, climbing towers and taking hostages.

Well, okay, maybe it's not quite THAT bad. But it's close. ;)

Just trying to give you an idea of what you're in for, RadeFox.

In a nutshell, STR makes more sense mathematically at 1.5 pts. or 2 pts. per point of STR, and for heroic-level games, it's probably more play-balanced at that cost as well. However, many (most?) people don't want it changed, because it disrupts many other cost relationships in the system, makes older material harder to use, makes software harder to use, etc.

Let the bloodshed commence. ;)

[sbarron]

It was a hassle, and it took some leaning on my part, but I now have a HD template with Str costing 2 for 1. I haven't decided whether I will ever go with it or not, but I like the idea. We'll see...

[Old Man]

I am firmly of the opinion that STR should cost at least 2 per pt., if not 3, particularly in heroic-level games. In Champions STR is already too undercosted; in FH it also determines your melee and ranged damage and (in FREd) your rPD. Right now STR is so cheap that it makes absolutely no sense not to buy it; even "wimpy" mages gain nothing from selling it back.

[GamePhil]

Oh, it's that bad. I think enough people are tired of it to let it drop, though.

It is a more complex issue than it first appears, or it used to be. It's akin to giving you an EC of abilities: you get a cost break for having a tight concept, the cost break being built into the rules. So its cost never bothered me back then.

Now that EC's have restrictions, it bothers me a bit: no one else has access to the same unrestricted cost break that STR gives you (there's more to that, including some opinions on when to use the restrictions and when not to, but that's not topical). So, I could see circumstances that would warrant increasing its cost. But I also see circumstances where it should not increase, and 4 points per point over 20 seems excessive to me.

I like the idea of adding a Usefulness Advantage/Limitation to the game. If STR is particularly effective, give it a +1 Advantage, and like that. That would be sufficient to cover my needs.

Anyway, enough of my babbling. Good luck, and keep your head down.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Old Man
even "wimpy" mages gain nothing from selling it back.

I can make great use of the 2 points gained from having an 8 STR while losing nothing I actually want, personally.

[Yamo]

Is STR too expensive?

Well, it's hard to look at a complete breakdown of what a one-point investment in STR nets you and not conclude that you're getting a lot more than one point's worth of effectiveness.

Personally, I think one-point STR is the Champions legacy holding HERO as a whole back as a universal system. STR costs 1/1 because STR always cost 1/1. But really, the supers genre is the really the only one where players are going to need to generate Superman and Incredible Hulk clones on a regular basis with limited point totals. Better to just make them pay a lot of points for a lot of effectiveness than to nerf all the other genres by making STR cheaper than dirt.

My hope is that Hero Games will do the right thing for 6th Edition and realize that a slight loss of backwards compatability and inconvienience to Champions brick fans (who, incidentally, would still have a VERY viable and powerful character concept on their hands) is more than worth it to sand this most annoying of warts off the system and make the game the best it can be in the here and now. Legacy concepts can be a good thing, but they can also mire you in the mistakes of the past if you don't have the courage to hold them to strict standards of contemporary usefulness at all times.

I don't think 1/1 STR is an asset to the system as a whole.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Yamo
Well, it's hard to look at a complete breakdown of what a one-point investment in STR nets you and not conclude that you're getting a lot more than one point's worth of effectiveness.
A 1 point investment in STR nets you... +1 STUN. That is really all you get out of it. It gives you no extra damage, no extra defense, no extra recovery. Just +1 STUN. Oh yeah, you get to pick up 20 more kilos too. :)

[Yamo]

A 1 point investment in STR nets you... +1 STUN. That is really all you get out of it. It gives you no extra damage, no extra defense, no extra recovery. Just +1 STUN. Oh yeah, you get to pick up 20 more kilos too.

A wiseguy, eh? Why I oughta... ;)

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Yamo
But really, the supers genre is the really the only one where players are going to need to generate Superman and Incredible Hulk clones on a regular basis with limited point totals.
Ever here of characters like Samson? Heracles? Theseus? Sir Gwaine? Many classic fantasy characters have super-human strength. I could name equally similar characters for the pulp genre. Superhuman strength is not just a comic book concept.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Yamo
[B]My hope is that Hero Games will do the right thing for 6th Edition

That's certainly my hope. We may have a difference of opinion on the details, though :)

[Monolith]

Personally, I would rather see Figured Characteristics divorced from Primary Characteristics before I would want to see STR increased to 2 points. That would seem to make more sense to me in the overall.

[Yamo]

Ever here of characters like Samson? Heracles? Theseus? Sir Gwaine?

Well, obviously if your GM is having you make up Greek demigods and other characters from myth and legend as PCs, he's going to be allowing you Champions-level point totals. So, as has been shown multiple times in these debates, the brick concept is still perfectly viable (and STRONG) with those kinds of point totals, even at 2/1 cost. Nice try, though. :)

Again, the problem is Heroic games. Cheap STR is only a problem when you're dealing with relatively low (say 150 or less) point total characters. If you're building Superman, Heracles and Doc Savage wannabes, you'll have more than enough points to make them properly buff, even at a 2/1 STR cost.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Monolith
Ever here of characters like Samson? Heracles? Theseus? Sir Gwaine? Many classic fantasy characters have super-human strength. I could name equally similar characters for the pulp genre. Superhuman strength is not just a comic book concept.

Of course it isn't. But the way STR costs right now, half the party is going to have superhuman strength because it is without question the most combat effectiveness you can buy for ten points, unless you are playing a mage.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Yamo
Well, obviously if your GM is having you make up Greek demigods and other characters from myth and legend as PCs, he's going to be allowing you Champions-level point totals. So, as has been shown multiple times in these debates, the brick concept is still perfectly viable (and STRONG) with those kinds of point totals, even at 2/1 cost. Nice try, though. :)
My GM does not limit character concepts in any fashion. If you can build it on 150 points you can pretty much have it. The whole point of the HERO System is to be able to play the types of characters you want to play, not limit yourself to a simple class system of play.

I do not play much Fantasy Hero (not a huge fantasy fan) but I have played in games which included a demi-god and a hero who was dipped in the River Styx. If you can dream it, you should be allowed to do it. :)

[Old Man]

Originally posted by GamePhil
I can make great use of the 2 points gained from having an 8 STR while losing nothing I actually want, personally.

I can make just as good use out of the 2 points I gained by selling off one point of STR and one point of STUN, personally. Better, if the STR mins don't come down on the breakpoints.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Old Man
Of course it isn't. But the way STR costs right now, half the party is going to have superhuman strength because it is without question the most combat effectiveness you can buy for ten points, unless you are playing a mage.
Maybe in the games that you play, but in the games I play players build their characters based on character concept, not power-crunching. Our TE game, for example, has 1 character with a 20 STR (the Heavy), 2 characters with a 15 STR (a Mon'dabi and a Catavalan), 1 character with a 13 STR (the captain), and 2 characters with 10 STR. No one was in a mad rush to buy STR because it is point-effective.

[Yamo]

The whole point of the HERO System is to be able to play the types of characters you want to play, not limit yourself to a simple class system of play.

Yes, but if the character you want to play is essentially a superhero or a demigod, I fail to see why you should feel you have a right to be able to build him with 150 points or less, even it it means making his primary ability (STR) radically undercosted and every other character in the campign with a different concept drastically less effective.

You can do whatever you want in HERO, but you should still get what you pay for, no less and certainly no more.


Maybe in the games that you play, but in the games I play players build their characters based on character concept, not power-crunching.

Unfair.

The players just want to be treated fairly by the system; for their X points to "spend" just like the next guy's and buy them a corresponding level of effectiveness at whatever their specialty is.

It's not fair to accuse a player of twinking or cast aspersions on his roleplaying ability just because he wants equal ability under the system when compared to a character with the same number of points and an arbitrarily undercosted schtick.

That is not unreasonable. It's basic fairness.

[Lord Liaden]

I've used STR at 1/1 for superheroic games, and 2/1 for heroic level games for many years, and been very satisfied with it. The only problem would come from character creation software, which with my still being a pen-and-paper character sheet dinosaur, has never been an issue for me. If we could come up with character software that had the option of changing the cost of Characteristics, the issue might be less controversial. Still, published heroic characters rarely have enough STR to make changing the cost for my campaign difficult.

For superheroic campaigns, I like that five points of STR does 1D6 damage, and uses 1 END per 10 AP, just like other offensive Powers. All the other benefits of STR compensate for the fact that STR has no Range (other than throwing things, which has its own limitations) and cannot be spread. It's not a perfect balance, but IMHO it's close enough to fit within the conventions of the genre.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Old Man
Of course it isn't. But the way STR costs right now, half the party is going to have superhuman strength because it is without question the most combat effectiveness you can buy for ten points, unless you are playing a mage.

I'll question it. I can easily imagine campaigns where that is categorically not true. Energy weapons and force fields have been invented: I'll take my 5 levels with Death Ray over the 10 STR. A game where stealth and covert action win the day rather than brute force (if you get hit, your dead, it doesn't matter how tough you are: you have to sneak up on the enemy). Mental powers based games. And so on.

It's universal. There are always going to be times when any point of view is in error.

The point: this is a complex issue with no clear cut answer. I'd just want flexibility. I don't really mind if the cost were to go up. I also don't see the need for it. As long as an easy adjustment is added, I'm golden. Probably not a good material to be made out of for defense, though.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Old Man
I can make just as good use out of the 2 points I gained by selling off one point of STR and one point of STUN, personally. Better, if the STR mins don't come down on the breakpoints.

Well, actually the character I was referring to also sold back several points of END, and therefore couldn't sell back Stun. But what he *could* do was sell back another, useless, point of STR without losing anything but that self-same point.

Hello, I'm gamephil, and I am a powergamer.

But, as you prefer. Since you were the one saying that even mages wouldn't sell the points back, I fail to see how this statement supports your initial claim.

It is a good discussion so far, though.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Monolith
Maybe in the games that you play, but in the games I play players build their characters based on character concept, not power-crunching.

Now, now, Mono, nothing wrong with power-crunching. Get the most bang for your buck, I say.

I just disagree that STR is consistently the way to do it, and, inasmuch as the most effective thing to buy is based on concept, I can agree with you.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Yamo
It's not fair to accuse a player of twinking or cast aspersions on his roleplaying ability just because he wants equal ability under the system when compared to a character with the same number of points and an arbitrarily undercosted schtick.
As I stated in the other thread, the HERO System does not guarantee equality just because two characters are built on the same point totals. D&D does not guarantee equality with all characters starting out at 1st level either. It is only the players who have some false delusion that everything must be equal. One player, for example, buying 10 Levels with Sword is going to be much tougher than another character who spends those 30 points on a 30 STR (10 levels with sword equals +5 DC added to an attack). There is no equality when just looking at point totals.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by GamePhil
Now, now, Mono, nothing wrong with power-crunching. Get the most bang for your buck, I say.
In a game where the rules state that the most expensive way to buy something is the correct way, power-crunching must be bad. :)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Monolith
In a game where the rules state that the most expensive way to buy something is the correct way, power-crunching must be bad. :)

Most expensive of two equally valid ways. So, as long as your crunching valid powers, it's good. ;)

[Yamo]

As I stated in the other thread, the HERO System does not guarantee equality just because two characters are built on the same point totals.

No, but it usually at least embraces balance as an ideal and attempts to encourage it, even if nothing is perfect. STR needs a change for that reason alone, I'd say.

Would you approve of RKA costing 60 points/DC and Energy Blast costing 5 simply because "Oh well. There's no real guarantee of balance anyway, so what does it matter?"

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Yamo
No, but it usually at least embraces balance as an ideal and attempts to encourage it, even if nothing is perfect. STR needs a change for that reason alone, I'd say.
Then the best thing to do is what Lord Liaden has done and change it for your own game. There is a very big difference between "I do not like it, it should be changed for all" and "I do not like it, so I will change it for myself."

[Yamo]

Then the best thing to do is what Lord Liaden has done and change it for your own game. There is a very big difference between "I do not like it, it should be changed for all" and "I do not like it, so I will change it for myself."

There's also a very big difference between "I do not like it" and "It is a system flaw."

DEX costing 1/1 would be a system flaw. COM costing 9/1 would be a system flaw. STR costing 1/1 is a system flaw.

Why?

It's objectively provable that you get numeric benefit in excess of numeric cost. A drastic amount in excess, in this case.

That's demonstrably true. How can it not be a flaw?

Fix it, then encourage people to change it if they want. Don't leave it broken and then encourage them to fix it. That's not good game design. It's completely bass-ackwards.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Monolith
Then the best thing to do is what Lord Liaden has done and change it for your own game. There is a very big difference between "I do not like it, it should be changed for all" and "I do not like it, so I will change it for myself."

Let's put it to a vote! We live in a Democracy. One man, one vote. Steve Long is the man. He has the vote.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Yamo
There's also a very big difference between "I do not like it" and "It is a system flaw."
It seems to me that something should be considered a "system flaw" when the majority of players find it to be in error, not when the minority do.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by GamePhil
Let's put it to a vote! We live in a Democracy. One man, one vote. Steve Long is the man. He has the vote.
Just to be fair, all the partners in DOJ should get a vote. :)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Monolith
Just to be fair, all the partners in DOJ should get a vote. :)

Perhaps, but that wouldn't sound right: 4 Men, 4 Votes? Or however many it is, 4 sounds right.

Besides, just take a look in that section at the top of the Forum list. Whose name is on all the replies?

[Yamo]

It seems to me that something should be considered a "system flaw" when the majority of players find it to be in error, not when the minority do.

It's not populism, it's mathematics. You spend X points and you get Y benefit where Y = > X.

Since the HERO ideal is getting what you pay for, that's clearly a flaw. Just because some flaws are inevitable is no excuse not to correct the known ones.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Yamo
It's not populism, it's mathematics. You spend X points and you get Y benefit where Y = > X.
It is always populism. If the majority do not see it as broken, then to please the majority you should not change it. If you change it they become the minority. Making your majority your minority is never a wise thing. Just ask the Fusion guys about that. :)

[Monolith]

Originally posted by GamePhil
Besides, just take a look in that section at the top of the Forum list. Whose name is on all the replies?
Ok, you win. Steve Long gets to make the decision. :)

[Yamo]

It is always populism. If the majority do not see it as broken, then to please the majority you should not change it. If you change it they become the minority. Making your majority your minority is never a wise thing. Just ask the Fusion guys that.

But even if that were so, you've yet to prove the existance of a majority that would care strongly either way, which leaves us both on equal footing in that regard as of this moment in time.

Touche. ;)

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Yamo
But even if that were so, you've yet to prove the existance of a majority that would care strongly either way, which leaves us both on equal footing in that regard as of this moment in time.
I have seen about a 5-6 of these discussion come up over the last year. I have yet to see more than a dozen people demand that it be changed to 2 points. Overall though, the rule is not going to be changed unless Steve Long (or whomever is in charge during 6th edition) feels that the fanbase has a decided interest in seeing it changed. I think Steve has learned his lession from Damage Shield. :)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Yamo
It's not populism, it's mathematics. You spend X points and you get Y benefit where Y = > X.

Looking solely at the mathematics gives you a skewed perception. Yes, you get back 11 points for buying 10 STR. 11 points you probably wouldn't have bought otherwise. It's kind of like buying something at a 2 for 1 sale just because it's 2 for 1, even if you wouldn't have purchased it otherwise.

Which brings us to one of Mono's points: divorcing Figured from Primary Characteristics. I could go for that: they are complicated for new players and so on, though I am fond of them. However, I really think that most or all of them should be reduced in cost in that case.

A freind of mine used to buy Constitution up to 19 from 18, because it was "free", even though he would never have bought the Stun and END up. That always struck me as odd.

Is it more effective? In many games it is, so it should be increased in cost. In many games it is not, regardless of what the math seems to say, and so it should not be. If the majority of the players are playing in the former, it should be increased. If the majority of the players are in the latter, it should not be. So, back to populism, and simple business sense. I'll trust the Hero guys to make the decision on this.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Monolith
I think Steve has learned his lession from Damage Shield. :)

Actually, I'd dislike going back to the old way, the new way made sense to me. I would like to see it refined to take into account greater flexibility, though.

Oh, sorry.

[GamePhil]

Aaah! It's like a car accident! I can't stop looking!

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by GamePhil
Oh, it's that bad. I think enough people are tired of it to let it drop, though.Heh, heh. How wrong you were. Barely three hours after posting, and already almost four pages of commentary. :)

BRING BACK THE GREAT LINKED DEBATE!

- Derek (ducking)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
Heh, heh. How wrong you were. Barely three hours after posting, and already almost four pages of commentary. :)

*censored!*

- Derek (ducking)

Ya, and many of the posts are mine. Oh, well... ;)

However, I was more talking about the ... uhm ... *passion* of the debate previously. Which was as nothing to the Debate Not To Be Named, but still got out of control.

As the falling man said, "So far, so good!"

[RadeFox]

I had no idea of the history of this debate. Learn something new every day. :)

I noticed OldMans poll on the base Hero forum. Should have made an adjustment that the STR cost increase would apply mainly to heroic settings, but it will be an interesting result either way.

I'm glad to see Lord Liadem is on the side of 2/1 for heroic settings. Im pretty sure I'm going to do the same.

Someone said they HAD a template for designer that had STR cost at 2, perhaps they'd be willing to share it here????

[Lord Liaden]

I'd just like to point out that in Chapter Six in FREd, "Changing the System," Steve Long discusses altering Characteristics to suit a particular GM's concept (p. 351). He mentions both eliminating Figured Characteristics from the character calculation, and increasing the cost of some Characteristics (specifically citing doubling the cost of STR as the most common adjustment), and describes the pros and cons of making these changes. I would call that the best "official" accomodation of these changes that we could expect short of making them canon, and sufficient blessing for any GM to take this route in his own game.

I mean, if it's described in the rulebook, is it really necessary to demand more? :)

[megaplayboy]

A compromise solution for heroic level games would be to set the maxima levels lower for physical stats. You could set them at 15, and to get a 20 STR would cost 15 points, a 25 STR would cost 25 points, and a 30 STR(maximum legendary human STR in the Hero Universe) would cost 35 points.
A 20 STR in the 2/1 system would cost 20 points, and a 30 would cost 60 points!

I'm not sure a 30 STR would ever be worth 60 points, even with the figureds(+10 STUN, +4 REC, +4 PD) thrown in.

It seems to me the maximum "savings" in the existing system is no greater than 10 points.

Hey, 5 points of INT gets you at least 8 points of benefits--
+1 to all perception rolls(3 points)
+1 to all INT-based rolls(5 points)
+1 to memory rolls

so maybe INT and PRE should cost 2/1 as well :p

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Yamo

My hope is that Hero Games will do the right thing for 6th Edition

As someone who has every HERO book published, back to 1st edition, the rules making that change would pretty much put me in as a grognard and I would then seriously consider whether the new rules were for me.

STR is just fine where it is. Yes small sampling- I've played with over 100 players in 2 states, half of that heroic games. Never once have I seen an abuse of STR. So you can put me in the vocal opposition to changing STR.

If you think STR is not working for heroic games, houserule it, like was menioned earlier- using the guidlines in FREd.

Edit- removing a particulary snide comment that was unneeded.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden
I mean, if it's described in the rulebook, is it really necessary to demand more? :)

If enough people have the perception that the game is "only good for supers", and if part of the argument is STR, then it behooves the makers of the game to increase the cost. The same note on halving the cost could be in the Changing The Rules section.

I'm not convinced this is the case, but it is a circumstance where it's a good idea.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by RadeFox
I had no idea of the history of this debate. Learn something new every day. :)


You can't swing a dead cat, with or without WF: Dead Cat, without hitting an old Hero debate.

[Toadmaster]

Wow, it never fails to amaze me what will come up as broken with HERO. I've been playing since 1st Ed Champions and have played FH since 85-86 (whenever it came out) and have yet to agree with the proposed changes people put forward. Never have found one yet that troubled me before or after the arguments.

You can put me on the "it ain't broke so don't fix it" side of the argument.

[Markdoc]

Me, I'm strongly in the 2 point camp. Of course what's "broken" is a matter of definition. Personally, I got sick and goddamn tired of every character having 18-20 STR in Heroic (especially FH) games.

So, I just houseruled it. I've been using 2 points per for years and have no intention of ever going back :)

If the Muscle beach syndrome bothers you, then do the same.

As for 6th ed., don't hold your breath. SteveL was heavily involved in the great STR debate while writing up FREd and while he concedes that the maths aspect of STR doesn't make sense, he felt that the trouble caused by changing virtually every character ever published is more grief than it is worth. There's nothing in this round of the debate that hasn't been said before, so I doubt that will change.

cheers, Mark

[Talon]

Didn't read this whole thread, so maybe this was discussed before.

I am a strong 2 pts for STR proponent, but years of argument have convinced me that such a change would cause too many problems for the customer base at large. Instead, I think that figured characteristics should be done away with (i.e., all stats must be bought independently). If you do that, you can keep STR at 1 point and not have it be terribly unbalanced. That would be the least disruptive way to make the change -- and it would have the side benefit of making the system simpler, since you wouldn't have to worry about STR/5 breakpoints and the like when designing a character.

[Alibear]

If you did that Geoff you might have to drop the cost of CON to 1/1.

Worth CONsidering though..

[Talon]

Originally posted by Alibear
If you did that Geoff you might have to drop the cost of CON to 1/1.

Yeah, and there are other changes that might happen (BODY to 1, maybe). But I'm guessing a lot fewer people would complain about stats getting cheaper.

[RadeFox]

The core of the idea was/is, that in Hero, things with COMBAT worth tend to cost more then non-combat. STR, especially in heroic settings, is seriously more value/use then INT. So that would be why INT cost is fine, even though you get a lot from INT too.

It is pretty apprarent to most FH players, that a fighter and a mage made along similar point lines are serisouly scewed in favor of the fighter in terms of Combat effectiveness. A mage burning long term END is out of the battle after two turns, and then is useless for the rest of the day, while the fighter just sits down for a few seconds and is ready to go do it all again.

I think with SteveL's sidebar on the topic and most folks who have issues with the cost of STR, just switching it to 2/1 in their games, the matter is easily handled. I am glad, though, too see I was not alone in my views. A little confirmation is a good thing. :cool:

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by RadeFox
STR, especially in heroic settings, is seriously more value/use then INT.Heh. You obviously haven't played in my FH games. :cool: ;)

It is pretty apprarent to most FH players, that a fighter and a mage made along similar point lines are serisouly skewed in favor of the fighter in terms of Combat effectiveness.This is more of a philosophical point, but I think this is as it should be. A mage can do lots of things, both in and out of combat, that a fighter can't do. Combat is the fighter's main schtick. Shouldn't the fighter be better in a straight fight? If not, why play a fighter? I mean, if a mage can do eleventyseven kinds of nifty tricks, plus also kick just as much butt as the mundane with a sword, why is the mundane with the sword even there? :)

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
[BCombat is the fighter's main schtick. Shouldn't the fighter be better in a straight fight? If not, why play a fighter? I mean, if a mage can do eleventyseven kinds of nifty tricks, plus also kick just as much butt as the mundane with a sword, why is the mundane with the sword even there? :) [/B]

The problem is that STR is so cheap everyone buys it. You can expect fighters to have 20-23 STR, thieves and clerics to have 18 STR, and even mages rarely sell back their STR because they lose so much for so little. Most mages wind up with 13 STR.

Real Roleplayers, of course, won't buy their STR up to such absurdly high levels for non-warriors, but there's nothing in the system to discourage people from doing so.

[CorpCommander]

Originally posted by Old Man
Real Roleplayers, of course, won't buy their STR up to such absurdly high levels for non-warriors, but there's nothing in the system to discourage people from doing so.

It's still the GM who gives out experience for role playing and he is definitely IN THE SYSTEM. As a GM I look for cheeze in characters. If you come up with an idea for your character but then violate it because the numbers run better another way you get penalized when it comes time to get the rewards.

The system works best when people work towards better role playing. Hell this goes for any system out there. When the players don't want to play nice then its up to the GM to stomp on their character sheets. Their easily hurt feelings be damned. ;)

[RadeFox]

heehee, Rock on CC!

[Old Man]

Originally posted by CorpCommander
It's still the GM who gives out experience for role playing and he is definitely IN THE SYSTEM.

As has been said before, the presence of the GM is not an excuse for maintaining a flaw in the rules.

[AnotherSkip]

Originally posted by Old Man
Real Roleplayers, of course, won't buy their STR up to such absurdly high levels for non-warriors, but there's nothing in the system to discourage people from doing so.

Whoah!!!!!

What the flying flip makes you think that my spellcasting character is a non warrior?

'ell at the battle of Corraine I took out 10, 5th Bestiary zombies with one boulder!!!!

see any warriours taking out that kind of scum with their froo froo little metal toys?

NOTT!!!!!

This has been brought to you by your friendly neighborhood "Druid".
Who BTW weilds a Bastard Sword, has no pets, and does all his magic through a spirit. And the dang Gm suggested(hinted? reinforced with threat of concept violation penalties?) very strongly that I not ignore STR(13), Con(15), Body(13), Dex (17) ect... because it is part of the philosopy of these druids to Play well with others, and that includes combat without magics.


Also Don't assume that all Magics are Int Based!!!

I personally in my favorite campaign have two of the three types of magic under my belt, Int and Pre, the other spellcaster has the EGO based magics.

[Mr. Negative]

Originally posted by Old Man
The problem is that STR is so cheap everyone buys it. You can expect fighters to have 20-23 STR, thieves and clerics to have 18 STR, and even mages rarely sell back their STR because they lose so much for so little. Most mages wind up with 13 STR.

Real Roleplayers, of course, won't buy their STR up to such absurdly high levels for non-warriors, but there's nothing in the system to discourage people from doing so.


While this is true, it is also true of other attributes in the HERO system. "No one" buys a 12 Dex, or a 17 Con. Why? Because there are no game benefits from buying them. However, there is little to no argument about the flaws of the system there. Most everyone accepts that you should expect to see the scores cluster around "break" points, rather than follow some sort of more normal statistical curve, centered on average stats. I still don't see why people accept one sort of mathematical gamesmanship but decry another.

Furthermore, for sheer combat effectiveness, all players should simply buy 5, 10, or 15 points of RKA. Why don't they do this? After all, it's in the rulebook. The reason why they don't do it is because they are not allowed to do so by the conventions, guidelines, and rules that the GM has set up. Despite RKA being a "book legal" power, you can't buy it. Thus, do the same with Strength. Simply tell people that you are not going to allow them to have an 18 (or a 23 strength).

You might allow one player, with the strongest concept for it, to have such a high strength, but disallow it for all other players, so as to avoid them "stepping on the character concept" (stealing his thunder by also being exceptional in the same way). Thus, you maintain the "aura" of coolness about a high strength without forbidding it outright.

You might disallow it out of RARITY (which doesn't normally factor into Hero costs, unlike GURPS). Ambidexterity is rare, and shouldn't be allowed for every single character in the group, nor lightsleep, etc. You could restrict high strengths in this way to make the group better reflect a gathering of adventurers, rather than weightlifters.

You might allow characters to increase their strength, but perhaps only allow them to buy it up slowly, regardless of the cost in points. This would allow you to have incredibly strong characters once they are experienced and battle-hardened, without having a bunch of green recruits all storming around with 18 Str.

I don't think that the mechanic is broken, but I will wholeheartedly agree that the implementation is almost certainly busted. However, points costs shouldn't substitute for GM discretion. If you don't want someone/everyone to have an ability/attribute/skill/power, don't make it unattractively expensive, don't allow them to take it. This is no more "abusive" or "unfair" than telling a PC that you don't have mind flayers or drow in your campaign, so they can't play one (shows D&D roots).

[Chris Goodwin]

By that argument, everything should cost only 1 point, because hey, it's the GM's job to make sure that things aren't being abused and that characters aren't stepping on each others toes.

But we can go even further. Why bother to have points at all? Why bother to roll dice or even have rules? Why doesn't everyone just make everything up?

We have point costs to (theoretically, at least) provide an objective benchmark against which everything can be measured. The whole point of the 2 point STR crowd is that the benchmark needs to be adjusted to make certain other parts of the system work better. I don't think that a desire to see it work better needs to be dismissed with the statement, "However, points costs shouldn't substitute for GM discretion."

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by archer
to see it work better needs to be dismissed with the statement, "However, points costs shouldn't substitute for GM discretion."

Forced to agree with archer, here: if I considered the STR cost to be truly imbalanced, I would certainly change it in my own games, and wouldn't mind seeing it changed.

[Markdoc]

I also agree with Archer.

There's two reasons.

The Theoretical: STR is such a great bargain, when you cost out the points that truly appears unbalanced.

Unlike some other Stat.s which people debate the price of such as CON, almost all of the benefits of STR are so game useful, that they have price attached, so you can see what you get: There really is no other way to interpret the math. OTOH, people may differ on the value of "Does not get stunned so often" although it is clearly advantageous.

The fact that STR is particularly out of whack is evidenced by the other kludges in the system which have to made to accomodate it at the current cost, such as "HA costs 3 points per dice, but it's really 5" or "You are not allowed to by STR, ranged"

But if it was just theory, then I'd consider the cost a blotch on the system: it would offend me but I probably would not change it.

Then there's the empirical. In my own experience, STR is overbought almost everywhere. In Heroic games, the abuse is most obvious, but just look at published characters for any system: gadgeteers with 18 STR, Speedsters with 25, Batman clones with 30...

That's why although you can make a weaker case that INT is also underpriced, I don't plan to change the cost of INT in my games: I have never suffered from a flood of INT-monsters. And while CON scores tend towards the upper end, I have never had a problem with every player wanting 18 CON in my games.

In line with emperical testing, I changed the cost of STR in my games (also HA, which went to 5 points per d6, which is how it should be) and Voila! Just like that, all my problems went away

You could say I am sold on the idea :)

cheers, Mark

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Markdoc
I also agree with Archer.

There's two reasons.

The Theoretical: STR is such a great bargain, when you cost out the points that truly appears unbalanced.


Well, I agree with him that *if* it's imbalanced, saying "The GM can just disallow it" is not a good fix. He never said that he would actually change the cost (in this thread, anyway), and if he did, I would disagree with that.

Just making my position clear :)

STR is simply not that effective. It is *very* effective, and to a certain mind-set a must buy. I don't know a good way to put this that will not be in danger of giving the wrong impression: you are always better off buying something within your character conception. This is not "snooty role-playeritis", but powergaming: you only have a certain number of points, and if you're paying for unneeded STR just to get the two-for-one sale, you are throwing points away that could more effectively be spent elsewhere. People are fooling themselves into thinking they got a great deal, without looking at the cost.

Is a 20 STR really as effective for a thief as a +5 Stealth or a +3 with Stealth skills? Or even some Limited Invisibility? Is a 13 STR really as useful as a +2 with Blaster Rifles (assuming the character actually bought it down to 9) to a sniper? Or another slot in a multipower for a mage? If the answer is "yes", of course it should be increased, but so far as I have ever seen it's "no".

Of course, if people in your game don't think that way, a perfectly acceptable way to encourage them into other pursuits is upping the cost. You're really doing them a favor, by getting them to stay away from the 2-for-1 Sale trap. Doesn't mean it needs to be fixed in the regular rules, though.

[Markdoc]

>>> Is a 20 STR really as effective for a thief as a +5 Stealth or a +3 with Stealth skills?<<<

Yep. Stealth is good an' all, but all players know that eventually they will get seen. And attacked. STR is not all about shouting "by Crom" and whacking the guard with your mighty broadsword. The extra PD, REC and STUN will keep your thief alive when the inevitable happens. Two extra DC, the ability to lift heavy things, bend bars, carry your loot away and so on make it just that much more attractive.

And should a thief have to whack a guard with his mighty broadsword, the Fafhrd style thief who sneaks up and whacks his opponent with a heavy sword for 11 BOD and 33 stun is going to have far better life expectancy than the mouser type who sticks his opponent with a rapier for 4 BOD and 12 Stun.....

Players notice little things - like how the muscular guys get major advantages, but in fact surrender vey little in return.

As I say, YMMV. If it was one group of Hero players, or one particular game, then maybe it's not an issue. But it's been EVERY game. There's almost always one player who chooses character conception over points and it used to annoy me that that player almost always suffered as result.

In non-FH game, STR is probably not such a big issue. But in FH, where all non-magical damage is defined by your STR, it makes a huge difference.

Even for magic-users.

At one point I was playing a big, bald, boastful fire mage (18 STR, big honking sword) and the party's other magic user was your archetypal weedy little guy, with a staff. Our magical powers were not significantly different. But whenever something fanged and spiky got close to the magic users, Caranx whipped out the two handed sword and waded in, while the weedy mage cowered and snivelled. OK, good roleplaying, but Jeff (the weedy mage's player) folded the character after a few sessions and went with a buff cleric type instead....

If STR had been 2 points per instead, I would still have bought 18 STR for Caranx. It fitted his loud abrasive personality and how I envisaged him. However, giving the weedy mage 16 points more to spend on other things might have let him shine in the magical arena as much as my character did in the blowing-and-chopping-things-up-department.

cheers, Mark

[Blue Jogger]

My two cents.

Make 2 STR cost 3 points. (This keeps it inline with the No figured Characteristics being a -1/2 limitation.)

-7 pts for 5 STR
-6 pts for 6 STR
-4 pts for 7 STR
-3 pts for 8 STR
-1 pt. for 9 STR
0 pts for 10 STR
1 pt. for 11 STR
3 pts for 12 STR
4 pts for 13 STR
6 pts for 14 STR
7 pts for 15 STR
9 pts for 16 STR
10 pts for 17 STR
12 pts for 18 STR
13 pts for 19 STR
15 pts for 20 STR
+3 pts for +1 STR

Things that Aid STR are aided only 2/3 the amount listed OR cost 3/2 more (whichever makes more sense)

[Dauntless]

I think a part of the whole problem is people trying to make FREd into some kind of Bible. It's the idea that if it's not in the rules, then it's not valid. The trouble is that the Hero System is really a meta-rules system; it's a framework of rules, mechanics and conventions to help a group develop the system they need. There's nothing sacred about any rule in FREd.

Unfortunately, I think there's a conception that if it doesn't follow the rules to the letter, it's "unofficial" and therefore illegal. I don't see why someone shouldn't try playtesting their campaigns at STR costing 2pts. What's important is consistency with your game group. So maybe if you go to a convention your character will be invalid, but then again, I've known few GM's who allow crossover characters without going through them with a fine-tooth comb anyways.

Do I think STR is cheap? Yes I do. Unfortunately the costs of powers, attributes, skills, talents etc. are based off an assumption of what will be effective in the "average" campaign. However, every campaign is going to diverge from the average in some ways, and it's up to the GM to try to spot these "loopholes" and fix them. For example, why shouldn't everyone use poison? In a heroic campaign it'll only cost you money, and it would be incredibly cheap. Even in the real world, poisoned weapons were extremely rare (although an early form of biological warfare was to rub excrement on weapons). So why don't people in gameworlds or the real world use them? Well because there's more to life than points.

The point system should be a guideline....not a law. Do what you have to, playtest it out, and give others your feedback on how it worked.

[AnotherSkip]

I think part of the problem is the Splatbook/publish or perish theory.

anything good has to be published first.

I have a Gm who likes fantasy ( and probably nothing else done by Hero Games) and the first words out of his mouth when I suggested he run a HERO fantasy agme is "ill have to check out the splatbook on that!!!"

Some people just don't get HERO.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by Dauntless
I think a part of the whole problem is people trying to make FREd into some kind of Bible. It's the idea that if it's not in the rules, then it's not valid. The trouble is that the Hero System is really a meta-rules system; it's a framework of rules, mechanics and conventions to help a group develop the system they need. There's nothing sacred about any rule in FREd.I haven't encountered too many people who do this in their own games. Almost everyone has at least a couple of "house rules" or unusual takes on one thing or another.

When discussing the system on the boards here, you are more likely to get the impression that people view FREd's word as gospel, just because it's the common denominator. When someone posts and asks, "How do I build this?" the unspoken assumption is that he's really asking, at least as a starting point, "How do I build this under the rules?"

If someone asks me for a suggestion on how to build something, I won't normally start off by offering them a "solution" that isn't book-legal. Stuff that's not book-legal may not fly in their game for whatever reason. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't allow it in my game. :)

I think your take on the HERO System as a framework of rules, mechanics, and conventions from which to assemble a more specific system is right on the money. DOJ, of course, calls it "The Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit." And I like that analogy.

The HERO System rulebook is like a toolkit. You can use the tools to build whatever you want or need, but you have to know how to build it. It doesn't provide blueprints or instructions or how-to information, and certainly doesn't include a pre-fab finished product. If you're already an expert craftsman, this may be all you need. (Though many expert craftsmen still get the support books, to "keep up with the trade," so to speak.)

A Genre Book (like Fantasy Hero) is like the blueprints, instructions, or how-to information. It helps you with guidelines for using your tools to build certain things, but it still doesn't include the finished things themselves.

A Setting Book (like the forthcoming Turakian Age) or a Powers book (like the Grimoire) is a pre-made thing for folks who lack the time, inclination or expertise to make things themselves, or who want things to use as examples for their own building.

The rulebook is a hammer, nails and wood. A Genre Book is a set of plans for building various kinds of birdhouses. A Setting Book is a birdhouse. :)

To go back to your original point about some folks being too strictly wedded to the letter of the rules, I'd say that some folks forget that you can use the tools in your HERO System toolkit to build anything... including other tools! :D

[Alibear]

Okay, pretend that I'm convinced( I nearly am anyway) and that I want to raise the cost of Strength to two ponits in my upcoming fantasy campaign.

What other knock-on effects will there be? Are there any? Will this one change affect the cost of other powers or skills?

[Old Man]

If STR costs 2 then drains and transfers will hit STR only half as hard. Aids too. Entangles might work a little better. Density increase and growth become a bit too cheap, and would probably have to go up to 10/level which I think is more balanced anyway given all the extras that they provide. That's all I can think of offhand.

[AnotherSkip]

The only problem I have with people and rules is if they are breaking the rules (or misusing or whatever) is if they are not aware of what they are doing.

otherwise so long as they understand what they are doing(like changing the cost of all stats to 3 points/point) then fine ,im happy, gimme my 3d6 and let's rumble.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Yamo
STR costing 1/1 is a system flaw.

Why?

It's objectively provable that you get numeric benefit in excess of numeric cost. A drastic amount in excess, in this case.

That's demonstrably true. How can it not be a flaw?

Fix it, then encourage people to change it if they want. Don't leave it broken and then encourage them to fix it. That's not good game design. It's completely bass-ackwards.

Well, STR is far from the only characteristic to which this applies.

For 5pts of STR, you get x2 Lift, +1DC damage, +1 PD, +1 REC, +2.5 STUN, etc. - the last things alone are more than the 5pts for STR. However, CON, DEX, etc. work out similarly, so just changing STR isn't enough if you're trying to "fix" the system flaws. And once you start that process, you have to reevaluate many powers (Growth, Density Increase, Drain, etc.) to see if you have "balanced" your system.

I just let it ride, it's easier that way. And I have players allocate points based on character concept, to curb excesses.

[Markdoc]

>>>>Okay, pretend that I'm convinced( I nearly am anyway) and that I want to raise the cost of Strength to two ponits in my upcoming fantasy campaign.
What other knock-on effects will there be? Are there any? Will this one change affect the cost of other powers or skills?<<<

Well the obvious one is that HA should move up to 5 points per d6, but that's really about it. I have never changed - nor noticed the need for changing - anything else.

I use the following structure:

STR costs 2 points per.
STR (no figured CHA) gives you a -1/2 limitation but leaves things like lifting, STR vs STR roll, jumping, etc, intact.
STR (only for specific attack) gets you a -1 limitation and functions just like HA, which, funnily enough, costs 5 points.

cheers, Mark

[Mr. Negative]

Originally posted by archer
By that argument, everything should cost only 1 point, because hey, it's the GM's job to make sure that things aren't being abused and that characters aren't stepping on each others toes.

But we can go even further. Why bother to have points at all? Why bother to roll dice or even have rules? Why doesn't everyone just make everything up?

We have point costs to (theoretically, at least) provide an objective benchmark against which everything can be measured. The whole point of the 2 point STR crowd is that the benchmark needs to be adjusted to make certain other parts of the system work better. I don't think that a desire to see it work better needs to be dismissed with the statement, "However, points costs shouldn't substitute for GM discretion."

My point was in specific response to Old Man's quote that :

The problem is that STR is so cheap everyone buys it. You can expect fighters to have 20-23 STR, thieves and clerics to have 18 STR, and even mages rarely sell back their STR because they lose so much for so little. Most mages wind up with 13 STR.

This complaint does not necessarily imply that strength is too effective for it's point cost, but may imply that a high strength is too easy to acquire, and thus too inexpensive for its supposed rarity ("...everyone buys it").

It may be (or it may not be) the case that strength is appropriately costed for the benefits conferred, but that, even though appropriately costed, those benefits are so desirable that everyone, regardless of conception is willing to pay the points cost. Consider Resistant Defenses. Most players, in most games, desire to purchase resistant PD and ED, possibly even against their character conception ("I have 9 PD through Combat Luck!). Similarly with Speed. Even if a character isn't conceived of as particularly speedy, most players will shell out for a 3 or 4 Speed for the benefits involved. This doesn't mean that Speed or rPD is too cheap, but that the benefits are perceived as so desirable that few characters are created without an investment in each.

It may be the case that STR is undercosted for its effectiveness. However, I'm unconvinced that it is substantially undercosted compared to other attributes (Dex gives you a load of benefits too).

However, I totally agree that its benefits are perceived as desirable to virtually all players. This makes a high strength more common than would be normally expected. While making it more expensive MAY prevent them from purchasing it in huge amounts, the "perceived benefits" of a high strength may still lead players to shell out disproportionate points for it. If achieving a proper "rarity" of high strength is your goal, it may be more productive to use methods other than simply increasing the points cost of Strength.

I think that we are simultaneously dancing around two linked but not identical topics on this thread, and I know that I, for one, am not always consistently perceiving the difference (or making my distinctions correct).

Is Strength too effective for it's point cost? Regardless of role-playing considerations, does strength convey more game benefits per point, than other attributes of the same cost?

Is a high strength too easily achieved, and too often desired? Do players "bend" their conceptions to justify purchasing a high strength, just to reap the benefits of doing so?

My own answer to the second would be yes, emphatically, but I would also state that I feel that the same occurs with Dexterity as well.

My answer to the first would be "I'm not sure". I'd want to see, in particular, more writeups with the higher cost before I was convinced. I'd also like to see if anything needed to be done to the following"

Telekinesis
Density Increase
Hand Attack
Martial Arts (as Martial arts would now be twice as effective, than before, in increasing damage compared to Strength)
Extra Damage Classes (for the same reason).

I'd be interested in seeing specifics on these, either in this thread or another.

However, my own opinion stands that, from a "rarity" perspective, GM input, rather than recosting, is often the best way to moderate high ability scores (strength or anything else).

[Herolover]

See the following thread
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6759

[Markdoc]

While it is true that "desirability" and cost are not quite equivalent items, they do play off each other.

My players would agree that SPD6 is highly desirable, but only one player ever bought it, in any of my games. SPD4, which is more easily attainable, was also thought desirable, but at the end of a 2+ year campaign I still had two SPD3 characters.

DEX 20 is also highly desirable - but again, relatively rare (it requires 30 points - a hefty investment for a 150 point chrcater)

But STR.... well, as pointed out, everybody buys it. You can max it out for only 6% of your starting points

Saying "the GM must decide" is a wretched cop-out. It is easy for players to pick an archetype that permits them to buy a big STR and any GM who arbitrarily decides that no, the mighty fighter must buy 15 STR, because the party already has a STR 18 character, deserves the pointed pencil in the eyeball they'll surely get. If the GM attempts to enforce characteristics via character concept, you'll end up with similar character concepts, further limiting variety....

Having said that, some changes need to be made:
TK stays as it is, since it is essentially STR usable at range, with the (only attack, -1) limitation

HA goes to 5 points per d6.

Density increase and growth (Hmmm. It's never been a problem in my games, though I should check them - but I'm currently in Africa, far away from my roleplaying stuff)

Martial arts seem to be OK. They can be fiendishly cost effective in heroic games (primarily those annoying twerps who buy just two or three maneuvers), but changing the cost of STR only makes them more marginally more effective relative to STR. This is primarily because, with big weapons, the big STR guy maxes out his damage at a higher level than the Martial arts guy, so that tends to balance out. In my games, both the "big bruiser" and the "martial artist" were equally effective, with different strengths and weaknesses. Big STR guy tended to dish out more damage and have a similar OCV, since he could pick up a few cheap 2 point levels to offset the martial bonuses, and he could tote around a big shield and heavy armour to compensate for lowered DCV. Martial artist guy had access to more cool maneuvers and usually had a better DCV. Of course, he did better where heavy armour could not be used.

As a bonus, increasing the cost of STR meant there were fewer 20 STR martial artists....

So it works OK: and this is not theory - I've been using the 2 point cost for FH games for more than a decade now, without any problems at all.

cheers, Mark

[Dan Canada]

In my experiences, fantasy hero characters are more combat effective and survive longer when playing a character with high strength scores, as it is relatively cheap and the extra points go into weapon skills. When something large strong, and wearing heavy armour goes up against skilled fencers with light armour and high dex, the combat usually ends with the first hit from the large opponent stunning the wily one, and it goes down hill from there.

I would give my vote for strength costing 2 per point.

[Arthur]

Without going through all the posts (damn dialup connection), I have a solution I use in my games and it extends beyond merely fixing STR in Heroic games.

I apply a Genre Modifier Advantage to certain Powers.

One of the great flaws of any Universal Roleplaying System is that different levels of certain things vary in usefulness based on genre. I saw this with great clarity with GURPS. In a SF setting, with X-Ray Lasers, DR (Damage Resistance - the equivalent of rPD and rED) of 10 was almost meaningless. The weapons routinely did 6d or more damage, often with an Armor-Piercing divisor.

However, in a Fantasy game, where typical damage was in the 2d to 3d range, DR 10 made you close to invincible.

Yet, that same DR 10 cost the same 30 points in both settings.

Hence the Genre Modifier. Or Usefulness Modifier. Or whatever you want to call it. Certain Powers are "too good for the points" in a typical low-tech Fantasy setting (depending on how restricted magic is). Therefore, Powers like Armor, Force Field, Flight, and a few others have to take a mandatory +1/2 Genre Advantage.

STR is a little more tricky to finagle with most character-creation software, but it's hardly insurmountable. I just add an entry in the Powers column for Custom Power and call it "STR Mod" or somesuch. So if I spent 10 points on STR, I add a 5 point STR Mod "Power". Piece o cake.

[Mr. Negative]

Another, related, but different idea:

Has anyone used a sliding points cost for Attributes? This would be, in concept, similar to GURPS, where you pay more for higher scores, relatively, because they are both more likely to help you make your attribute checks, and because they are rarer.

Rather than do something complex, you might simply increase the price of each attribute by 1 point for every 5 points of the statistic. I'd do this only to base attributes, as well. You could consider it a variation on 'Normal Characteristic Maxima', so that it would only apply to points spent directly boosting the attribute, allowing Strength spells, DEX drains, and the like to work as they do now.

So

STR would be 1 point per point up to 15, then 2 per point up to 20....
(that would also apply for every other 1 point attribute)
Dex would be 3 per point up to 15, then 4 per point to 20, then 5 up to 25..
CON would be 2 per point up to 15, then 3 per point up to 20....
(same for all the other 2 point attributes).

I know that this was a thread dedicated to Strength discussions, but one of the complaints about strength, other than it's basic cost, was that you tended to get STR scores clustered around certain high numbers (18, 23).

These same clusters also occur with INT and DEX, while few people who spend ANY points in INT and DEX end up with scores in the 11-15 range. This could serve to curb that "attribute clumping" a bit, and make those with a genuinely high score rare and exceptional.

It would also be a little more "granular" than the current Normal Characteristic Maxima, in that it would gradually get more expensive to be exceptional, but it wouldn't be any "rarer" to be exceptionally Dextrous than exceptionally Strong (the "exceptional" cost for each would be the same.)