Shoud STR cost more than 1 point?

[Old Man]

I know it's been discussed to death, but it came up again in the FH forum, so I thought I'd ask here.

[Vondy]

I'm in the crowd that says it isn't broken.

[Tim]

I also say STR isn't broken. It's cost is the basis for almost all attack power cost.
Hand Att- Str, only for damage.
Energy Blast- substitute ranged for adds to STR
TK - Str usable at Range.

And don't give the arguement about STRs freebies. Personally, I've never been able to munkin a character, but I recognize that some do. It is up to the GM to make sure a character is built to concept, rather than point efficency.
If you up str, I'd buy TK, no range- It becomes cheaper.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Tim
I also say STR isn't broken. It's cost is the basis for almost all attack power cost.

And don't give the arguement about STRs freebies. Personally, I've never been able to munkin a character, but I recognize that some do. It is up to the GM to make sure a character is built to concept, rather than point efficency.

The restriction against selling back more than one figured characteristic really prevents this becoming excessive. Sure, extra PD is pretty much always a direct savings, but how much extra STUN and REC would you have bought otherwise?

[GamePhil]

Hard choice: abstain, not broken, abstain, not broken?

Oh, well, not broken, or at least not enough to change. How's that?

[Yamo]

Not scientific, I suppose. Champs players won't want to pay more for their bricks even if it would be better for the system. I suspect they're a majority on this forum.

I don't like supers, though, and I'm fed up with cheap STR throwing monkey wrenches into my Heroic games.

I say yes.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Yamo
Not scientific, I suppose. Champs players won't want to pay more for their bricks even if it would be better for the system. I suspect they're a majority on this forum.


Say, I don't suppose people could just vote without the comments on their opposition? Too much to ask?

[Yamo]

Say, I don't suppose people could just vote without the comments on their opposition? Too much to ask?

Unless cash is changing hands, yeah. :p

[RadeFox]

Hey Old Man, ammend the post to read, Should STR cost 2/1 in heroic settings, since it is mainly the low tech fantasy worlds that are most adversely affected with the 1pt Str thing. :)

[JmOz]

No,

Reason:

The main argument I have heard is that it gives to many "Freebees"

The thing about it is that most of the characteristics are actualy similar to power frameworks, that instead of saying you can put any power that fits the F/X it requires you to take these certain powers (Figured Characteristics) in this ratio or higher, as such it saves more as it is more restrictive.

The counter argument is that because they are manditory that it is a false comparison (comparing them to frameworks), I disagree.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Yamo
Unless cash is changing hands, yeah. :p

Okey dokey. Somewhat throw that man a wad of cash. I'm poor.

[Lord Mhoram]

STR is just fine. Superheroic or heroic. I've run Heroic games for over 10 years and STR has never been an issue for me, so I see no need for a change, personally.

[Mentor]

I vote that STR cost is fine. Use concept to justify and define your characters, not pure design efficiency.

[Killer Shrike]

YES in Heroic settings, NO in non-Heroic settings. Id tie it into NCM being assumed at no points/NCM being optional.

But on the other hand, Ive played in Heroic games before where skills were much more important than stats, and a high INT and DEX were the way to go. Particularly in SciFi campaigns.

Its definitely extremely efficient and is an artifact of the HERO System's origin as a supers system, but its not so bad I would consider it broken.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
YES in Heroic settings, NO in non-Heroic settings. Id tie it into NCM being assumed at no points/NCM being optional.


Just for clarification: Are you saying STR Maximum should be lowered to 10, or that it should be doubled in cost in games with Characteristic Maxima on all characters (resulting in a cost of 4 when it gets over 20)? Sounds like the latter.

[Lord Liaden]

As I mentioned on the other STR question thread (the issue does tend to spawn, doesn't it? :rolleyes: ), I've long favored 1/1 STR in superheroic games, and 2/1 for heroic level. So I guess I should abstain from voting.

I'd just like to add 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 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 this change. I would call that the best "official" accomodation that we could expect short of making it 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? :)

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by GamePhil
Just for clarification: Are you saying STR Maximum should be lowered to 10, or that it should be doubled in cost in games with Characteristic Maxima on all characters (resulting in a cost of 4 when it gets over 20)? Sounds like the latter. Im saying that a good control might be to increase the cost of STR to 2 cp/point in any game where NCM is assumed for 0 points.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by Old Man
Should STR cost more than 1 point?Define "should." ;)

Should it have been set at a cost higher than 1/1 when the game system was designed? I lean toward yes.

Should it be changed now? I lean toward no.

[Markdoc]

>>>>> Should it have been set at a cost higher than 1/1 when the game system was designed? I lean toward yes.
Should it be changed now? I lean toward no.<<<<<<

Funny, that's almost exactly what Steve Bell said in the Dark Ages before the internet, when this discussion started

But I voted yes anyway :)

cheers, Mark

[AnotherSkip]

Erm as of my vote I read it as 30% for changing


looks like a loss there Old Man,

might have better luck polling on the Fantasy boards

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by AnotherSkip
Erm as of my vote I read it as 30% for changing


looks like a loss there Old Man,

might have better luck polling on the Fantasy boards

Well, really a vote on the Fantasy boards is less appropriate, since we're talking about the system as a whole, which I assumed is the reason he asked it here.

Another vote along the lines of "Do you increase the cost of STR in your Fantasy HERO games?" would work, though. I'd have to vote along the lines of "I haven't, but I might".

[Kintara]

Hmm, no. But I might divorce the figured characteristics from Str. Specifically, I'd change the formulas so that what would be the Str bonus is really just the bonus one would get for free, at 10. So PD would equal 2. REC would equal 2+(Con/5). STUN would equal BODY+5+(Con/2). It's not elegant looking, but it seems to fix the problems I might have with it.

I'm not keen on figured characteristics anyway (and maybe more divorcing should be done), but Str certainly seems to be too good a deal. Why not make it a bit less powerful?

[keithcurtis]

I charge 2 pts for STR in any campaign where STR is the most common way of dealing damage. (i.e. no guns, energy blasts, etc.) It's more useful there than in other genres, so I charge more.

Keith "does <i>anyone</i> run HERO without a single house rule?" Curtis

[Syberdwarf2]

STR should definately not cost more than one character point per increment. While I realize that this is a hotly debated topic, I have to say that the whole STR debate is overdone. For godsake, if you think a character has too high of a STR or that his STR is unbalancing to the rest of his stats, put a cap on STR!
This is a game. If limits are needed, then the GM should put them in place. don't raise the cost! For one thing it'd make paperwork more complicated. The GM has eough to worry about. Just limit the STR with a cap, or use a tried and true standby..... let the GM review any and all characters. If the GM let's the character in, and the STR is too high, it's his own fault.

[Arthur]

Originally posted by Kintara
Hmm, no. But I might divorce the figured characteristics from Str. Specifically, I'd change


Not a good idea, unless you get rid of figured characteristics completely.

Personally, I'd rate STR at x1.5. That's ugly, though. I'm starting to lean toward the notion of x2 STR in Heroic games only. In Superheroic, x1 STR is still awfully tempting, but not so much as in Heroic.




I'm not keen on figured characteristics anyway (and maybe more divorcing should be done), but Str certainly seems to be too good a deal. Why not make it a bit less powerful?

Because Figured Chars are really a good idea, fundamentally. The execution may need some work though. It might be as simple as increasing the cost of every Characteristic that contributes to Figured Chars. It's almost as if their costs were set without taking that into account. In practice, DEX actually costs 2 points per +1 (holding SPD constant).

Spending 10 points in STR nets you +2 PD; +2 REC, +5 STN. That's a net -1 point, plus you get an offense.

Spending 20 points on CON gets you +2 ED, +2 REC, +20 END, and +5 STN. Also a net -1 point. CON also helps resist being CON-Stunned, and vs. disease, poison, etc.

DEX costs 2 points per +1 (de facto), and determines CV, arguably the most important number in the game.

BOD contributes to STN, and so effectively costs +1 per +1 BOD.

So let's do a serious fix.

STR: x2
DEX: x4
CON: x3
BOD: x3

Why not?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Arthur
Because Figured Chars are really a good idea, fundamentally. The execution may need some work though. It might be as simple as increasing the cost of every Characteristic that contributes to Figured Chars. It's almost as if their costs were set without taking that into account. In practice, DEX actually costs 2 points per +1 (holding SPD constant).[/B]

The only other CHAR which costs 2 points is EGO (BOD and CON deliver figured characteristics reducing their effective cost). Ego is also used for quite a lot, and is the "Dex" of mentalists. I think the current structure for DEX is fine.

BOD alone isn't worth 2 per - if it's 3, buy some focused defenses instead. Again, I like the current structure.


Spending 10 points in STR nets you +2 PD; +2 REC, +5 STN. That's a net -1 point, plus you get an offense.

Spending 20 points on CON gets you +2 ED, +2 REC, +20 END, and +5 STN. Also a net -1 point. CON also helps resist being CON-Stunned, and vs. disease, poison, etc.

Yet characters don't just buy up massive STR and CON. I've never seen it in 20+ years playing Hero. Why not?

Because players and GM's play to conception? The power gamer can always come up with a reason, so that's not it.

Because you can only sell back one figured CHAR. More PD/ED is generally always welcome. But how much REC would you have bought? How much STUN and END? The point of diminishing returns hits pretty quick, and eliminates excessive silliness.

Hero's made it through five editions this way, and gets more popular every time. This problem is always raised, but the system works as is.


So let's do a serious fix.

STR: x2
DEX: x4
CON: x3
BOD: x3

Why not?

Because it ain't broke (see above). What impact would this have? Well, now STR is the weak sister attack power at 10 points per d6. Unlike EB, you get no range, no ability to enhance your OCV by spreading, no way to hit multiple targets by spreading and virtually no one is vulnerable or susceptible to Strength. Now EB is underpriced.

And how does it impact characters? Well, everyone takes lower stats (or lowers the rest of their character). OK, everyone's a bit weaker. It doesn't play the same. Better add 25 to everyone's base points to get them back to the way we used to play.

Now, let's also look what it does to powers. Suddenly, Growth and Density Increase are huge bargains. Or we make them 10 points per level, so now they;re also priced out of the market.

You know what? The system works. It would not have survived as long as it has if it did not. There are things that could stand some fine tuning, but characteristic costs are central to the game, so if they were broken, it would be pretty clear by now.

Some believe they are, especially STR. Not enough, apparantly, that any published edition has ever proposed changing them.

[Agent X]

I think the problem is that figured characteristics are too expensive.;)

Seriously, Isn't it possible to have the players in your heroic games swear an oath or something not to buy strength when it isn't part of their character concept? Who are you playing with?

Dex and Speed is wicked if the character has access to attacks that bypass normal defenses.

Ego is wicked if the character has mental attack forms.

It seems to me that it depends on far too many circumstances to justify raising the cost of strength.

[Kintara]

Figured characteristics aren't that great an idea, as far as I'm concerned. I like the idea that the primary characteristics can reflect appropriate secondary characteristics, but I don't think it's necessary for you to include the bonus in the cost of the characteristic itself. I think the formulae should be used as guides for what an appropriate average level might be.

It might seem simply a matter of book-keeping, but I think it is more straight-forward as I just described it. Now the cost of Strength is a direct result of what that characteristic gives you. Doesn't that simplify the way the characteristics interact with the game? It also simplifies the buying in chargen, in a way. Now the secondary characteristics always come out at the same price. Adjustment powers are more straight-forward in their effects with primary characteristics.

Now, is this a big deal? Not really. The cost of Str is certainly playable as it is (and my solution isn't much of a change, some people might even think it's a too little a change to bother with). But does Str give you more bang for your buck? It certainly seems so.

[keithcurtis]

Originally posted by Syberdwarf2
STR should definately not cost more than one character point per increment. While I realize that this is a hotly debated topic, I have to say that the whole STR debate is overdone. For godsake, if you think a character has too high of a STR or that his STR is unbalancing to the rest of his stats, put a cap on STR!
This is a game. If limits are needed, then the GM should put them in place. don't raise the cost! For one thing it'd make paperwork more complicated. The GM has eough to worry about. Just limit the STR with a cap, or use a tried and true standby..... let the GM review any and all characters. If the GM let's the character in, and the STR is too high, it's his own fault.

But by this reasoning, points are unnecessary at all. Just pencil in the characteristics that match your conception.

:)

Keith "Just sayin'" Curtis

[Syberdwarf2]

Originally posted by keithcurtis
But by this reasoning, points are unnecessary at all. Just pencil in the characteristics that match your conception.

:)

Keith "Just sayin'" Curtis

Heaven forbid someone should actually build a character based on a concept, not point efficiency.... ;)

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Kintara
Figured characteristics aren't that great an idea, as far as I'm concerned. I like the idea that the primary characteristics can reflect appropriate secondary characteristics, but I don't think it's necessary for you to include the bonus in the cost of the characteristic itself. I think the formulae should be used as guides for what an appropriate average level might be.

It might seem simply a matter of book-keeping, but I think it is more straight-forward as I just described it. Now the cost of Strength is a direct result of what that characteristic gives you. Doesn't that simplify the way the characteristics interact with the game? It also simplifies the buying in chargen, in a way. Now the secondary characteristics always come out at the same price. Adjustment powers are more straight-forward in their effects with primary characteristics.

Now, is this a big deal? Not really. The cost of Str is certainly playable as it is (and my solution isn't much of a change, some people might even think it's a too little a change to bother with). But does Str give you more bang for your buck? It certainly seems so. Why are you playing Hero? Perhaps a different system would be more to your liking.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Agent X
Why are you playing Hero? Perhaps a different system would be more to your liking.

I don't understand how you can conclude that, just because he thinks divorcing the Figured from Primary Characteristics is a good idea. People could easily complain about twenty things they don't like about HERO and still think it's a great system.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by GamePhil
I don't understand how you can conclude that, just because he thinks divorcing the Figured from Primary Characteristics is a good idea. People could easily complain about twenty things they don't like about HERO and still think it's a great system. I must have misread. I got the idea that he wanted to get rid of figured characteristics. When you start changing the rationale of how to express characteristics you really are changing a huge part of a game system.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Agent X
I must have misread. I got the idea that he wanted to get rid of figured characteristics. When you start changing the rationale of how to express characteristics you really are changing a huge part of a game system.

Or I misread, but either way you still have the Power creation (the most important part of the system for me) and a variety of things that make HERO different, and to me superior, to other systems. I like Figured Characteristics, myself, but even if they were removed completely HERO still does many things better than any other system currently out there.

[Kintara]

No, I don't mind them, I just think that it might be better for the primary characteristics not to give them a bonus. It seems smoother to me. So PD/ED would default to 2 (the number you would get for free, with no points spent), REC 4, END & STUN 20, etc.. Of course, you could buy them up again; they just wouldn't be tied to other characteristics anymore. Obviously, the primary characteristics would have to be adjusted in cost, to compensate. But the changes are only a matter of tweaking point costs and defaults, not removing the characteristics themselves.

Sorry about the clarity. It was late and I was a little lazy in my wording.

[dbsousa]

I can't ever remember running a heroic game where the non-brutes had a strength above 13.

Of course I start my fantasy games so low, my players can't spend any points on something that doesn't fit their concept. And their concept better have the word "beginning" in it...

I think the NCM keeps all of my players in line. Plus I have two guidelines for "keeping it real" Nobody can spend more than 10 points for SPD, and no two players can have the same primary stats.

[Syberdwarf2]

Originally posted by dbsousa
I can't ever remember running a heroic game where the non-brutes had a strength above 13.

Of course I start my fantasy games so low, my players can't spend any points on something that doesn't fit their concept. And their concept better include the word "beginning" in it...

I think the NCM keeps all of my players in line. Plus I have two guidelines for "keeping it real" Nobody can spend more than 10 points for SPD, and no two players can have the same primary stats.

Why the hell didn't I think of that?

[dbsousa]

Originally posted by Syberdwarf2
Why the hell didn't I think of that?
I have never communicated this guideline to my players. I have never had two players hand me a sheet with identical stats. I have one player who leans toward the primary stat min/max, but if the points are low enough, he would much rather spend them on something flashier than STR...