The cost of bases...

[prestidigitator]

Sure. I'm just going to pull numbers out of my a**, since I don't have anything concrete in front of me ATM.

EDIT: INCORRECT. See posts below.

For a certain setting, I decide to make Weapon A my baseline piece of equipment. The build for Weapon A comes to 40 Active Points and 10 Real Cost. I want Weapon A to have a base cost of 10 Silver Marks (SM). For other equipment, I want each +20 Active Points to double the cost of the equipment, and I want each +5 Real Cost to double the cost of the equipment (note that if a piece of equipment goes up by both +20 AP and +5 RC, its price will be quadrupled--doubled once for each). So:

M = 10 SM
B = 40*10 = 400
C = 20*5 = 100

This makes the equation for the base equipment cost:

base cost = (10 SM)*2^[(A*R - 400)/100]

Now to determine the price of Item B, which happens to be built with 38 Active Points and a 3 Real Cost, I use:

(10 SM)*2^[(38*3-400)/100] = (10 SM)*2^[(114-400)/100] = (10 SM)*2^(-286/100) = (10 SM)*2^-2.86 ~= (10 SM)*0.138 = 1.38 SM ~= 1.4 SM

To determine the price of Item C, which happens to be built with 38 Active Points and a 11 Real Cost, I use:

(10 SM)*2^[(38*11-400)/100] = (10 SM)*2^[(418-400)/100] = (10 SM)*2^(18/100) = (10 SM)*2^0.18 ~= (10 SM)*1.13 = 11.3 SM ~= 11 SM

To determine the price of Item D, which happens to be built with 48 Active Points and a 17 Real Cost, I use:

(10 SM)*2^[(48*17-400)/100] = (10 SM)*2^[(816-400)/100] = (10 SM)*2^(416/100) = (10 SM)*2^4.16 ~= (10 SM)*17.9 = 179 SM ~= 180 SM

This makes costs exponential with respect to Active Points and Real Cost, BTW, which will actually happen to translate in a sense to real Character Points in the Money Perk (just a lot finer grained than rounding off to full Character Point values using a straight multiple). It means something that gives a relative benefit in combat might very well be significantly more expensive. If you don't like this, you can change the divider (C) to double the price a lot less quickly, or you can go with a non-exponential relationship like simply:

base cost = M*(A*R-B)/C

[prestidigitator]

Oops. I think I made a mistake in my basic formula, actually. I think what I actually wound up using last time was more like:

base cost = M*2^[(A/C)+(R/D)-B]

M - Cost of baseline equipment: something with A = C and R = D
A - Active Points
R - Real Cost
B - Baseline for Active Points and Real Cost; (A/C)+(R/D) for the baseline equipment that costs M
C and D - Dividers. If cost is doubled for every +20 Active Points or every +5 Real Cost, then C = 20, and D = 5.

I'll repost the same examples with the corrected equation to give a better idea of what the cost variations should look like.

[prestidigitator]

Here is the example I gave above updated for the correct equation:

For a certain setting, I decide to make Weapon A my baseline piece of equipment. The build for Weapon A comes to 40 Active Points and 10 Real Cost. I want Weapon A to have a base cost of 10 Silver Marks (SM). For other equipment, I want each +20 Active Points to double the cost of the equipment, and I want each +5 Real Cost to double the cost of the equipment (note that if a piece of equipment goes up by both +20 AP and +5 RC, its price will be quadrupled--doubled once for each). So:

M = 10 SM
C = 20
D = 5
B = (40/C)+(10/D) = 40/20+10/5 = 4

This makes the equation for the base equipment cost:

base cost = (10 SM)*2^[(A/20)+(R/5)-4]

Now to determine the price of Item B, which happens to be built with 38 Active Points and a 3 Real Cost, I use:

(10 SM)*2^[(38/20)+(3/5)-4] = (10 SM)*2^(1.9+0.6-4) = (10 SM)*2^-1.5 ~= (10 SM)*0.35 = 3.5 SM

To determine the price of Item C, which happens to be built with 38 Active Points and a 11 Real Cost, I use:

(10 SM)*2^[(38/20)+(11/5)-4] = (10 SM)*2^(1.9+2.2-4) = (10 SM)*2^0.1 ~= (10 SM)*1.1 = 11 SM

To determine the price of Item D, which happens to be built with 48 Active Points and a 17 Real Cost, I use:

(10 SM)*2^[(48/20)+(17/5)-4] = (10 SM)*2^(2.4+3.4-4) = (10 SM)*2^1.8 ~= (10 SM)*3.5 = 35 SM

Yes. That looks much better. I knew something was way off. (Additive exponents become multiplied factors. )

My other statements about the general use of the formula and its relation to the system still apply.

[PhilFleischmann]

For example if you were to build a 50-foot diameter tower with 5 levels it would be equal to 9817.5 Square Feet of floor space. Just paying for the size alone costs about 30 base points which means that the character's would have to donate 6 Character Points just to buy the empty shell. When you do things like buying a magic lab or adding a ballista to the roof or reinforce the walls with extra DEF and BODY the costs add up.

I know this is slightly off-topic, but this part of the rules has always bugged me. So I eliminate it! 6 character points to buy empty floor space?! No freakin' way! The Size of a base gives you *nothing* in game terms, and therefore should never cost character points. You should only pay point for the actual game benefit you get. Assuming you have to pay points for the base and its equipment in the first place, you would have to pay for the magic lab and balista and the defensive value of the walls. You pay for content, not the container. It would be like paying for the physical size of a gun in a superhero game, in addition to the DC's of the attack it produces.

[Mithras]

prestidigitator, mighty god.. a whole lot of math..

I think i have to reread it a few times so i grasp it, i didnt think i was that bad on math until i saw that one coming..

[katal3]

I know this is slightly off-topic, but this part of the rules has always bugged me. So I eliminate it! 6 character points to buy empty floor space?! No freakin' way! The Size of a base gives you *nothing* in game terms, and therefore should never cost character points. You should only pay point for the actual game benefit you get. Assuming you have to pay points for the base and its equipment in the first place, you would have to pay for the magic lab and balista and the defensive value of the walls. You pay for content, not the container. It would be like paying for the physical size of a gun in a superhero game, in addition to the DC's of the attack it produces.

Well it isn't entirely true that your getting "nothing" for the afore mentioned "Empty Shell" Aside obviously from getting storage space for an Armory (Fantasy characters usually end up knit out like the 4th armored devision by the end of quite a few games). It also provides space you could Rent out (assuming the base is in a town) to craftsmen or mages. Alternativly the space can be used for Parties social events etc. and Living space is always a pleasent thing to have.
That Aside, by having your base "there" it means that no one else can use that space for anything else. And the Lord "BBEG" certainly isn't going to build his Tower of the Necro-Deatho Booki-Con anywhere near the Heros Hovel.
Anyway I got no problem with paying points for my living space.

[prestidigitator]

I know this is slightly off-topic, but this part of the rules has always bugged me. So I eliminate it! 6 character points to buy empty floor space?! No freakin' way! The Size of a base gives you *nothing* in game terms, and therefore should never cost character points. You should only pay point for the actual game benefit you get. Assuming you have to pay points for the base and its equipment in the first place, you would have to pay for the magic lab and balista and the defensive value of the walls. You pay for content, not the container. It would be like paying for the physical size of a gun in a superhero game, in addition to the DC's of the attack it produces.

Huh. You have a point there. I think having a dramatically larger space can be a bit of an advantage, especially because powers bought for the Base often cover the whole area for free. But maybe the default (starting) size of a Base could be increased, or the rate at which the size increases with Character Points (e.g. double the length and width--or quadruple the area--for every 2 points instead of every 6). This might be best changed on a per-campaign basis though.

[PhilFleischmann]

Well it isn't entirely true that your getting "nothing" for the afore mentioned "Empty Shell" Aside obviously from getting storage space for an Armory

Would you make characters pay points to have an ordinary house to live in? Storage space is not worth anything in game terms. It's like having an Immobile Focus that isn't attached to any actual power. The stuff you put in the storage space may well be worth points. But should you have to pay for the bathrooms and hallways, etc.? (See "Building a toilet")

(Fantasy characters usually end up knit out like the 4th armored devision by the end of quite a few games).

In D&D maybe, but not in my game!

It also provides space you could Rent out (assuming the base is in a town) to craftsmen or mages.

If you're collecting rent income, that's the Money Perk.

Alternativly the space can be used for Parties social events etc. and Living space is always a pleasent thing to have.

And what is that worth in game point terms? Maybe a positive Reputation: "Throws good parties," "Has a nice house,"

That Aside, by having your base "there" it means that no one else can use that space for anything else. And the Lord "BBEG" certainly isn't going to build his Tower of the Necro-Deatho Booki-Con anywhere near the Heros Hovel.

It does? Players Bases get attacked all the time. Stuff happens. Focuses get taken away/broken, powers get drained/suppressed/dispelled, followers get injured/killed, and bases can be attacked/encroached upon/burgled/etc.

In general, paying for base size feels too much like paying for special effects to me.

[Kortay Mirlor]

For example if you were to build a 50-foot diameter tower with 5 levels it would be equal to 9817.5 Square Feet of floor space. Just paying for the size alone costs about 30 base points which means that the character's would have to donate 6 Character Points just to buy the empty shell.

Say what? Five 7.62 meter radius circles is 912.1 square meters. A "hex" is 3.5 square meters (close 'nuf for gummint work ), so you got 260.6 hexes. That's 15 or 16 points:

cost     area
14        200
16        320

I'd say 15 cause its smack dab midway tween 200 and 320.

[katal3]

Well, Coming from DnD perhaps my perceptions are somewhat off base. but if I remember correctly the Variable Special Effects advantage is paying for special effect; so there is precedent, but I digress.
I think part of the decision was that there had to be some classification in regards to area size to account for the fact that having a larger base is more advantageous then having a smaller base. Like any potential advantage, there has to be a corresponding cost or there is no incentive to be frugal.
Now as to your earlier question PhilFleischmann, I might require the character purchase a house as a base, depending upon the circumstances and the setting. But in most cases I would consider a Home appropriate to ones wealth level to be an Everyman.
However, just because one doesn’t have to pay CP for it, doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be represented in HERO Mechanics. FH Equipment is a prime example, in most games (certainly most I’ve played in anyway) Equipment doesn’t Cost Points, but is still represented as a power or other construct unless it’s potential benefits are utterly out of scale with the system rules. Boots for example generally don’t have a “power-construct” unless they have some kind of Anti-Gravity-O-Mat built in or an enchantment to make you fleet of foot if you wear them.
Now in my games I plan on using the Dark Champions Resource Pool optional rules, thus that Castle would be considered a much more temporary purchase point wise, and should the party lose it to the afore mentioned Lord BBEG from the Tower of the Necro-Deatho Bookie-con then maybe the party can reinvest in a smaller more secure dungeon that they just “cleared-out” while they plot their revenge on Lord BBEG.

[PhilFleischmann]

I think part of the decision was that there had to be some classification in regards to area size to account for the fact that having a larger base is more advantageous then having a smaller base.

Really? What is that advantage? If your 12d6 EB gun is three feet long and mounted on your shoulder or if it's once inch long and mounted on your index finger, it still costs the same amount of points.

Like any potential advantage, there has to be a corresponding cost or there is no incentive to be frugal.

There is a corresponding cost, but not in CP, in money (both to purchase/rent, and for security/maintainance/overhead) and availability. I'm not saying that a PC has equal access to a peasant's hovel or a mansion at his whim!

Now as to your earlier question PhilFleischmann, I might require the character purchase a house as a base, depending upon the circumstances and the setting.

I just can't see any reason for doing this. You can do what you think is appropriate for your games of course, but I generally assume that it shouldn't cost CP just to have a place to sleep, eat, entertain guests, etc. Now if you've got weapons built into your house, or magical/technological devices that add functionality beyond what would be in a normal living space, then yes, that would have to be paid for. Examples include a "troub-alert" computer, crime lab, a palantir, a guard dragon, a moat with dangerous things in it, traps, seige engines, teleportation gate.

However, just because one doesn’t have to pay CP for it, doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be represented in HERO Mechanics.

Well if you don't have to pay CP for it, then I have no argument at all. I have no problem with paying for base size by some other means, and would in fact require it in most cases.

[katal3]

Really? What is that advantage? If your 12d6 EB gun is three feet long and mounted on your shoulder or if it's once inch long and mounted on your index finger, it still costs the same amount of points.

Actually there could very well be a difference if the two weapons were built according to their SFX. The larger gun would likely be a Bulky OIF, while the other a might be an IAF or IIF, Also the two weapons could also have very different STR Minimums

There is a corresponding cost, but not in CP, in money (both to purchase/rent, and for security/maintainance/overhead) and availability. I'm not saying that a PC has equal access to a peasant's hovel or a mansion at his whim!

Ahh, but there are many campaigns which do not use money in more then a abstract cursory fashion. and relying on "they pay for it with money" is rarely a good idea in my experience. In fact that does tend to be the assumption made in most Core material regarding accumulation of non-standard wealth (in most realistic fantasy settings actually owning the land you live on is pretty non-standard), but perhaps that just my own micromanagement

I just can't see any reason for doing this. You can do what you think is appropriate for your games of course, but I generally assume that it shouldn't cost CP just to have a place to sleep, eat, entertain guests, etc. Now if you've got weapons built into your house, or magical/technological devices that add functionality beyond what would be in a normal living space, then yes, that would have to be paid for. Examples include a "troub-alert" computer, crime lab, a palantir, a guard dragon, a moat with dangerous things in it, traps, seige engines, teleportation gate.

Yes but it is somewhat difficult to justify fitting supercomputers, "guard dragons" (gods think of the upkeep...) or moat in a house-space the size of a gnats naval. So paying for space is sort of like having a Reserve in a Multipower.

Well if you don't have to pay CP for it, then I have no argument at all. I have no problem with paying for base size by some other means, and would in fact require it in most cases.

I wouldn't call it an argument, I like discussing game mechanics most of the time, even if the person I'm discussing them with has a different perspective then my own.
In any case as I said, I plan on using Resource pools so the point cost is only marginally important for determining relative value on what are essentially temporary holdings.

[PhilFleischmann]

Actually there could very well be a difference if the two weapons were built according to their SFX. The larger gun would likely be a Bulky OIF, while the other a might be an IAF or IIF, Also the two weapons could also have very different STR Minimums

Yes, but they could have been built any number of ways. If they're both built the same way, say OIF, no STR min, paid for with CP, there is no game difference based on the size of the gun.

Ahh, but there are many campaigns which do not use money in more then a abstract cursory fashion.

I'm well aware of that. That's what I do.

and relying on "they pay for it with money" is rarely a good idea in my experience.

If you mean keeping track of exactly how many gold galleons and silver sickles and copper knuts each character has, then I agree with you. But you don't need to do that to know that a character with no Money Perk can't afford a luxurious mansion.

Yes but it is somewhat difficult to justify fitting supercomputers, "guard dragons" (gods think of the upkeep...) or moat in a house-space the size of a gnats naval.

Are those things less useful if kept in a small space than if they are kept in a large space? And by "useful," I mean in terms of the game mechanical benifit provided. A huge, fearsome dragon costs more than a baby dragon because it is more powerful, not because it requires more living space. A science lab that gives a +3 to Science Skill rolls should cost the same regardless of whether it's 10'x10' or 20'x20' or 30'x30' etc. Why? Because it does the same thing not matter how big it is.

So paying for space is sort of like having a Reserve in a Multipower.

No. It's more like paying extra for the privelege of having a Multipower. If you want a Multipower in your base, you pay for the Multipower itself.

I wouldn't call it an argument, I like discussing game mechanics most of the time, even if the person I'm discussing them with has a different perspective then my own.

That isn't what I meant by "argument." Perhaps I should have said, "disagreement." I enjoy it as well.

[katal3]

Yes, but they could have been built any number of ways. If they're both built the same way, say OIF, no STR min, paid for with CP, there is no game difference based on the size of the gun.

Except of course whatever the GM might choose to apply as house-rules, but effectively if they were built exactly the same, using no limitations to represent realism then yes, there is no factor in determining size. However I don't suggest that particular course of action. Besides, if just looking at the mechanics, your players can't tell see any difference in the builds for a sling and a Arbalest, then the cost of bases is the LEAST of your concerns

I'm well aware of that. That's what I do.


If you mean keeping track of exactly how many gold galleons and silver sickles and copper knuts each character has, then I agree with you. But you don't need to do that to know that a character with no Money Perk can't afford a luxurious mansion.

Although that is a valid point, it isn't what I meant.
No I mean being able to keep a party from power creeping at an inane level when a 5 point perk and a little patience are all that necessary to accumulate an ungodly amount of RP worth of Enchanted Crap Advanced Weapons etc etc etc, unless of course you do one of three things, no magic crap at all, just don't let them buy it (even if they really can afford whatever the previous owner to realistically take for it), or continually find ways to rape the players of money and/or magic crap. None of these options seem particularly nice, fun or likely to keep your players. Unless you have a better solution that it?

Are those things less useful if kept in a small space than if they are kept in a large space? And by "useful," I mean in terms of the game mechanical benifit provided. A huge, fearsome dragon costs more than a baby dragon because it is more powerful, not because it requires more living space. A science lab that gives a +3 to Science Skill rolls should cost the same regardless of whether it's 10'x10' or 20'x20' or 30'x30' etc. Why? Because it does the same thing not matter how big it is.

That’s not what the ladies say... anyway seriously.
I don't think it is unreasonable at all. in the example above you gave dragons, an excellent example, well mechanically speaking.
Isn't the entirely of the difference between the Baby and the adult dragons represent that from a thematic point of view one is older and much bigger. As such one can make a correlation to the dragons mechanical value, and the size of the space it is likely to inhabit. as it's Mechanics represent its size and strength (using the term loosely), which would effect the amount of space it needs to be comfortable, the amount of food it would eat, how much payment for it's services it might or might not charge (either in actually coin or perhaps "donations" (again, using the term loosely) to its hoard. These are all factors that would be of note to somebody choosing a Dragon as a Pet over say, a crap load of Orcish Mercs. but I'm on a tangent.
There is also an aspect of internal consistency that must be addressed. in Disadvantages, Powers, Limitations, anything which effects an Area or the size of that area, is assigned (if only an abstract) mechanical worth.
Example 1: Range, in most cases, unless the power is specifically "limited" range wise (which in and of itself give the range a certain value), it can hit just about anything you can see, so why does increasing that further with an advantage benefit you?
Example 2: Area, The change environment power, which is often used purely for SFX type effects and minor combat effects, must pay for the size of it's area, same for Darkness, Images, and certainly any power bought with the AoE advantage.
Example 3: Hunted; Although a "Hunted"s worth is based primarily on relative power, there is a modifier for range, indicating again, that spatial dimensions do have some worth.
Point: If all these other things have some spatially relatable value, that it would be inconsistent of a Perk (in case a Base) to be exempt from this.
Moving on to the Science Lab. There actually is a very simple advantage to having that same +3 split up over 30x30 rather then 10x10.
Destroyability: for one thing it will take much longer on average to destroy a larger lab, be that more grenades, more time spent on movement to hack at beakers, or more high yield explosives, either way that amount of are will take more resources to bomblast.
Also another advantage to having a larger area, say if your attacked inside said area. you have 1) more room to maneuver, or if your at the top of the tower and they at the bottem, they have to wind themselves jsut getting to you, all the while you might have the opportunity to be blasting them to hell as the run up the spiril staircase.

No. It's more like paying extra for the privelege of having a Multipower. If you want a Multipower in your base, you pay for the Multipower itself.

Perhaps, but there is also precedent for that, there are several magic systems for instance that have entry costs such as special talents which do nothing else then to allow you to cast spells of a given type. in fact I know of one system that you Actually had to have a special talent to use spells defined as Multipowers.
Also, that Multipower, no matter it's limitations represent something, in the case of Bases those are objects, enchantments, traps, etc. Well all those things are effected by the spatial dimensions of the base. A trap is hardly effective if space is so cramped that it kills you as well as the invaders, and that ballista takes space to fire from.

That isn't what I meant by "argument." Perhaps I should have said, "disagreement." I enjoy it as well.

Indeed!

As a final note I'd like to point out that were the rules charging you for say, the afore mentioned Spiral Staircase which the players will exhaust themselves on, or windows, then I would be 100% behind you, but their not charging you for a Spiral staircase, their charging you for potential. the Ability to put a spiral staircase there, or maybe a barracks for all those Orc Mercs you hired. etc. As such what that rules is charging you for in my opinion is Potential. namely because if you have a larger base you simply have more room to do interesting things while still maintaining functionality which is most definitely an advantage in my mind

[PhilFleischmann]

No I mean being able to keep a party from power creeping at an inane level when a 5 point perk and a little patience are all that necessary to accumulate an ungodly amount of RP worth of Enchanted Crap Advanced Weapons etc etc etc, unless of course you do one of three things, no magic crap at all, just don't let them buy it (even if they really can afford whatever the previous owner to realistically take for it), or continually find ways to rape the players of money and/or magic crap. None of these options seem particularly nice, fun or likely to keep your players. Unless you have a better solution that it?

My better solution: common sense. In a modern setting, no amount of money can buy you a time machine, or a starship, an interdimensional portal, a giant robotic security system, etc., but you can buy a luxurious mansion with paintings in the walls, a spacious bedroom, a lounge, a conservatory, etc. In a fantasy setting, the weathiest king can buy (with money) a huge castle with stone walls, a moat, solars, a nice courtyard with a jousting field, etc., but he can't buy plotdevicium walls, magical giant legs that walk the whole castle somewhere else, a moat of self-sustaining magical fire, etc. You can only buy things that are available.

Isn't the entirely of the difference between the Baby and the adult dragons represent that from a thematic point of view one is older and much bigger....These are all factors that would be of note to somebody choosing a Dragon as a Pet over say, a crap load of Orcish Mercs.

So what? You're already paying more for the bigger dragon because it's more powerful, it's built on more points, it costs more CP to have it in your base. The mere fact that it takes up more room doesn't get you any additional benefit. So why should you have to pay extra? Suppose you hire a platoon of Orcish Mercs. You pay for them as normal (with CP). If you have to pay extra CP for the barracks they sleep in and the mess hall they eat in and the bathrooms they uh, bathe in, why would you even bother? For the same CP, you could get a platoon of golems (built on the same points), which don't eat or sleep so they can all be crammed together in a small closet when you don't need them. What's the difference in game effect that justifies one costing more points than the other? Likewise, you could say that your platoon of orcs all live in the nearby village so you don't have to house them. The specified number that you paid for are always on patrol at any given time, but there are more of them that swap in and out as they change shifts. Same game effect - lower point cost.

There is also an aspect of internal consistency that must be addressed. in Disadvantages, Powers, Limitations, anything which effects an Area or the size of that area, is assigned (if only an abstract) mechanical worth.
Example 1: Range, ...
Example 2: Area, ....
Example 3: Hunted; ...

That's a completely different matter. In each of those cases, you're actually doing something - having a game effect - in the specified area. Empty floor space doesn't do anything. If you want an AE weapon in your base, you pay for its area of effect because you're actually doing something.

Moving on to the Science Lab. There actually is a very simple advantage to having that same +3 split up over 30x30 rather then 10x10.

And there are equal and opposite disadvantages to having a larger area as well. An enemy (not just you) has more room to maneuver, more places to hide. Destroying a science lab isn't so much a matter of damaging floor space as it is equipment. That +3 is the same amount of resource regardless of how thinly spead it is. A larger space that is damaged will take more to repair also. etc.

Perhaps, but there is also precedent for that, there are several magic systems for instance that have entry costs such as special talents which do nothing else then to allow you to cast spells of a given type.

I can't speak for any magic system without knowing the larger context of the campaign rules that it is used in. With the standard HERO rules, you should never have to pay points just for the privilege of paying more points. Each power or ability should only be purchased once. Yes, there can be certain campaign considerations that modify this general principle.

Also, that Multipower, no matter it's limitations represent something, in the case of Bases those are objects, enchantments, traps, etc. Well all those things are effected by the spatial dimensions of the base.

What do you mean? It's point cost is determined by how you bought it. And how you bought it determines what it does. The space it resides in is nothing more than thematics, which you should never have to pay for.

As a final note I'd like to point out that were the rules charging you for say, the afore mentioned Spiral Staircase which the players will exhaust themselves on, or windows, then I would be 100% behind you, but their not charging you for a Spiral staircase, their charging you for potential.

But they *do* charge you for the spiral staircase. They charge for every bit of area inside the base, whether or not it has a game benefit: hallways, bathrooms, bedrooms, meeting rooms, foyers, staircases, closets. Charging for "potential" is a very bad idea, IMO, and runs counter to everything else in HERO. You don't charge for potential, you charge for actual.