Characteristics Issues

[ajackson]

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

That argument has to do with the fact that Dex is also overpowered. Strength and Dex are the big offenders among the stats.

[Kenn]

STR is too cheap, so bricks are too effective.

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

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

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

Am I missing any?

[Trebuchet]

That argument has to do with the fact that Dex is also overpowered. Strength and Dex are the big offenders among the stats.

Not exactly. The threads I mentioned attempted to prove that bricks were too powerful against martial artists or that martial artists were too effective against bricks. Now if those two Characteristics are overpowered as you say, shouldn't there have been corresponding threads about how poorly mentalists or energy projectors fare against bricks and/or martial artists?

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

[Trebuchet]

STR is too cheap, so bricks are too effective.

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

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

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

Am I missing any?

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

[BobGreenwade]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Markdoc]

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

jg

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

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

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

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

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

Please be careful to give more context.

[Vondy]

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

[Hugh Neilson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Klaus Mogensen]

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

If the energy projector wants to be so physically weak that he can't lift a child, then he can buy back his STR. IME, I haven't seen that happen, except once when a character had STR 8 (which gives almost the same figureds as STR 10). In fact, more energy projectors IME buy their STR to 13 or 18 because of the nice figureds.

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

You can't buy just 1" teleport. And if the energy projector is forced to put both Teleport and Entangle into a framework to get something like what the brick gets just from buying STR, then it soon becomes expensive. MP/EC slots are cheap, but not free.

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

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

In the comics, it is not rare to see bricks squeeze-welding girders or tying cables into knots. Different SFX, same results.
BTW, try spot-welding a bridge with a cold-based EB.

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

Very true. However, I think that right now, the tradeoff is a no-brainer with all the benefits you get. You yourself argue that throwing should be made less effective and Superleap should be removed as a figured. I just want to go a bit further by removing all figureds (but in return leave throwing alone).

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[Hugh Neilson]

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

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

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

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

[Klaus Mogensen]

STR is too cheap, so bricks are too effective.

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

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

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

Am I missing any?

Nice argument.

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

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

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

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[BobGreenwade]

You can't buy just 1" teleport.

Yes, you can. There's no rule forbidding it, and many published builds use Teleportation 1".

[Netzilla]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paragon]

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

jg

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