Discussion on costs of Characteristics

[Opal]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Under what circumstances would a character have hight END' date=' REC, and/or STUN, and NOT be inherently "healthy" and also have a high CON? Is there a character concept that would call for a low to medium CON but high scores on those figured characteristics? [/quote'] Mostly, I'd think, such concepts would call for buying the extra figureds as powers. Things like combat drugs, magical spells, cybernetic batteries, etc.

 

 

 

The normal vs killing damage thing probable deserves it's own thread, which I'd be happy to participate in, of course..

 

 

 

The first example that leaps to my mind is that of a ancient sorceror whose health is on the wane but is preternatural powers ensure that it is difficult to knock him unconcious and he is able to fight and maintain his powers.

The Age limitation would obviously come in on that one, and would (IIRC) make it more efficient to buy up a couple of figureds to max than to buy up CON at double. Rather than buying up figureds (which Age also imposes a maximum upon), he could have an END battery and some strong defensive powers, or if he needs to boost a stat, Aid.

[Kdansky]

You more or less wrote down exactly what's wrong with str at 1:1, why character concepts work less well with it and how abusable the system is. Then you continue with things like "My players don't buy PD, they buy Force fields!" Which is completely pointless. They could instead buy PD (get IPE for free), and well, if they could PD, they could just get strength.

Stun is never useless and REC can be sold back if you really want to cut corners. So instead of your Force Field + 2 PD + 10 STR build, you can also have a Force Field (smaller) + 10 PD + 50 STR, without really paying anything more (cost: 40 str; saved points: 12 in PD (yes, we go from 20 to 12 resistant, but that won't kill us); sold back 8 rec for 16 and well, "sadly" 20 stun more. real cost of +40 strength: 12. You can also reduce your Force Field 3 more points (pd ed each), since you get 20 more stun, that lets you take 7 hits in succession with same or better results anyway, meaning, you only pay 6 points for the 40 strength, I guess now you want me to take into account that you need some more resistant defenses... So increase resistant PD somewhere by 4, costing 2. Total cost: 8 for 40 strength, oh, and we pay less end per phase for the field now, we've got more inherent/IPE defenses than before, and a lot more stun. The character got quite a bit of a power boost for 8 points. You can add "my powers make him stronger" to ANY concept, as you can with +CON.

 

You cannot argue "I don't need the PD, I buy Force Field." That's like saying: "I don't need to drink Water! I drink Coke!" Now guess what Coke mostly consists of (except the sugar ).

 

I'm in a hurry, so I will not continue this, but please read my text again, you seem to have missed the point by about 180°, five light-years and seven megabytes.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Are there situations that are being called point savings where you aren't at the same time gaining benefits?

Of course there are: Power Frameworks, Skill Enhancers, Power Limitations, there are all sorts of point-saving rules in HERO that don't gain benefits. Duh!

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Your right, he has not said, BUT if you follow the logic used you get the following

 

 

Fast Strike +2 OCV, +2d6 = 4 points

4 + 10 (0 end, -1/2 HA) = 14 points

 

According to the logic Fast Strike is negative 10 points

No. That's what you get if you DON"T follow the logic. There is no benefit gained along with the point-saving option (in this case the martial maneuver). Both seem to do the exact same thing. If you buy the 2 levels plus the 2d6 HA, and then switch it to a Fast Strike, you save points, but you don't gain an additional benefit.

 

If I have already decided to buy

flight, FF, and EB, each at 60 points

then decide I can use them all in a EC, my total has gone down (from 180 points to 120 points). Just like the examples KDansky has used over and over again about the figured characteristics and Str. Spend 30, save 90, net 60 of these so called "negative points"

Another perfect example of NOT following the logic or the definition of "negitive points" that I (and others) have used. Here, you are saving 60 points, but you are not gaining an additional benefit. You are actually gaining a restiction: if anyone Drains/Suppresses/Dispels any one of those three powers, you lose them all. And if that restriction is acceptible to you, one would have to wonder why you didn't just by the powers in an EC in the first place? It doesn't really prove anything to show that there is a *less* efficient way to buy something.

 

If I decide I want to know 12 languages, at the 2 point level, I have spent 24 points, then I go...Gee I can take linguist, that brings the cost to 15, gee looks like 9 points that by this philosiphy would have to be called "Negative points"

And yet another example of ignoring what I've been saying. Where is the benefit gained? Why are you not buying Linguist in the first place? You're saving points with a more efficient buy, but you aren't gaining any new ability.

 

However in all fairness it would have been better stated as "Anything that saves you points and does not hinder the character is negative points"

Don't put words in my mouth. I said exactly what I mean. If you want to ignore the definition I supplied and change it to something else, that's fine, but don't pretend you're arguing against my position. If I make statement A, and you respond by refuting statement B, we're not really having a conversation.

[Opal]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Both seem to do the exact same thing. If you buy the 2 levels plus the 2d6 HA' date=' and then switch it to a Fast Strike, you save points, but you don't gain an additional benefit.[/quote']Fine, just by the 0 END HA. +2d, 10 points. You take 'fast strike' instead, you 'get back' 6 points, and get an 'additional benefit' of a +2 OCV.

[JmOz]

No. That's what you get if you DON"T follow the logic. There is no benefit gained along with the point-saving option (in this case the martial maneuver). Both seem to do the exact same thing. If you buy the 2 levels plus the 2d6 HA, and then switch it to a Fast Strike, you save points, but you don't gain an additional benefit.

 

 

Another perfect example of NOT following the logic or the definition of "negitive points" that I (and others) have used. Here, you are saving 60 points, but you are not gaining an additional benefit. You are actually gaining a restiction: if anyone Drains/Suppresses/Dispels any one of those three powers, you lose them all. And if that restriction is acceptible to you, one would have to wonder why you didn't just by the powers in an EC in the first place? It doesn't really prove anything to show that there is a *less* efficient way to buy something.

 

 

And yet another example of ignoring what I've been saying. Where is the benefit gained? Why are you not buying Linguist in the first place? You're saving points with a more efficient buy, but you aren't gaining any new ability.

 

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I said exactly what I mean. If you want to ignore the definition I supplied and change it to something else, that's fine, but don't pretend you're arguing against my position. If I make statement A, and you respond by refuting statement B, we're not really having a conversation.

 

 

A) Not ignoring what you were saying, pointing out the errors in Kdansky's logic. Big difference from where i sit. Well actualy it is ignoring you, not because you deserve to be ignored but because I was concentrating on Kdansky. I will need to go back, read your definition, and consider a proper response to it, like I said I was concentrating on Kdansky

 

The revised quote was changing something I HAD SAID not you, so please before you jump me for putting words in your mouth MAKE SURE THAT IS WHAT I AM DOING. I am sorry but trying to attack me over me changing something that I said (and admiting to doing it while I am doing it, no trickery intended) and claiming I was doing it to YOU when I was doing it is low. Also before anyone states you did not know of me making that comment...You quoted me with it.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

A) Not ignoring what you were saying, pointing out the errors in Kdansky's logic. Big difference from where i sit. Well actualy it is ignoring you, not because you deserve to be ignored but because I was concentrating on Kdansky. I will need to go back, read your definition, and consider a proper response to it, like I said I was concentrating on Kdansky

 

The revised quote was changing something I HAD SAID not you, so please before you jump me for putting words in your mouth MAKE SURE THAT IS WHAT I AM DOING. I am sorry but trying to attack me over me changing something that I said (and admiting to doing it while I am doing it, no trickery intended) and claiming I was doing it to YOU when I was doing it is low. Also before anyone states you did not know of me making that comment...You quoted me with it.

You said to Kdansky, in post 509:

So obviously you count ANYTHING that saves you points as a negative points, this is a conceptual fault

which is NOT true. He never once made any such claim, nor did he count other things that save points as negative points. This is what I was trying to point out in my responce to the above statement.

 

Then you responded to *me* in post 515, refering to Kdansky as "he" - you were clearly responding to my post - in which *I* supplied my definition for "negative points," which as far as I can tell is the same (or at least close enough) to Kdansky's. And that was the definition you changed. I don't recall you ever supplying a definition of "negaitve points" that corresponded to anything Kdansky said, or anything I said, or anything that anyone proposing a change to the price structure of STR and/or its associated figureds said.

 

You did state that "negative points" do not exist. Even using your definition of "anything that saves you points," they certainly do exist. And if you change the definition in other ways, you can certainly arrive at something that doesn't exist if you want. By the same token, cats exist, but if you change the definition of "cat" to "a four-legged mammal with a single horn on the front of its head with magical powers," then no, cats don't exist.

[JmOz]

I am deleting this post, while I do not think anything in it was to offencive, I was angry when I posted it for being accused of putting words in Phil's mouth, something I did not do IMO.

 

I do owe Phil an appology however, so Phil, I am sorry that I lashed out in this post that I am now deleting, it was unfair to you, and I should keep better control over my anger.

 

I will be posting more later to respond to some of the other things you have said

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Of course there are: Power Frameworks' date=' Skill Enhancers, Power Limitations, there are all sorts of point-saving rules in HERO that don't gain benefits. Duh![/quote']

 

Wow, clearly we define benefit differently.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Deleting, I really should just stop posting, I know I won't, but I should.

 

The fact is that I am offended by some of the things that have been said, I am giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming it is unintentional, but it is coloring all of my responses right now. Hopefully I will calm down and be able to have an intelegent conversation

 

Until then

 

Str is a bundle deal, the costing includes all of the figured elements, there is no such thing as negative points, just more effective builds.

 

To term it Negative Points you open the door for the perception that you can take an infinite amount of Str to build any thing you want, this is wrong. I'm not saying the cost for strength is perfect, but it is not -0.1, it is 1:1 for a bundle of things, the sell back rule however is absolutly broken

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Alright, let me see if I understand this.

 

A flight from Albany to Miami w/ a layover in Pitsbugh takes 5 hours, no meal.

A direct Flight from Albany to Miami takes 3 hours and has an in-flight meal.

 

I've aquired 2 negative hours? If there's no meal on the direct flght I don't?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

You more or less wrote down exactly what's wrong with str at 1:1' date=' why character concepts work less well with it and how abusable the system is. Then you continue with things like "My players don't buy PD, they buy Force fields!" Which is completely pointless. They could instead buy PD (get IPE for free), and well, if they could PD, they could just get strength.[/quote']

 

And they could buy more attacks. If I drop my force field to take more PD, it commonly results in problems with an elemental control. You stated that, in your games, you were seeing everyone buying high STR. I told you that my experience differed, and provided a number of situations where it differed. You seem to believe that your experiences are somehow more relevant than the experiences of myself, and others who have not encountered significant problems with the current pricing of STR.

 

Stun is never useless and REC can be sold back if you really want to cut corners. So instead of your Force Field + 2 PD + 10 STR build' date=' you can also have a Force Field (smaller) + 10 PD + 50 STR, without really paying anything more (cost: 40 str; saved points: 12 in PD (yes, we go from 20 to 12 resistant, but that won't kill us);[/quote']

 

Actually, against the wrong attacker, losing 8 rDEF most certainly will kill you.

 

sold back 8 rec for 16 and well' date=' "sadly" 20 stun more. real cost of +40 strength: 12[/quote']

 

As I often say to exam writers "show your work to earn part marks". I see a 40 point cost of STR, -16 for REC (which you would, in my games, need to justify selling back, but assume a free for all for illustrative purposes) -8 for 8 points of force field = 16 points, not 12. 16 points I cannot spend on abilities more appropriate, and more synergestic, with my character's other abilities.

 

Of course, if my force field was in an EC, the cost of my EC was reduced four, the cost of the force field slot dropped by 4 and the cost of the other powers increased by 8 each. Assuming only 2 powers in the EC, that's a break even, raising the cost of that STR to 24. If there were four powers in it, that brings the cost back up to 40.

 

Of course, I could now buy up the EC and Force Field slot by four points each and get 24 points back, so it costs me negative 16 points to raise my Force Field. So I have gained a more powerful force field and saved 16 points. There was no detriment - all of those powers were already in my EC, so already limited in regards to adjustment powers. I gained a benefit and saved points - the same way it has been argued that buying STR results in a negative cost.

 

You can also reduce your Force Field 3 more points (pd ed each)' date=' since you get 20 more stun, that lets you take 7 hits in succession with same or better results anyway, meaning, you only pay 6 points for the 40 strength[/quote']

 

Unless I get Stunned, which will occur with a hit rolling 3 lower than before.

 

' date=' I guess now you want me to take into account that you need some more resistant defenses... So increase resistant PD somewhere by 4, costing 2. Total cost: 8 for 40 strength, oh, and we pay less end per phase for the field now, we've got more inherent/IPE defenses than before, and a lot more stun. The character got quite a bit of a power boost for 8 points. You can add "my powers make him stronger" to ANY concept, as you can with +CON.[/quote']

 

No one has said that STR doesn't grant benefits. I would note, however, that your costing concern is just as easily resolved by changing the cost and formuli for STUN, END and REC such that 15 points of STR actually grants 5 points worth of figured, as implied by the -1/2 "no figured" limitation. Under that model, people might also buy up STUN, REC and END rather than CON.

 

You cannot argue "I don't need the PD' date=' I buy Force Field." That's like saying: "I don't need to drink Water! I drink Coke!" Now guess what Coke mostly consists of (except the sugar ).[/quote']

 

As noted above, you fail to consider the synergies available with the force field in your haste to describe the synergies available with STR. I could have the PD and the force field, but that not only increases the cost, it also likely infringes on campaign limits related to defenses.

 

If I were seeing the cost of STR rendering characters lacking high STR uncompetitive, resulting in Bricks ruling the roost and/or all my players bumping their STR up, concept or not, then I would be concerned that STR is underpriced. I'm not seeing that. This leads me to the concern that doubling the price of STR would make characters whose concept does require high STR uncompetitive, making Bricks sidekicks to the more powerful characters not (over)spending on "new 2 point per STR".

 

To reiterate, show me one of two things:

 

- that the Brick characters published in groups of similar characters are based on less points than their lower STR teammmates, such that doubling the cost of their STR would just put them at the same point level.

 

- failing that, how you would extract the extra cost for 2:1 STR from a comparably priced Brick in a published team of characters of comparable power levels.

 

While I recognize it's easy to lose such suggestions in a thread this size, I would think that, if the issue were so glaringly obvious, this would not be a difficult task and would have been seized upon by those who know, with undeniable certainty, that 2:1 STR is the only possible solution.

 

I'm in a hurry' date=' so I will not continue this, but please read my text again, you seem to have missed the point by about 180°, five light-years and seven megabytes.[/quote']

 

As you can see from the above, if I am missing any point, I am unconvinced I am alone in that regard.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I am deleting this post, while I do not think anything in it was to offencive, I was angry when I posted it for being accused of putting words in Phil's mouth, something I did not do IMO.

 

I do owe Phil an appology however, so Phil, I am sorry that I lashed out in this post that I am now deleting, it was unfair to you, and I should keep better control over my anger.

 

I will be posting more later to respond to some of the other things you have said

 

I'm sending rep JmOz's way - I think we dont see enough public apologies when people have re-read their posts and decided that they were potentially inflamatory.

 

I approve and thought that I should publicly praise good behaviour as well as do so privately.

 

 

Doc

[Opal]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

- that the Brick characters published in groups of similar characters are based on less points than their lower STR teammmates' date=' such that doubling the cost of their STR would just put them at the same point level.[/quote']The original Bulldozer was built on a remarkably low point total. He was something of a wuss, but he did have a resonably high PD and could dish out apropriate damage for the usual 8-12d campaign.

 

- failing that, how you would extract the extra cost for 2:1 STR from a comparably priced Brick in a published team of characters of comparable power levels.

You could make up half the difference by selling back STN, which would put the Brick more in line with his comrades in that regard. For a 60 STR brick, that would leave 25 points to make up. That could be 5 HTH CSLs or 8 or so skills.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The original Bulldozer was built on a remarkably low point total. He was something of a wuss' date=' but he did have a resonably high PD and could dish out apropriate damage for the usual 8-12d campaign. [/quote']

 

I'm more thinking of a team member here...

 

You could make up half the difference by selling back STN' date=' which would put the Brick more in line with his comrades in that regard. For a 60 STR brick, that would leave 25 points to make up. That could be 5 HTH CSLs or 8 or so skills.[/quote']

 

Sell back Stun? OK, except that the Brick is generally built to take damage far more than other types. He can't generaly strike effectively from range, and he tends to have a lower end DCV. You do need that extra STUN if you get hit more often. Alternatively, you need some other equalizer which also costs points.

 

5 HTH CSL's is something I don't see a lot of Bricks packing. I can't think of many characters who can readily afford to lose 5 OCV, or 5 DCV (especially of you just dropped their STUN markedly). As for skills, sacrificing non-combat abilities to generate combat abilities isn't an approach I'd be inclined to go with. Now we have a structure where Bricks outside of combat just stand around and look tough while the other players play the game. Not a desirable result, IMO.

[Opal]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Sell back Stun? OK' date=' except that the Brick is generally built to take damage far more than other types.[/quote']Nod. But, one could argue that the expectation of the Brick having high STN stems from STR giving you a bunch of STN. The other characters in the Brick's team likely have STN no higher than the Brick would have after selling back his STN (especially if they do something similar due to the increased cost of any STR they may have gotten over 10).

 

He can't generaly strike effectively from range, and he tends to have a lower end DCV. You do need that extra STUN if you get hit more often.

That's the stereotype, but bricks can break that stereotype if they want.

 

5 HTH CSL's is something I don't see a lot of Bricks packing. I can't think of many characters who can readily afford to lose 5 OCV, or 5 DCV (especially of you just dropped their STUN markedly).

Can't argue with that. But that is on the scale of things that would have to be dropped to make up for 30 points of free stats the Brick would still have remaining after selling back all that STN. If 10 PD and 10 REC is really worth 6 OCV or DCV, as the 30 pts they cost would imply...

 

As for skills, sacrificing non-combat abilities to generate combat abilities isn't an approach I'd be inclined to go with. Now we have a structure where Bricks outside of combat just stand around and look tough while the other players play the game. Not a desirable result, IMO.

The brick as big dumb lunk who doesn't do much when it's not "clobber'n time" isn't any less common or hallowed a stereotype than the Brick that's not as quick as his other teammates and gets hit more often.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I'm sending rep JmOz's way - I think we dont see enough public apologies when people have re-read their posts and decided that they were potentially inflamatory.

 

I approve and thought that I should publicly praise good behaviour as well as do so privately.

 

 

Doc

 

Why are you looking at me like that, Democracy?

 

Page 37, guys. Just saying.

 

Oh and I'm really, genuinely sorry. Not sure what for yet, but it's only a matter fo time...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Can't argue with that. But that is on the scale of things that would have to be dropped to make up for 30 points of free stats the Brick would still have remaining after selling back all that STN. If 10 PD and 10 REC is really worth 6 OCV or DCV' date=' as the 30 pts they cost would imply...[/quote']

 

Which refers back nicely to my "lower the cost of STUN, REC and END" theory.

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Which refers back nicely to my "lower the cost of STUN' date=' REC and END" theory.[/quote']

 

It seems people would rather argue back and forth on the "Raise the cost of STR" proposal.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary hurries out to buy more STR before the cost goes up.

[GamePhil]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The brick as big dumb lunk who doesn't do much when it's not "clobber'n time" isn't any less common or hallowed a stereotype than the Brick that's not as quick as his other teammates and gets hit more often.

 

It's always funny when the Thing is pulled out as the stereotype of the big dumb lunk, considering numerous times that he's demonstrated great cunning and his confirmed skill as a pilot. I guess when you're on a team with Mr. Fantastic it's hard to look smart.

 

For a more germaine statement: Even that stereotype is not as hallowed as it sometimes seems.

 

And now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

It's always funny when the Thing is pulled out as the stereotype of the big dumb lunk' date=' considering numerous times that he's demonstrated great cunning and his confirmed skill as a pilot. I guess when you're on a team with Mr. Fantastic it's hard to look smart.[/quote']

 

On the same topic, what skills do we associate with Sue or Johnny Storm? Johnny's a classic car buff. Sue has picked up some skills in business administration over the years, but these aren't historical dogma. Ben probably has the second widest array off skills in the FF.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

On the same topic' date=' what skills do we associate with Sue or Johnny Storm? Johnny's a classic car buff. Sue has picked up some skills in business administration over the years, but these aren't historical dogma. Ben probably has the second widest array off skills in the FF.[/quote']

 

It's because STR is so cheap that he can afford all those extra skills.

[Opal]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Which refers back nicely to my "lower the cost of STUN' date=' REC and END" theory.[/quote']You're welcome.

 

Seriously, though, it also goes back to the simple idea behind package discounts: getting exactly what you want is better than getting more of something you only kindda want. In this case 'want' isn't just a matter of preference, but effectiveness. 10 REC and PD is worth 30 points, so are 6 OCV levels, but 10 REC and PD isn't worth taking a -6 OCV on an otherwise campaign-balanced character.