Jump to content

Opinions on two character creation variants I'm considering


DasBroot

Recommended Posts

I'm planning on running a new campaign but I'm planning on making a few changes to creation that I'm not certain will play out like I anticipate.  I've made a few sample characters and they seem fine but I'm certainly not a rule guru, so I thought I'd throw them at people who are:

 

Creation variant 1 - "Limitations to zero".  I've used this before but only in one shots with pre-generated characters.  How it works is that limitations are directly subtracted from advantages before calculating real cost.  Active cost uses the full advantaged value, as normal.  

 

Limitations can't reduce the base cost - anything that takes you below zero (an OAF rifle with a single level of armor piercing on a killing attack, for example) is discarded.  Said rifle, bought as a 4d6 RKA, would have a real cost of 60 and active cost of 75.  Nor can you get an 8d6 (6d6?) RKA for 60 real cost by taking -1 of limitatiions with no advantages. 

 

Each power is limited to -2 worth of limitations (well, you can take more - you just gain no benefit for it).  

 

This limits certain concepts, like gadgeteers or power armor users,  from saving points on pretty much any power and attribute they want which makes other origins, like 'lab experiment' and 'mutant' less likely to be built on significantly less 'effective' character points.  Not being able to lose your Blast attack (mutant with no limitations) is nice, but paying half for said blast attack with an OAF (even if it means occasionally not being able to use it) is nicer overall - because the points you save went somewhere else, perhaps skills or attributes, that won't be taken away from time to time like a focus.

 

These certain concepts still have an edge with this variant, mind you - advantaged powers - but it's a lesser edge, as many things (like attributes that aren't strength) don't really have persistent advantages to capitalise on this (Besides 'Inherent', which I adjudicate very carefully based on concept and mostly limit to life support.) Difficult to Dispel, I guess.

 

Or ... is it a lesser edge? Especially when combined with rule 2 (which I'll outline in another post later - this was wordier than I planned - but can be summed as using Real Cost instead of Active Cost in power pools).

 

Sample power builds are built on 80 Real cost caps, and I disallow multiple levels on AP, Penetrating, Hardened, Impenetrable, Increased stun multiplier, as well as Does Body. All Stop signs are examined very closely so there's no need to worry about Mega-Area Phantom Zone Bomb Man, who banishes the entire VIPER base with a single grenade throw.

 

What's the worst that can happen with variant 1? Is it worth it? Is a 400 point superhero without limitations more likely to have comparable scores in attributes, skills, talents, perks, and real cost on powers / total number of points on powers to a heavily limited companion?

 

If so, does that swing the bat the other direction? (I don't think so - you don't have to take limitations just because you're wearing power armor, after all).  Or does the limited companion still have an edge with more advantages on their powers?

Edited by DasBroot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would first like to correct you on the naming.  You are speaking of Advantages and "Limitations".  Sorry, but I was a little thrown by the use of the words.  Disadvantages used to be what Complications are now.

 

I think that this ruling will have the effect of Vanillaing (is that a word?) all of the characters out.  You won't have a bunch of Power Armor wearers or Weapon Masters since they won't get the big cost break.  I actually like it for that very reason.  Players tend to min-max using Limitations and this is a way of reigning them in.  However, on the negative side it will also discourage truly inventive power construction and limit the flavor of the game.  Of course you may see a bump in the use of Advantages that are compensated with Limitations (That Blaster Rifle you refer to may end up AP, Penetrating, Autofire which are paid for with the OAF Limitation).

 

Let us know how it works if you use it.

 

Deadman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continuing Deadman's thought, the min-max goal changes from getting the most active-points for the least real-points to purchasing advantages equal to your chosen limitation total. So if you know that you're going to take an Obvious Accessible Focus with 4 charges for (-2), I suspect players will shop for +2 worth of advantages to avoid wasting the points.

 

Can't you accomplish the same or better results with active point limits and GM review of limitations? Or if that feels too much like a tax audit, you could just put a hard cap on the number of limitations on any one power; say a maximum of 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a valid point - but in a way I'm *hoping* to see a little bit of that.  I *like* seeing advantaged and limited (fixed in OP) powers - a gun with a limit just to be a cheaper gun is understandable - you can use those saved points on body armor or something, but in a superhero or fantasy game I *want* to see that gun with indirect, or line of sight, or triggered, or immune to own power. These are advantages that are cinematic, thematic, and cool but in my experience often not taken because in a DC or active point capped game it directly weakens the main effect of the power - the Blast or RKA - in exchange for situational bonuses.

 

For example - a gun that affects desolid on a supernatural hunter:  With an AP cap or DC cap the min-maxer in us screams 'put it in a multipower, or you'll do less damage to the werewolves and zombies. And also the ghost, but at least you can affect him'.  One of my intents is for that not to be the case - your 60 real cost ghost busting gun that is evened out by limitations does just as much damage to the vampire lord when he's going to toe with your team as it does to everything else: it just packs a *nasty* surprise for him when he thinks that turning into mist form will save him from your undead hunting fury.

 

It's the same thing with things like trigger - trap man often has to jump through hoops to be relevant if the enemies are tuned towards a DC cap.  The enemy team brick, who is meant to take 5 to 20 stun from a full DC blast, wonders 'what was that?' as he walks through the triggered blast that does less than half the damage of the DC cap.

 

That's why I still feel there is a point to having a magic sword - as now you can throw that magic sword for as much damage as you can inflict by swinging it, or swing it effortlessly (no end).  At the same time your buddy, Captain Fistpunch, is hitting for just as much damage but doesn't have anything cool going on - but Disarm attacks are met with a laugh and a punch. With his fist. That you failed to disarm.

 

Is that fair to Mystic Blade? Is it fair to Captain Fistpunch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect telling your players the spirit of the rule will help drive the desired behavior. "This rule encourages people to take advantages they may not otherwise take. Since I know you're going to min-max anyway, min-max by adding more advantages."

 

I would anticipate all Multipower and Variable Power Pools frameworks to be built around the -2 total limitation such as:

 

Blast one

  • Area of effect (16m radius, Selective, Accurate) (+1 1/4)
  • Armor piercing (+1/4)
  • Penetrating (+1/2)

Blast two

  • Affects Desolidified (+1/2)
  • Damage Over Time (2 damage increments, damage occurs every 6 Segments +1 1/2)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your example Blast one is almost identical to the scenario that prompted me to make this thread when I was building a few sample characters.  Certain advantages almost become no-brainers to take, especially on attack powers, if you're using a Real Cost cap instead of Damage class cap.  No END or autofire is another.  While it might promote some creativity with seldomly chosen advantages (like Hole in the Middle) it can, and likely will, also turn into a chance to put advantages you always wished you could but ran into an AP or DC cap trying to (I've run both).

 

I'm debating if that's a bad thing.  With the inability to reduce the base cost  and a real cost cap (80) and my own non-stacking house rules for certain advantages I don't think it is: 80 points is a 16d6 blast and it's a HUGE chunk of even a 400 point budget - though it's one I expect most people will pay for their 'main' power.  It might be AP, penetrating, and AoE but each of those things are no more difficult to balance against than a base 16d6, ultimately.  In this case I would probably also use it as a pseudo-damage cap - all inherent (paid for) sources combined can't increase it past that point.  So strength, hand attack, martial levels, and your buddy throwing an aid can get you there but not over.  

 

Honestly damage isn't what I'm worried about - it's the easiest thing to balance in a Hero game.  That's why the question is at large the forum:  What other nastiness does this open up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're a lot more likely to see people load up on Advantages, rather than have high base cost powers.  5th edition analysis follows.

 

 

A 10D6 Energy Blast is 50 points, and cannot be reduced below 50 points no matter what you do to it.

 

A 2D6 Energy Blast, Continuous, NND, Does Body, 0 End, Uncontrolled is 50 points, but the cost can be reduced down to 17 points with a -2 limitation.

 

 

I know which one I'd rather a player take. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're a lot more likely to see people load up on Advantages, rather than have high base cost powers.  5th edition analysis follows.

 

 

A 10D6 Energy Blast is 50 points, and cannot be reduced below 50 points no matter what you do to it.

 

A 2D6 Energy Blast, Continuous, NND, Does Body, 0 End, Uncontrolled is 50 points, but the cost can be reduced down to 17 points with a -2 limitation.

 

 

I know which one I'd rather a player take. 

 

I could see that (as an aside 'Does Body' is one of my few house rule flat out disallowed advantages for a reason).  One of the players I bounced it off so far suggested an advantage level maximum - either +2 or +3.  I was already considering it - in fact my first idea involved HAVING to reach 0 with Limitations - so a -2 for a +2 at maximum (I called it "Net 0").  

 

I backed off on that because some powers (like Life Support on a skeleton) should be advantaged (Inherent - you can't make the skelton drown by Dispelling its Life Support: Self Contained Breathing) but shouldn't have limitations (Always On is NOT a limitation on life support - nobody has ever successfully convinced me that it is).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that this ruling will have the effect of Vanillaing (is that a word?) all of the characters out.  You won't have a bunch of Power Armor wearers or Weapon Masters since they won't get the big cost break.  I actually like it for that very reason.  Players tend to min-max using Limitations and this is a way of reigning them in.  However, on the negative side it will also discourage truly inventive power construction and limit the flavor of the game.  Of course you may see a bump in the use of Advantages that are compensated with Limitations (That Blaster Rifle you refer to may end up AP, Penetrating, Autofire which are paid for with the OAF Limitation).

Sure - why should anyone limit the power if they don't get a point break? So now instead of a 12d6 Blast Rifle, it may as well be a 6d6 AVAD Power Defense Rifle, since the latter will only cost half as much. 

 

I *want* to see that gun with indirect, or line of sight, or triggered, or immune to own power.

But will you? Or will it just become AVAD? Is a 4d6 AVAD, 3 Shot Autofire, AoE Accurate, OAF Blaster Pistol, 4 charges more desirable than a 12d6 Blast, OAF Blaster Pistol, 4 charges?

 

These are advantages that are cinematic, thematic, and cool but in my experience often not taken because in a DC or active point capped game it directly weakens the main effect of the power - the Blast or RKA - in exchange for situational bonuses.

Perhaps that suggests avoiding an AP cap and assessing which advantages should be considered in a DC cap. In 6e, Indirect is specifically noted as not increasing damage class as an example contrasted with AVAD. The list suggests that Trigger applies "in some instances", so if it's hamstringing a trapmaster, maybe it should not be a DC enhancer in that instance. Line of Sight, Personal Immunity and Affects Desolid are also not on the list of "advantages that directly affect damage".

 

That's why I still feel there is a point to having a magic sword - as now you can throw that magic sword for as much damage as you can inflict by swinging it, or swing it effortlessly (no end).

Oh look - Range and Reduced END are also not on the list of DC enhancing advantages!

 

I recall a discussion in the SETAC days about the impact something or other would have on AP caps. It was a short discussion as Steve indicated Hero is not intended to have AP caps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All pretty good points (and I can see where Steve is coming from).  More careful thought about a DC cap and what affects it instead of using an AP cap would probably accomplish half of what I want to accomplish - I'm going to keep it mind if my players (I've got two of six making sample characters right now) decide that this variant is just not any fun - but they're both enthusiastic about it (in a 'Challenge accepted!' kind of way).

 

 

The other half, though, is the avoiding of big RC savings for certain concepts (and even all around greater experience with the HERO system).  In exchange I open up the door for 160 active points of advantages on 80 point powers - and 240 AP is a much higher active point cap than I've ever allowed.  I really am uncertain whether increasing the quality of the powers selected in order to reduce the quantity of powers (especially attributes) will turn out to be wise.

 

 

One guy is actually kind of relieved - he's a min/maxer but also a team player, and if he doesn't squeeze each and every point out of a character (-1/4 to -1 or more on everything) he feels that he's let the group down.  He just doesn't seem to get how useless he makes a few other players who didn't do that feel, and never has - he just knows that people are upset with his character for some reason.  That's a table specific problem, though, and my greatest failing as a GM.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you could reduce the cost of non-damage increasing Advantages.  So the +1/2 level of Indirect only costs +1/4.  The +1 version only costs +1/2.  Make a list of the Advantages that you'd like to see players take more often and tell them that these are cheaper now.  If the problem is that players aren't taking these enough, then it stands to reason that the Advantages are overpriced for your game.

 

Alternatively (or maybe in conjunction with), perhaps you should use a variant of the Normal Characteristic Maximum rule.  Any power or ability over a certain level or damage class costs twice as much.  You could even do it in tiers.  Above this level is x2 cost, above this next level is x3, etc.  Hero Designer wouldn't really help you with that, but you could do it if you really wanted to.  But that would encourage people to take more fleshed out characters rather than focus on having one really powerful ability.  You might give people more points to work with since you're charging them more.

 

 

So, let's say I'm playing 5th edition (cuz it's what I know without going to the book), and we'd normally be using 350 characters with the following campaign averages:

12D6 attacks

8-9 OCV/DCV

5-6 Spd

25-30 Def

40-50 Stun

15-20" Movement

Skills 13- to 14-

 

But all our characters are looking the same.  We're always going to have a guy with OIF.  We're always going to have a guy with a -1/4 that doesn't really come up.  We're always going to have a guy with a really effective Multipower.  Everybody's going to have a way to hit every one of the suggested campaign limits.  And let's say that the GM is sick of seeing the same guys over and over again.  Nobody ever takes Invisible attacks, or Indirect, or Affects Desolid, because it's more efficient to just take pure dice of damage.

 

So what if we established some different rules?  Instead of 350 points, we'll say we get 450 points.  But these are the NCM campaign limits now:

8D6 attacks (x2 cost up to 11D6, x3 cost up to 14D6, x4 cost up to 17D6)

6 OCV/DCV (x2 cost up to 8, x3 cost up to 10, x4 cost up to 12)

4 Spd (x2 for 5, x3 for 6, x4 for 7)

15 Def, 5 resistant (x2 up to 25/15r, x3 up to 35/25r, x4 up to 45/45r)

30 Stun (x2 up to 45, x3 up to 60, x4 for 60+)

 

and we'll leave the movement and skills the same (unless you build a passing strike/move-through character)..Everything above these levels will cost more points.  Now, the characters will be expected to go above these limits in some ways.  Most people are still going to want that 12D6 attack, or that 6 Speed.  They're just going to pay more for it.  They'll have more points to spend, but not enough to duplicate their old character designs.  The new campaign rules will make it more efficient to select different sets of powers.  You've changed the cost equation significantly and that will affect character design.

 

I haven't done more than fiddle with this idea, so I don't know how well it would balance.  But it's something I've been tinkering with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, the very first thing someone did was put variable advantage (+1) on a blast to replace an entire variable power pool (Blast only).  Expensive to use, END wise ... but when your end is running low from doing cool +1 advantage things (autofire, area of effect, etc), they can always fall back on a 0 END with a +1/2 advantage attack.

 

Someone else realised that 'Resistant' is an Advantage you can apply to PD/ED rather than paying more base points for Resistant Defenses/Armor  (normally works out to the same point cost to buy the advantage on PD as just buying regular rPD, but not here).

 

The buzz also included the adjustment advantages.

 

I'm expecting to slam my head into a desk when I get the sheets...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Follow up to this - it's live, it's being used, and so far... I'm surprised at how well it's going.

 

As I hoped the base level of power and number of 'goodies' between different builds isn't significant due to heavy limitations. *Everyone* felt a point crunch, for a change, so number of powers is down but variety in powers is up - way up - because nobody could afford it all.  A full price point investment on a power seems to have made people very conscious of that power - to the point where entire concepts are being wrapped around powers that deserve a concept but previously everyone took with -2 or more just in case it ever came up.

 

The power armor brick's attacks and defenses are undeniably of a higher quality than the 'what the heck can I apply to bare skin' standard mutant brick but in most situations (non-exotic ones like armor piercing or penetrating) they stand equal - with similar base defense numbers and attributes.  The power armor brick didn't find himself with enough points to float extra stun, endurance, con, body in comparison due to limitations freeing up a hundred points to do so.

 

The magic focus blaster did indeed basically replace a cosmic pool for Blast powers with a +1 variable advantage blast - but since my changes don't affect active costs for purposes of calculating END and such it's very pricey to use (so half is being used as 0 end).  It's powerful - very, very powerful - but once against with the non-reducable base points being the limiting factor it's comparable in output to the blaster who is only using -1/2 limitation on their multipower pool with a few blasts in it.  

 

One hole that that thankfully nobody exploited was 'NND', though - a base 60 point 12d6 NND definitely has an incredible advantage over a 12d6 vs conventional defenses.  Perhaps not over a 12d6 armor piercing autofire attack for the same +1 advantage level but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...