Which is Better, Figured Characteristics or No Figured Characteristics?

[Grailknight]

Defender was even worse than that. He took NCM and Steve Long came up with the "Defender exploit" so that Characteristics bought in Frameworks weren't subject to NCM doubling.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

All the Champions, IIRC, were new for 4e. Much of the IP did not move to DoJ, so many characters referred to in prior editions weren't available to write up as example characters.  Defender is a powered armor character.  1e/2e used Crusader and Starburst as detailed character creation examples, IIRC.

 

I really, really liked that team.  Maybe not idea to describe the rules with but great, interesting, compelling team.  Each of them (other than Defender) had great backgrounds and stories that a writer could pull from.  They even had a supporting cast of characters and NPCs.  I wanted so bad to write that comic book, hell I had like 10 issues and a 6 issue miniseries written up (the first issues introducing each character).

[Duke Bushido]

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Why doesn't Obsidian get a disadvantage for "pays double for mental powers"?  Defender IS "getting away with something" as he avoids 20 points worth of complications.  "I pay extra for things I am not buying anyway" is not a disadvantage,

 

 

From many previous discussions, Hugh and others already know that I agree with them regarding the sketchiness of NCM as a Disadplication.  The off-chanted mantra "a Disadvantage that does not limit is worthless" in itself suggests that this disadvantage cannot even be applied until a character has bought increased characteristics to such a point that the coat exceeds the points earned from NCM, as until that point, there has been zero "complication" to the character:  until the disadvantage break-even point, the points gained  from the disadvantage directly remove the actual problem by paying the additional burden until this point.

 

This means that the character's out of pocket cost for,his characteristics is precisely the same with or without the Disadplication.  It has not limited this character.  A disadvantage thtlat doesnt limit, etc.

 

Now should the character want more increased characteristics than the Disadplication value will offset, then you have a small case.  I say a small case, because even then, the character is only limited once.  As soon as he pays the double cost, the characteristic he bought still behaves one-hundred percent in all ways like any non-limited characteristic.

 

Yes- there is an endless debate here, but for my money, this is much better set into the category of "campaign rule" than a Disadplication.

 

 

I could, following the logic of NCM as a Disad, fund my energy-blast martial artist By selecting "Disadvanatges" such as NCM, movement costs double; power armor may not be bought as Focus, and other such "penalties" for things I have no intention of buying anyway.

 

I clearly admit that I have not seen everything, but I can honestly say that in 40 years of playing, I have never seen anyone who took the 20 points for NCN ever actually buy a characterisitc over that NCM-- his concept simply didn't call for it.

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

@Hugh Neilsonand @Grailknight, you both seem to have overlooked Armadillo. Which is probably more abusive since All if his stats per-6th were Normal and everything else bought  through OIF.  Defender as in Armadillo and Blue Jay for that matter are Normals in Super Armor to compete with Supers. In fact, I would comfortably say most, 85%, of Champions Characters of this concept are built like this and none of their out of suit stats would violate NCM. Iow, I don’t see Defender being built to take advantage of NCM but rather taking because it suits the character’s concept and build. 

[dmjalund]

i would reintroduce the difference between characteristics and powers. You can still declare characteristics bought as powers, but they are separate. This will allow Normal Character Maximum to not apply to characteristics bought through foci and racial characteristics would also be powers. One could rule that characteristics bought as powers would not affect figured characteristics, or that the differences caused by the power based characteristic boost must also be defined as powers.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Normal Characteristics Maxima as a disad was dumped for these very reasons.  It was a complication that rarely if ever complicated.  Even if you spent xps on stats, you probably weren't going to make your power armor guy have 5 speed or something, that's why they had the armor: to compensate.  It always felt like a cheat, from the very beginning.  I mean I get the concept behind it, but it never was actually limiting to take that because nobody ever bought stats up enough to cost them anything.  Its like buying vulnerable to a mineral that doesn't exist: technically it would limit you if the thing ever showed up but... it doesn't.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

@Hugh Neilsonand @Grailknight, you both seem to have overlooked Armadillo. Which is probably more abusive since All if his stats per-6th were Normal and everything else bought  through OIF.  Defender as in Armadillo and Blue Jay for that matter are Normals in Super Armor to compete with Supers. In fact, I would comfortably say most, 85%, of Champions Characters of this concept are built like this and none of their out of suit stats would violate NCM. Iow, I don’t see Defender being built to take advantage of NCM but rather taking because it suits the character’s concept and build. 

 

How did the Disadvantage cause them any actual disadvantage?  Why couldn't a Mutant take a Disadvantage for "non-Mutant powers cost double"? Let's give Solitaire 20 points for "technology-based powers cost double" and Seeker can get 20 points for "powers not based on being a highly trained athletic normal" cost double".  Obsidian can pay double for powers that don't come from being an alien.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[Pattern Ghost]

IMO, requiring such a high ratio of character build points come from Disadvantages diluted their impact. When I first read Champions, I thought, "Wow, this game has some role playing hooks built right into the system!" When I first built a character, I thought, "How am I going to cram in X number of Disadvantages on this sheet and keep the character in concept?" If you only have meaningful disadvantages, then you don't need as many to define a character, and that side of the character sheet starts looking more diverse among characters in the group. It also makes life easier for the GM.

[Gauntlet]

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

IMO, requiring such a high ratio of character build points come from Disadvantages diluted their impact. When I first read Champions, I thought, "Wow, this game has some role playing hooks built right into the system!" When I first built a character, I thought, "How am I going to cram in X number of Disadvantages on this sheet and keep the character in concept?" If you only have meaningful disadvantages, then you don't need as many to define a character, and that side of the character sheet starts looking more diverse among characters in the group. It also makes life easier for the GM.

 

I definitely have to agree. Even with 5th edition or before I reduced the number of disadvantages characters had to have. I usually had Champions characters have 250 point base and 100 in disadvantages, dropping 50 points of disadvantages. This meant that characters didn't have to be hunted by everyone, which was the most common disadvantage characters took to get the numbers up.

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Gauntlet said:

which was the most common disadvantage characters took to get the numbers up.

 

That's the key phrase here, I think, because it describes the situation perfectly.  Especially because so many classes of complication should generally be very rare;  I'm thinking primarily about Dependence, Susceptibility, and Vulnerability.  Accidental Change requires multiple forms, so that's often not available.  

[Gauntlet]

On 8/20/2023 at 7:40 PM, unclevlad said:

The stereotypes were put in place to enforce class separations in D&D...that's the ONLY reason, IMO.  And heck, it never even made much sense once sorcerer was introduced.  They STILL enforced the same ridiculous notions...oh, metal interferes with casting...unless it's elven chain.  Oh, casters are ridiculously frail...more frail than peasants!  STUPID.  And they're put in place so there's a value to have the fighters...well, as something other than meat shields.

 

To be honest original D&D Wizards weren't the way they were because of stereotyping. They actually were set up that way by Gary Gygax who truly hated wizards. He even stated as such in a couple of interviews, so he made them as hard to play as possible. Remember in D&D 2.0 how hard it was to get your wizard to 6th level, nearly impossible. You had one spell per day that had no chance of killing any creature (except maybe a giant rat). The only weapon you could use was a staff or a dagger and your chance to hit was practically nothing. Also, you only got a 1d4 worth of hit-points, so pretty much any hit killed you, even if the GM allowed all starting 1st level characters start with maximum hit points. Also, even when at high level, forget getting any higher-level spells if you didn't have an 18 INT. And last but not least, your experience requirements were the highest of all the characters by far (especially towards the thief). And if you had the typical GM back then who only gave XPs to the ones that hurt or even killed the monsters (which is the way it was suggested in the rulebooks back then), good luck getting XP for that Wizard of yours. In old D&D game I plenty of times saw parties with an average level of 6 while the Wizard character was still first level (or second if he was lucky).