"Fixing" STRength

[Kintara]

Of course there's fuzziness. Of course GMs need to take a role. And, of course there needs to be a baseline for one to work under. I simply disagree that the baseline should have a bias in pricing from the perspective of method. Effectiveness is what I think matters. "Flava" can be supplied by the GM, and doesn't need point incentives. The baseline is just an estimate on the type of challenge one might see. I think the players can handle how they want to tackle the situation. So Strength should be priced according to how effective it is at overcoming situations on the baseline. You're implying that it's good that strength is better at its job than other things. If it's better, it's unbalanced. The fuzziness and the GM adjudication are actually moot points to me.

 

Edit: If you're saying that it isn't really better because the GM can make it worse for the character, that's different. But I don't think you're saying that. You're saying that strength should be used because its in genre to use strength, and if you make strength cheap, then people will buy it more often.

 

[Javed]

Originally posted by Gary

IOW, Str should be treated as any other normal attack power, and no special restrictions should be placed on it that wouldn't be placed on other normal attack powers.

 

And I don't place any other restrictions on it than I do on other attack powers. Characters cannot have every attack power in the book at 60AP and still be reasonable in the games I run. So I would be unlikely to let in a character with a big Flame attacks multipower and a STR in the same AP range. Nor would I allow a character with a big Flame attacks multipower and a 60 AP Ego attack.

 

Now if the character has 60 Str, and a 60 pt multipower with lots of attacks, and 30/30 Def, and 10 pts Mental, Power, Flash, and 12 DCV on 350 pts, then he's got some serious limitations on the character anyway that are going to cripple him in play.

 

So are you saying you would allow a character like that?

 

The character with 60 Str and 60 pt MP is spending 50 extra points on that 60 Str. Do you really think that the character will somehow be more "balanced" if he spends those extra 50 pts on Dex/Spd, Defenses, or Skill Levels?

 

Quite possibly. Versitility is a valuable ability too. Of course, as I keep stressing, I would have to see a complete character before making the final decision. A character with a 60 STR and a 60 pt. may be acceptable depending on the nature of the multipower, and the character's defences and the character's OCV/DCV and the character's...

 

You seem to prefer to ban certain abilities in isolation. Obviously that works for your games or you wouldn't be doing it. It doesn't work for mine, however.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Javed

You seem to prefer to ban certain abilities in isolation. Obviously that works for your games or you wouldn't be doing it. It doesn't work for mine, however.

 

YES! Someone else sees it! Thank you Javed!!!

[Gary]

Originally posted by Javed

And I don't place any other restrictions on it than I do on other attack powers. Characters cannot have every attack power in the book at 60AP and still be reasonable in the games I run. So I would be unlikely to let in a character with a big Flame attacks multipower and a STR in the same AP range. Nor would I allow a character with a big Flame attacks multipower and a 60 AP Ego attack.

 

So you would never allow a Superman or Firelord type character in any of your games?

 

Originally posted by Javed

So are you saying you would allow a character like that?

 

Of course not. I just don't see it as a possibility in a 350 pt game. Maybe your experience is different. If it were a 600 pt game, I would certainly allow it.

 

Originally posted by Javed

Quite possibly. Versitility is a valuable ability too. Of course, as I keep stressing, I would have to see a complete character before making the final decision. A character with a 60 STR and a 60 pt. may be acceptable depending on the nature of the multipower, and the character's defences and the character's OCV/DCV and the character's...

 

You just said in your previous post that "No GM you know of" (presumably including yourself) would ever allow a 60 Str with the 60 pt attack multipower. Now your changing your mind? This is very confusing.

 

Originally posted by Javed

You seem to prefer to ban certain abilities in isolation. Obviously that works for your games or you wouldn't be doing it. It doesn't work for mine, however.

 

You were the one that was flat out banning high str with a multipower. So obviously banning "certain abilities in isolation" (high str with high multipower) works for your games.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Kintara

Of course there's fuzziness. Of course GMs need to take a role. And, of course there needs to be a baseline for one to work under. I simply disagree that the baseline should have a bias in pricing from the perspective of method. Effectiveness is what I think matters. "Flava" can be supplied by the GM, and doesn't need point incentives. The baseline is just an estimate on the type of challenge one might see. I think the players can handle how they want to tackle the situation. So Strength should be priced according to how effective it is at overcoming situations on the baseline. You're implying that it's good that strength is better at its job than other things. If it's better, it's unbalanced. The fuzziness and the GM adjudication are actually moot points to me.

 

Edit: If you're saying that it isn't really better because the GM can make it worse for the character, that's different. But I don't think you're saying that. You're saying that strength should be used because its in genre to use strength, and if you make strength cheap, then people will buy it more often.

 

Just to be clear, let's separate my quoting Mentor from this argument in terms of it supporting either side. It doesn't. It's merely a standalone thing that whichever side we're on tempers (or should temper) the game.

 

Anyway, to be clear on a point I'm obviously not on, I'm saying that the points ARE simulating the genre as the genre (again, at its broadest, all heroic fiction) features STR as a common occurrence among the "movers and shakers" (whether PCs or significant NPCs) and devalues its cost while inflating its necessity. This has NOTHING to do with flavor, and everything to do with genre-correctness, again, not at the "flavor" level within this broad genre, but, rather straight up to the universal experience.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

YES! Someone else sees it! Thank you Javed!!!

 

I see it, too, FYI.

[Kintara]

No, I think I get you. But you're saying that since Strength is common in the genre, regardless of the broadness of it, it should be cheaper. But I don't think "commoness" should correlate to cost. Cost should simply correlate to the game benefit usefulness.

 

I think I see the reason why you think commmoness should correlate to cost, because it's like currency. But I don't think I agree. At least, I don't immediately buy the assertion.

 

[JmOz]

I look at figured characteristics as a form of power frameworks.

 

ESSENTIALY when you boil it down it is similar to an EC that has predetermined slots, because of this you get bonus points.

 

All characters have to take it true, but it still rewards you for specilising (Your nimble theif will be quicker, etc).

 

Also when comparing the price of Str, realise that most of the other 1 point primary characteristics effect skills, str does not in any meaningful way (Int & Pre)

 

When it comes down to it most character concepts will be able to use a power framework of some nature, Wizards in fantasy can use MP (going strictly by Fred here), Energy Projecting Supers with have EC's etc

 

But the strong guy does not have this advantage, be it a super heroic brick or a strong Fighter in

[tesuji]

Originally posted by zornwil

I also think people ignore the intersting sort of difference between HERO and what I would call a "flatter" system, M&M. With M&M, the attacks/defenses are much flatter. Mental stuff is effectively no more expensive - because after all it isn't really any more effective. But the side effect is that characters, defense-wise, have to be just as balanced. This creates (in my opinion) an unrealistic situation with bricks gifted in mental defenses.

 

As an FYI for accuracy, In MnM metal attacks ARE more expensive than routine attacks. The mental extra raises the cost by 1 per rank, or by about 50% to 100% depending on whether the power is an extra (ie in a framework) or not.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by JmOz

When it comes down to it most character concepts will be able to use a power framework of some nature, Wizards in fantasy can use MP (going strictly by Fred here), Energy Projecting Supers with have EC's etc

 

But the strong guy does not have this advantage, be it a super heroic brick or a strong Fighter in

 

So, in the "what if" realm... if figured characteristics were dropped but characteristics allowed as much as any other "power" to be placed in Ecs and multipowers and thus get the same price breaks other powers get, things would be balanced out?

[JmOz]

I'd want to play test it. But in theroy if you allowed something like a brick MP, with STR, CON, Stun, PD, ED, REC, etc, then maybe...

 

You would also need to raise the cost of skills, rework MA, and I am sure a dozen other little things to balance everything out.

 

Overall I don't have a problem with the Figured characteristics thing, I think of them as bundle deals, you get a little for free, but at the cost of no decision in what is in the bundle when you buy it...

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Kintara

No, I think I get you. But you're saying that since Strength is common in the genre, regardless of the broadness of it, it should be cheaper. But I don't think "commoness" should correlate to cost. Cost should simply correlate to the game benefit usefulness.

 

I think I see the reason why you think commmoness should correlate to cost, because it's like currency. But I don't think I agree. At least, I don't immediately buy the assertion.

 

Sure, here's where we agree to disagree. Of course to be fair my argument is probably as much based on the fact that in my experience I've never seen STR to be a problem anyway, and certainly on this count people's experiences clearly do vary.

[Javed]

Originally posted by Gary

So you would never allow a Superman or Firelord type character in any of your games?

 

 

 

Of course not. I just don't see it as a possibility in a 350 pt game. Maybe your experience is different. If it were a 600 pt game, I would certainly allow it.

 

And like you. I would not let Superman or Firelord into a 350 pt. game. Now if a character with a vast number of different attack styles had lower than average numbers in each attack, that would be different.

 

BTW, Superman is a bad example here. From what I've seen of him, he's got High STR, a big RKA which he seldom uses due to his psychologicals (Heat Vision) and some kind of eb/TK for pusing people backwards (wind breath).

 

You just said in your previous post that "No GM you know of" (presumably including yourself) would ever allow a 60 Str with the 60 pt attack multipower. Now your changing your mind? This is very confusing.

 

Let's look back at what I actually said. In fact, let's quote it:

 

Now, most GMs I play with would look carefully at a character that has 30/30 defences, 10 pts mental, power, and flash defence to sight and hearing, and a 12 DCV on top of it.

 

Same with STR and energy blast and other offensive abilities. No GM I know would allow a character with a 60 STR, and a multpower with 60 AP energy blasts, drains, ego attacks, mind control...

 

Now, I should have noted that in my games 12D6 tends to be a high average, so what this translates to is No GM I know of (myself included) would allow a character with above average attack levels in pretty much every attack power available.

 

You seem to have looked only at individual terms instead of the whole post.

 

You were the one that was flat out banning high str with a multipower. So obviously banning "certain abilities in isolation" (high str with high multipower) works for your games.

 

1) I was not flat out banning high strength with a multipower. I was banning strength of a level that is at the high average or even above average attack power level of my campaign in conjunction with a multipower full of different kinds of attacks that are also at the high end or even above average. Huge difference.

 

2) STR+Multipower is not one power in isolation. It is at least three powers (since buying a multipower with only one power in it is kind of wasteful).

[Gary]

Originally posted by Javed

And like you. I would not let Superman or Firelord into a 350 pt. game. Now if a character with a vast number of different attack styles had lower than average numbers in each attack, that would be different.

 

But unlike you, I have no problem with the conception itself.

 

Originally posted by Javed

Now, I should have noted that in my games 12D6 tends to be a high average, so what this translates to is No GM I know of (myself included) would allow a character with above average attack levels in pretty much every attack power available.

 

You seem to have looked only at individual terms instead of the whole post.

 

But if he has above average attacks in virtually every attack power, he's skimping on something. If he has the 60 pt 6 slot multipower and 60 Str, he probably has a huge overall limitation such as OIF power armor (which poses its own problems), or he has low Dex/Spd and/or low Def or movements. Someone with a 60 pt multipower and 60 str isn't going to be a problem if he has 18 dex/4 spd or low defenses.

 

 

Originally posted by Javed

1) I was not flat out banning high strength with a multipower. I was banning strength of a level that is at the high average or even above average attack power level of my campaign in conjunction with a multipower full of different kinds of attacks that are also at the high end or even above average. Huge difference.

 

2) STR+Multipower is not one power in isolation. It is at least three powers (since buying a multipower with only one power in it is kind of wasteful).

 

How about if the character has 18 dex/4 spd? Again, you should take your own advice and look at the total character, and not one power or set of powers in isolation.

[Edsel]

List me as one of those who thinks Strength is fine just as it is.

[Richard Logue]

I should have made this thread a poll... LoL

 

[Vorsch]

Im in the str is to cheap camp,( if there is one ).

 

Double the cost and its still a bargain.

 

reasoning, HA

[Blue Jogger]

I think Strength is fine for superheroes. Most heroes can justify having a 20 or 25 Strength by spending 10 or 15 points. Non-bricks should not go above half the Strength value of Bricks. Where Bricks are 40 to 60 Strength, non-brick should not be above 20 to 30 Strength. (Although, I have played an energy projector with the cheesy Strength ultraslot)

 

For heroic, NHM need to be enforced (and hard limits above NHM need to be outlined) and, in campaigns where Strength above 13 is rare, then doubling the cost is not outragous.

[Mike W]

STR is fine as is. Sure it gives you lots of nice figured characteristics for the cost, but it is giving you things that everyone needs - PD, STUN. It would be way too expensive otherwise. EB has lots of things you can do with it that you can't do with STR, people just don't think of them. Look through the rules - EB can be spread, bounced, used at range(even clear across a battle field) or up close, it can be powered down without having to "pull your punch". For pure energy projectors, they can also be the basis for an EC. I mean how many of us haven't seen say, an ice generator with EB, RKA, Etangle, and Ice Armor stuck in EC effectively halving the cost of all of them.Geez, that guy just saved 90 points if they're all 60 point powers...don't feel too sorry for him.

 

And anyway, if all the bricks suddenly have to buy 40 more points of STR, doesn't that just pump up their stats even more and make them that much harder to take down?

[Hugh Neilson]

These threads always focus on STR and CON. But not DEX or BOD.

 

Dex, it seems, is balanced. And it is. DEX costs 2 points each, plus one point for figured characteristics, Speed. At -1/2 for "no figured". DEX falls to 2 points and you lose 1 point in Fig Char.

 

BOD isn't. It gets 1 point figured per 2 points spent. It should get 2 points per 6 points spent.

 

Why do we assume it is STR and CON that are wrongly priced? Perhaps we should look at the pricing of figured Characteristics.

 

30 points buys +30 STR. 10 of that should be for figured characteristics. After all, a -1/2 limit will save 10 points. CON is the same - 60 points = +30 CON should buy 20 points of Figured Characteristics. Right now, STR gets 33 points of figured, and CON gets 63.

 

With this basic premise, how can we reprice the figured characteristics to make it work?

 

I don't think it's prudent to tinker with the cost of PD or ED. Defense powers are pretty consistent (just like STR at 5 points per 1d6 HTH is a staple). We won't mess with this.

 

We still need a lot of changes to make this workable. Let's change the cost of REC from 2 to 1. And let's divorce it from STR and CON a bit - we'll make it 2 + 1/10 STR + 1/10 CON.

 

What about STUN? Well, I'm going to suggest a reduction to the cost of STUN - to 3 STUN per character point. We're constantly admonished to buy up STUN, rather than Defenses, right? So let's make that a more appealing alternative. Besides, it takes 3 or more hits to take the average Super down, so 1 point of PD is worth more than a point of Stun. Now, we still need to fix BOD's balance somehow, so let's make STUN = 2x BOD + 1/10 STR + 1/10 STR. This makes BOD the primary determinant of Stun, with STR and CON having only minimal impact. Now 30 points of BOD buys 60 points of STUN, worth 20 CP - the -1/2 limitation for "no figured char" is perfect.

 

That leaves END, and I'm again going to suggest a major change - 3 points of END per character point, just like STUN. And you get 10 + CON END (so less END derived from CON).

 

So where would that leave us? Well...

 

30 pts STR gets 6 PD (6 points), 3 REC (3 points) and 3 STUN (1 point) for a total of 10character points worth of figured characteristics.

 

30 pts CON gets 6 ED (6 points), 3 REC (3 points) 3 STUN (1 point) and 30 END (10 points) for a total of 20 character points worth of figured characteristics. Perfectly balanced with "No Figured" to be -1/2.

 

So what happens to our Brick friends under this model? They lose some STUN and REC. But it's a lot cheaper to buy more!, isn't it? High CON no longer grants as large a free ride for END or STUN either.

 

Now, we'll need a few more adjustments to come to grips with this. First, END Batteries - there's still a good discount on END, but we should halve the cost of REC, so it's 2 REC per point for END batteries.

 

Next, adjustment powers. We can fix these readily by defining REC, END and STUN as "defense powers" affected only half by adjustment powers.

 

There's probably some other items that will need to change. But this option for "fixing" the various stats never seems to be looked at, so what do those who think there's a problem think of making the fix through figured characteristics, rather than through repricing CON and STR? The next question, to me, would be whether CON is worth 1 1/3 points (the base cost, net of figureds).

 

EDIT: I have no real problem with the current state of affairs. But we seem to see this "STR and CON are too cheap" thread on a fairly regular basis, so let's look at solving the underlying problem - that 1/3 of these points should come from figured CHAR's, based on the value of the limitation, and that figured are WAY too expensive for that to happen.

[Gary]

Actually, there is a lot argument that Dex is too cheap as is. It's certainly a lot cheaper and more effective than buying levels and lightning reflexes would be.

 

What I would personally favor would be to get rid of figured characteristics altogether. And I do favor pricing some of the figured characteristics lower. Here's how I would price the stats with no figureds:

 

Str 1

Dex 3

Con 1

Body 1

Int 1

Ego 2

Pre 1

Com (irrelevant)

PD 1

ED 1

Spd 10

Rec 1

End 1/3

Stun 1/2

 

Con, Body, and Stun would be considered "defense" powers for adjustment purposes.

 

The one big problem with repricing Stun like this is that it makes Damage Reduction extremely effective, perhaps too effective.

[Kintara]

Let me just add in some hearty agreement with Gary. That said, I think Hugh's thinking is really interesting, and I think it would certainly be an improvement.

 

Edit: Gary, would you keep the starting levels of the "Figureds" where they are (PD/ED at 2, etc.)?

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

Actually, there is a lot argument that Dex is too cheap as is. It's certainly a lot cheaper and more effective than buying levels and lightning reflexes would be.

 

What I would personally favor would be to get rid of figured characteristics altogether. And I do favor pricing some of the figured characteristics lower. Here's how I would price the stats with no figureds:

 

Str 1

Dex 3

Con 1

Body 1

Int 1

Ego 2

Pre 1

Com (irrelevant)

PD 1

ED 1

Spd 10

Rec 1

End 1/3

Stun 1/2

 

Con, Body, and Stun would be considered "defense" powers for adjustment purposes.

 

The one big problem with repricing Stun like this is that it makes Damage Reduction extremely effective, perhaps too effective.

 

Is DEX still affecting CVs in this scenario?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kintara

Let me just add in some hearty agreement with Gary. That said, I think Hugh's thinking is really interesting, and I think it would certainly be an improvement.

 

Edit: Gary, would you keep the starting levels of the "Figureds" where they are (PD/ED at 2, etc.)?

 

Yep.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil

Is DEX still affecting CVs in this scenario?

 

Of course. At 3 pts per point of dex, it'd be rather expensive if it didn't.