Hand to Hand Attack Over Priced?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hand to Hand Attack Over Priced?

 

Bricks with 350 points to spend can afford an MP anyway. Lots of bricks have the old Brick Tricks MP as well as an MP which helps with the SFX of the character.

 

Absolutely. If we did restructure to, say, eliminate figured characteristics and allow EC's such as "Strength Powers: STR, PD, STUN and REC", "Toughness Powers: Con, ED, REC, STun and END", "Hard to take down - BOD and STUN" and "Reflex Powers - DEX and SPD", then the benefits on buying high related stats would be similar to those allowed on purchasing related non-stat powers.

 

It would take considerable fine-tuning, but then so wpould repricing all the characteristics.

[Citizen Keen]

Re: Hand to Hand Attack Over Priced?

 

Personally I think Str is so cheap because in comics its probably the most common of all powers. But' date=' I wasn't there when the rules were concieved, so who knows.[/quote']

 

In Superheroic Campaigns, I generally leave Strength as is. In Heroic campaigns, I generally cost it up to 2 pts.

[Tae Kwon Dan]

Re: Hand to Hand Attack Over Priced?

 

Not at all man. You dont just give one player more points' date=' give them all.[/quote']

 

I understood that and you're not understanding how that would be a problem. Let's say for the sake of argument that HA is overpriced for what it does at 5 points for d6. You give me more character points to overcome this, but since I have more points shouldn't I just spend them on more of a power that isn't overpriced? I can get more of a better balanced power or the same amount of the power that I wanted at the old point total, but couldn't afford. That is a non-solution, because the people (PC's and NPC's) that spend their extra points on better balanced powers will still be ahead of me on the curve.

 

This sort of thing you can't change unless you just want to. I mean after all YOU are the GM so if you dont like the 5thED 1D6 HA for 5 pts then just MAKE it 1D6 for 3 pts.

 

Good to see this fallacy exists outside of the D&D boards. Let me show you why this is a non-solution to a system problem.

 

I can come over and posit a balance problem I perceive with the rules and make my arguments as to why I think it's a real problem. There are several valid responses to this:

 

1. Yes I agree that is a problem and here is how I suggest fixing it.

2. No that is not a problem, because you have misinterpreted the rules here.

3. It could be a problem, but not as big of a one as you make it out to be.

 

Those are all valid answers. The most invalid answer is "that is not a problem, because I'm the GM and I can just change the rules." In fact it's circular reasoning, because you're saying that something isn't a problem because you can make it not a problem. Well wasn't it a problem before you made it not a problem?

 

I dont have a 5th ED book so I dont know the changes but thats definately one I dont like. Especially for SuperHero. You have charcters running around with 40pd/ed of total defenses and possibly dmg reduction, how are you supposed to do any damage with a HA if it costs 5pts per.

 

Well it's 5 points per with a mandatory (-1/2) limitation on it. So it's actually 3 points for 1d6, 7 for 2d6, 10 for 3d6, but you'll run into the campaign AP cap faster than you would in 4th. Besides, bricks with HA's seem to have no trouble getting through PD.

 

 

I saw one guy post he started a game at 75pts and a year and half later they are 350pts. That averages 3.5 pts a game. OMG that blows. Crank up your points son! Just cause they are normal doesn't mean they are limited. Characters can be blessed by gods and stumble upon artifact books that "awaken" the mind. They can catch unknown disease that alter their genetics etc...

 

Actually that's the defintion of being normal. They are limited in what they can do. It sounds like you enjoy running games eventually everything turns into Supers. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but many people want their mundane campaigns to be, well, mundane. So a solution of "crank up the points" isn't really solving problems with costs.

[Citizen Keen]

Re: Hand to Hand Attack Over Priced?

 

Well it's 5 points per with a mandatory (-1/2) limitation on it. So it's actually 3 points for 1d6' date=' 7 for 2d6, 10 for 3d6, but you'll run into the campaign AP cap faster than you would in 4th. Besides, bricks with HA's seem to have no trouble getting through PD.[/quote']

 

I hadn't thought about the Active Point cap. You're one step ahead of me. In many ways, it does cost 5 points. Good call. Rep.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Hand to Hand Attack Over Priced?

 

While I appreciate that you /think/ that STR is the "most broken" element of the game, that doesn't make it so. Some people think so, some people don't. And in 5 Editions they haven't changed it yet. So obviously the designers don't necessarily agree.

 

I especially disagree that Powers should or shouldn't be built on a Characteristic versus a "core concept" (mechanic actually). They should be built on the character concept. Its funny you choose one "core concept" to champion while ignoring others.

 

Personally I think Str is so cheap because in comics its probably the most common of all powers. But, I wasn't there when the rules were concieved, so who knows.

 

Back to what I was saying... the question I was asking was about the system as it is written and looking for some understanding behind why it may or may not be that way that perhaps I have missed. My goal isn't creating broken powers (all Hero games I am involved in are as a GM), and I don't really appreciate the implication that I'm a munchkin.

 

My problem using "game" when I should have said "system." A system is intended to be an internally consistent, integrated set of parameters. If the system has inconsistencies and break points it is flawed, whether or not those break points/inconsistencies actually affect the "game" is a case by case basis.

 

To that, I should add that I probably should have said core "mechanic" instead of "concept." Concept starts to get into character, and that's not what I intended. Mechanic, on the other hand, is one of those system elements that needs to be as consistent and universally functional for the system to be as functional as possible.

 

If you have a system that MOST OF THE TIME says 1d6 costs 5 points... EXCEPT if your "concept" bases that 1d6 on STR, and then it only costs you 2.5 points. Now you have a system that is flawed, because it says one "concept" is twice a effective as all the rest... thus the system rewards that concept over others.

 

Hero is flawed at the system level, by rewarding high STR characters and those that buy Hand Attacks with more effecient/effective builds.

 

Now... granted... if you are ok with this then the flaw... the inconsistency in the system... isn't a problem for you. Back in the early days it was thought that STR should be cheap because it was intended to encourage characters to buy a lot of it. At 200 points characters showed only a mild imbalance... but as point levels skewed higher with new editions and experienced characters further tweaked/granulated the system the discrepency became a glaring imbalance in many many games... and became a source of further "bad system" creations like Hand Attacks.

 

With 25 years of play testing and analysis... and a clear drive to make Hero a more internally consistent system of mechanics by DOJ... it is actually quite odd that STR has not been addressed as breaking the core mechanic of 1d6 for 5 points.

 

Look at it this way... Hero is really five basic rules...

 

1. Roll under a target number for success on 3d6.

 

2. Plusses or minuses to target number for ease/difficulty of action.

 

3.1d6 Effect for 5 points.

 

4. Raise or lower the point cost for greater/lesser effectiveness.

 

5. Comparative character points act as a basic govenor for game balance... concept should not MECHANICALLY force one concept to be significantly more or less effective than another.

 

Every other rule in that massive black tome is extrapolated from these basic concepts. If one of the extrapolations (read rules) starts to violate this basic model, then it is important to make sure that deviation is necessary and appropriate to model the needed game effect. If there is no good reason, then the rule should be re-evaluated.

 

STR at 1 for 1 is the latter. 5 points of STR does get you 1d6 effect... but it also gets you +1 Defense, +2.5 Stun, increased movement (leaping), lifting effect, grab effect, throw effect, etc. That is whole LOTS more that 1d6 effect, for no good reason other than "It's always been that way."

 

STR as it is costed and allowing powers to be bought based on characteristics have a system generated effect that says high STR and Hand Attack characters are more efficient... thus more effective... thus better... thus the "right" character concept to play.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that high str/hand attack characters are more "right" than other concepts... so why should the system support that mechanically? It shouldn't. System is important so fix the system to better match the intention of Hero... which I would argue is to support a balanced mechanic system for building ANY character... not just the brick with brass knuckles.

[Darkhope]

Re: Hand to Hand Attack Over Priced?

 

How is saying the GM being the final call in rules and regulations for a game considered a fallacy in your eyes? You a rules natzi? All game systems are guidelines. Learn it and use it.

 

^^@Dan

[Tae Kwon Dan]

Re: Hand to Hand Attack Over Priced?

 

How is saying the GM being the final call in rules and regulations for a game considered a fallacy in your eyes? You a rules natzi? All game systems are guidelines. Learn it and use it.

 

^^@Dan

 

Did you read what I said at all? Please go back over what I said and then tell me that I said anything that says I'm a rules nazi. I even posted an example of how your position is circular reasoning and thus a named logical fallacy.

[Darkhope]

Re: Hand to Hand Attack Over Priced?

 

Well since you insist, I said :

 

This sort of thing you can't change unless you just want to. I mean after all YOU are the GM so if you dont like the 5thED 1D6 HA for 5 pts then just MAKE it 1D6 for 3 pts.

 

Then you said :

 

Good to see this fallacy exists outside of the D&D boards. Let me show you why this is a non-solution to a system problem.

 

Now, the way I read what you said is because of the word fallacy. From dictionary.com Fallacy is:

 

-A false notion.

-A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.

-Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.

-The quality of being deceptive.

 

So in conclusion we have me saying in shorhand that you are GM you can change the system to fit your campaign anyway you want. And you saying in shorthand that I'm false and my belief is erroneous.

 

Wheres the confusion?

[Tae Kwon Dan]

Re: Hand to Hand Attack Over Priced?

 

Now, the way I read what you said is because of the word fallacy. From dictionary.com Fallacy is:

 

-A false notion.

-A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.

-Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.

-The quality of being deceptive.

 

That's why I called it a fallacy. You're using circular reasoning which falls under the defintion I bolded above. And you're still missing my point. Yes you can change the rules however you want in your campaign, but so what?

 

The right answer can never be "it's not a problem, because I can make it not a problem" that does nobody any good in the long run. We're discussing if we think there is a problem with HA's cost and whether or not it's a big enough problem that Steven should change that cost in future editions. You can weigh in pro or con and give your reasoning, but the solution of "sure it's broken, but fix it yourself" isn't exactly where I think Steven wants things to go and he shouldn't. It's not only poor game design, but it's poor customer service.

 

Now that's not saying he has to accept any of the arguments or that he can't provide his own reasoning as why not to change things, but the whole "if you don't like it change it" philosophy is not the way to go.

[Darkhope]

Re: Hand to Hand Attack Over Priced?

 

That's why I called it a fallacy. You're using circular reasoning which falls under the defintion I bolded above. And you're still missing my point. Yes you can change the rules however you want in your campaign, but so what?

 

You make absolutely no sense to me. Twyly posted a topic about how he disagrees with the pricing of a HA. Since he cannot MAKE Steven pump out a 6th edition with revised rules for HA on a moments notice, my suggestion is; He's the gm, its his game, MAKE it 1D6 for 3 pts. I'm not using any circular reasoning or missing your point.

 

The right answer can never be "it's not a problem, because I can make it not a problem" that does nobody any good in the long run.

 

I never said its NOT a problem, to him it is a problem. He has the power to change it. He doesn't have to wait for anyone else to say its ok.

 

We're discussing if we think there is a problem with HA's cost and whether or not it's a big enough problem that Steven should change that cost in future editions. You can weigh in pro or con and give your reasoning, but the solution of "sure it's broken, but fix it yourself" isn't exactly where I think Steven wants things to go and he shouldn't. It's not only poor game design, but it's poor customer service.

 

Exactly, we as a community, as players and GM's are talking about Twyly's problem and how he can fix it. Steven has nothing to do with it. I'm sure he has a tips and complaint section of emails that he evaluates from time to time.

 

Now that's not saying he has to accept any of the arguments or that he can't provide his own reasoning as why not to change things, but the whole "if you don't like it change it" philosophy is not the way to go.

 

Thats EXACTLY the way to go unless your a "rules natzi" and say we have to play this way even though we hate it and it doesn't fit in my campaign because the book says thats the way it is. You as GM have ALL the power to take Steven's and George's "Guidlines" for the Hero System and trash, adapt, accept, improve, and limit to your liking. How long have you played? This is the most basic and should be the most fully understand concept for any gm of any game system.

[Citizen Keen]

Re: Hand to Hand Attack Over Priced?

 

Again, I'd like to ask that we tone down the ad hominem attacks. Please.

[Darkhope]

Re: Hand to Hand Attack Over Priced?

 

ad hominem? We aren't cursing or screaming at each other. Its a peacefull debate. No one is getting steamed bunny rabit. Move along, nothing to see here for you

[Tae Kwon Dan]

Re: Hand to Hand Attack Over Priced?

 

You make absolutely no sense to me. Twyly posted a topic about how he disagrees with the pricing of a HA. Since he cannot MAKE Steven pump out a 6th edition with revised rules for HA on a moments notice' date=' my suggestion is; He's the gm, its his game, MAKE it 1D6 for 3 pts. I'm not using any circular reasoning or missing your point. [/quote']

 

See I still don't think we're ont he same page here, because he's asking if others think it's overpriced as well. I'm sure that if he wanted to make it 3 points he could and just move along. Has no effect on me, you, or the guy standing over in the corner. That's fine doesn't bother me at all.

 

 

I never said its NOT a problem, to him it is a problem. He has the power to change it. He doesn't have to wait for anyone else to say its ok.

 

I think you misunderstood the OP's intent. He's just trying to get a feel for what others think. See their sides of the argument and how the community feels about this. Your original statement felt as if you think nothing in the system is wrong as long as the GM can change things.

 

I agree that HERO comes with a somewhat implied trust clause between GM and player, but it sounded like you were saying nothing is wrong, because the GM can always fix it. If that was not your intent I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

 

Exactly, we as a community, as players and GM's are talking about Twyly's problem and how he can fix it. Steven has nothing to do with it. I'm sure he has a tips and complaint section of emails that he evaluates from time to time.

 

Depends on how you view this board. I think of it as a discussion of the HERO system and not a house rules board other than bouncing them off of folks. Twyly really already knew the solution to his problem, go back to BBB rules on HA, but wanted to know what others thought. So I still say a you're a GM do what you like answer doesn't help that much in terms of the discussion.

 

 

 

Thats EXACTLY the way to go unless your a "rules natzi" and say we have to play this way even though we hate it and it doesn't fit in my campaign because the book says thats the way it is.

 

I think the rules nazi line is why folks think you're engaging in ad hominem's. Doesn't really bother me, but I thought I would throw that out there. In fact I am the ultimate rules nazi, because I'm the GM for my group. So whatever rules I say go.

 

I think you misunderstand my point here though. I'm fine with changing, removing, or adding rules to the game. Like I said it seemed like in your original points that you were falling under the old school I can change the system so there is nothing wrong with it chain of thought. Which is definitely poor reasoning. Since it seems that's not what was intended my original arguement still stands, but doesn't apply here.

 

You as GM have ALL the power to take Steven's and George's "Guidlines" for the Hero System and trash, adapt, accept, improve, and limit to your liking.

 

Of course, but like I said I feel like we're debating the system as it applies to everyone. Sort of a "what if" scenario if you will.

 

How long have you played? This is the most basic and should be the most fully understand concept for any gm of any game system.

 

I've been gaming for about 13 years now, but to be honest the how long have you been playing question is largely irrelevant. Some of the worst ideas I've seen on the D&D boards come from guys touting their 20+ years of gaming experience.

 

Once again I'm not against house rules at all, my list for D&D is pretty damn extensive to be honest, I'm against saying house rules are an adequate long term patch for defencies in any game system.