Is Punisher the problem?

[RDU Neil]

Ok... this is an unformed thought, but I wanted to throw it out there. It's actually a systems question, not a genre or taste question.

 

Is the Punisher... or gun-type characters like him... the reason we have to wrestle with the "points for equipment" issue?

 

Genre commentary aside (like "Supers aren't looters")... is the systems issue one of balance, where we are saying "If Punisher didn't have to pay for his guns, he'd essentially be getting his powers for free... where Cyclops has to pay out the yang for his optic blast."

 

That is the core of argument... right?

 

My question is.. does this argument still hold up under the current 5ER era of Hero? Does a character who packs guns without paying points really out of balance in today's level of starting characters at 350 points?

 

I find I have just as much of an issue with a gun-character buying a couple of handguns and saying they do 3d6 RKA... only 9 DC... even though they are just .45s... as I do with a character who used guns as equipment... but the guns were at least reflective of the appropriate damage classes. A .45 around 1.5D6 RKA.

 

Has anyone tried playing a superheroic level game where mundane equipment is treated as it is in a heroic level?

 

I've been edging more and more toward this end without any issues of balance. I'm beginning to wonder if I went back to my super-mercs team... and basically had players forget about paying points for any mundane equipment. If they want a truly unique magic sword or gun that shoots ghost-bullets... fine... that is really a power... but otherwise, use the equipments lists out of Ninja Hero and Dark Champions for all those swords and knives and hand cannons and sniper rifles. My players role play... and if it is in character for them to take a gun, they will and I won't say anything. If it isn't in character, they won't and we just move along.

 

The only concern I see is that... left unguided... those extra points might go into hellacious skills/stats, whatever... but then Hero requires GM oversight anyway, so this is no big deal.

 

Plus... the character who has bought UV vision as a power has a much, MUCH more reliable and effective ability. Someone who just has a set of surplus military night vision goggles... well I can layer on all kinds of real world issues like "lack of peripheral vision... blinded by bright lights... limited depth perception... seeing everything in washed out green" etc. As a GM, I find it easier to control equipment than power constructs. Equipment generally falls into a background flavor feel often as not, not disrupting the game at all.

 

Anyway, I thought I'd just throw this out there... heresy as it sounds... to see if anyone else has played with this idea. The more and more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward this.

 

At worst it might have a similar effect as the "Fantasy Hero issue of balancing mages with fighters who get their swords for free" but that has been very minimal of an issue, IMO.

 

Comments?

[MitchellS]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Without carefully reading this yet or fully thinking it through my first response is, if guns are mundane and useless in a superhero environment why do characters want them whether they paid points for them or not? My thinking is that they want them because they're not useless in all situations; and thus having value means they should have a CP cost.

[Katherine]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I could see a problem with Army Navy Man who carries around A brace of Stinger Missiles and LAW rockets with him (With his 40 strength), but I've admittedly never tried it.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Without carefully reading this yet or fully thinking it through my first response is' date=' if guns are mundane and useless in a superhero environment why do characters want them whether they paid points for them or not? My thinking is that they want them because they're not useless in all situations; and thus having value means they should have a CP cost.[/quote']

 

I guess then my question would be... "Why does a thing of value HAVE to cost points?"

 

It doesn't in Heroic level, with little issue of balance. So why would it in superheroic?

 

I don't make my supers pay points for flashlights and backpacks... and those have as much game value/influence as a handgun in many instances.

 

It may be that the powerlevel issue I started the post with is actually a red herring. I'm not sure about that.

 

It could be that the main "points for equipment" consideration is actually an attempt at genre enforcement... when you lure your first Champs players away from games like D&D, it is a hammer of a rule to enforce the "no looting" genre convention.

 

I think the fact that EXP is awarded based on effective role playing and engagement with the game over defeating foes and collecting loot is enough to enforce that. Hasn't been an issue for my games since 1984... so yeah... the question comes back to the above.

 

Is there a game system reason that states "things of value must be paid for with CP"... or is that a carry over that really has lost it's justification.

 

I'm not saying I'm right... just that I've been leaning this way for a few years now, with zero repercussions on game balance... so maybe...

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I could see a problem with Army Navy Man who carries around A brace of Stinger Missiles and LAW rockets with him (With his 40 strength)' date=' but I've admittedly never tried it.[/quote']

 

I guess I just find it much easier... as a GM... to say, "Since there is no role playing concept that actually allows you to have access to and use of high end military ordinance... Army Navy Man is empty handed!"

 

While at the same time... if a fight took place at a military dump... I'd have ZERO problem with a STR 40 character who knew what he was doing to go charging around with a couple Stingers.

 

Even if Army Navy Man was super wealthy... doesn't mean he has unlimited access to this kind of thing. Perks like Wealth and Contacts and Equipment are just so much easier to control in some cases, compared to some "I paid points for it, so I get it" power constructs.

 

Again, YMMV... and I'm willing to have people poke holes in the idea.

[Katherine]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I guess I just find it much easier... as a GM... to say, "Since there is no role playing concept that actually allows you to have access to and use of high end military ordinance... Army Navy Man is empty handed!"

 

While at the same time... if a fight took place at a military dump... I'd have ZERO problem with a STR 40 character who knew what he was doing to go charging around with a couple Stingers.

 

Even if Army Navy Man was super wealthy... doesn't mean he has unlimited access to this kind of thing. Perks like Wealth and Contacts and Equipment are just so much easier to control in some cases, compared to some "I paid points for it, so I get it" power constructs.

 

Again, YMMV... and I'm willing to have people poke holes in the idea.

 

Lets say Law rockets are 3d6 RKA armor peircing. You say he get get his hands on 3 on short notice. Power Armor Boy might have paid his points for the exact same weapon in a starting level game. 3d6 Armor Peircing RKA, 3 charges, OIF instead of OAF.

 

Then when you get into those neat blaster organizations like Viper seem to hand out like Santa Claus to their green suited thugs....

 

I I think it depends on your group, over all. Some people would mind, other's wouldn't. Some would abuse it others would stick to "genre" regardless.

[David Blue]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

OK, reading from the left and using the 7.62 M-60 LMG, which every Rambo will at least take to the party from time to time because it's free:

* I see +1 OCV +2 RMod. If you want to give gunners free levels, that's good.

* 2d6+1 RKA. Assuming you want the game to focus on free killing attacks that's good.

* +1 STUNx. Mmm, that's some decent damage, playing STUN lotto.

* STR Min 17. That won't break a hero's heart. Buy more strength with your free points!

* Shots 100. Good enough.

Killer-Man needs a melee weapon. That's not a problem: Katana time!

* +1 OCV. Everyone should use mundane killing attacks just for the free OCV!

* 11/2 D6 killing, stacks with strength. Nice, but a free Great Sword is better.

* STR Min 12. Is that a problem? I don't think so.

* And it can be thrown.

Killer-Man obviously needs grenades too.

* 2d6 killing explosion. They're free, so everyone should use lots of them.

 

And the beautiful thing is: you're a better man than Daredevil, all things equal, because he pays character points for that dinky little baton. Showing restraint and decency costs character points.

 

Now, Killer-Man hires a couple of flunkies (who he'll pay for) to run his free helicopter gunship. Nuke is a clear precedent here.

 

And pretty soon Killer-Man may get a chance to capture an alien disintegrator. After all, guns are free, right?

 

But even if he doesn't, is this how things should be? Heroes lugging around arsenals to use, at least, for the free levels?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

OK, reading from the left and using the 7.62 M-60 LMG, which every Rambo will at least take to the party from time to time because it's free:

* I see +1 OCV +2 RMod. If you want to give gunners free levels, that's good.

* 2d6+1 RKA. Assuming you want the game to focus on free killing attacks that's good.

* +1 STUNx. Mmm, that's some decent damage, playing STUN lotto.

* STR Min 17. That won't break a hero's heart. Buy more strength with your free points!

* Shots 100. Good enough.

Killer-Man needs a melee weapon. That's not a problem: Katana time!

* +1 OCV. Everyone should use mundane killing attacks just for the free OCV!

* 11/2 D6 killing, stacks with strength. Nice, but a free Great Sword is better.

* STR Min 12. Is that a problem? I don't think so.

* And it can be thrown.

Killer-Man obviously needs grenades too.

* 2d6 killing explosion. They're free, so everyone should use lots of them.

 

And the beautiful thing is: you're a better man than Daredevil, all things equal, because he pays character points for that dinky little baton. Showing restraint and decency costs character points.

 

Now, Killer-Man hires a couple of flunkies (who he'll pay for) to run his free helicopter gunship. Nuke is a clear precedent here.

 

And pretty soon Killer-Man may get a chance to capture an alien disintegrator. After all, guns are free, right?

 

But even if he doesn't, is this how things should be? Heroes lugging around arsenals to use, at least, for the free levels?

 

Everything you say is technically true... and is taking the situation to the extreme. You could do this with any situation in Hero... points or no. Check out Oddhat's build of a guy who can snuff out the sun on 350 points easy. Anything can be abused... but the fact is, nothing you put above would be out of the question for a heroic level game (with a monte haul GM who let the players have access to this kind of equipment) and we don't question the balance there. Do we?

 

Daredevil wouldn't have to pay points for his billy club any more than Killer-Man his guns.

 

A laser gun is not "mundane equipment" which is how I believe I defined this... unless we were playing a s-f campaign where that was the case. Even if they did take it... they might try to use it... and eventually it gets broken, lost, loses power, etc. Again... just like in a Heroic game where we wouldn't blink at this.

 

As for the helicopter gunship and thugs... go back and take a look at my post. It is about GM control over availability. Just because it could be possible, doesn't mean it is... so how likely is it that Killer-Man might get ahold of such an aircraft without the DEA and FBI all over his ass? Giving such ordinance to characters is a question faced all the time in Dark Champions or Danger International level games... why are supers any different?

 

Finally, your argument comes down to "I don't like it 'cause it breaks my genre preferences" which is not what I'm asking here. If the characters being played would not use this ordinance, then it is a role playing issue if they start hauling it around. As it stands, you can deck out your villains and thugs with whatever equipment you want already, without worrying about points, so it has nothing to do with "what the villains might do" but...

 

.... the question is, does having mundane equipment, including guns that a character might reasonably get ahold of... create an unbalancing situation? Does one character type become more effective than others? Does Daredevil lose out because his character chooses not to use guns? What about the fact that he can grab a bo-staff or nunchaku for free now?

 

If you feel this makes the game too gritty or not your thing... fine... but "I don't like it" isn't a legitimate problem. Balance is the answer, and I've yet to see such a problem.

 

(As for VIPER stuff... again, it is equipment. If they can legitimately claim to have access to it regularly... maybe. If they pick up an extra blaster now and then, no problem... but for years I've been very specific on the fact that high end tech equipment is NOT ubiquitous in my game... blasters are not a dime a dozen.)

[Katherine]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Well, then it works in your game. Go for it. You seem to be looking for Universal Ruling on the matter and I don't think that's going to happen. Too many different types of game being run by too many different types of people.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I think in most Heroic campaigns there are balances to keep players from simply picking up every piece of equipment they like. There is money to think about, and encumberance (even if you were to use the encumberance rules in a Superheroic campaign, there is usually no Characteristic Maxima to keep that cheap Strength from going high enough to account for any equipment). This means that for Heroic characters, there are more constraints than just the number of Character Points you have to spend, and at the same time character creation is easier, because all you have to worry about is the character’s basic Characteristics and Skills (with maybe a few other things thrown in, like “racial packages,†or what have you).

 

So as a player in a Heroic campaign, you usually don’t have to worry about putting together a bunch of powers. But as a GM in a Heroic campaign, you do! As you indicated, this does give you some control over what advantages and limitations a power “should†have, and it helps you create realistic special effects (e.g., “Sorry, if you want to do 3d6 points of damage, you are going to have to use a shotgun, not a revolverâ€). It also gives the players less power, which some might be okay with, and some might not.

 

In a Superherioc game, I don’t think there is anything wrong with defining “Everyman Powers,†such as giving every character a cell phone if they want one. As a genre thing, there is also usually nothing wrong with a character grabbing something nearby in the scene and using it. However, the idea is that the episodic nature of comic-book superheros really doesn’t leave much room for acquiring equipment and loot (unless it doesn’t have much effect on the story). Instead, you want to be able to compare characters by how many points they have, what the biggest defense they have is, etc. Superheros tend to keep the same capabilities for long periods of time, although they may go through dramatic transformations “now and then.â€

 

There is also probably nothing wrong with playing a “Heroic†campaign in which characters start out with 350 points. It just means the characters are all likely to have really high Characteristics and lots and lots of Skills/Skill Levels. It could mean that characters are going to look a lot the same because, lets face it, without having to buy expensive powers, that’s a lot of points to spend in relatively few places!

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I guess I just find it much easier... as a GM... to say, "Since there is no role playing concept that actually allows you to have access to and use of high end military ordinance... Army Navy Man is empty handed!"

 

Ah, but there is a role-playing concept for that. See, he's in the military, and on a secret mission.

[Blue]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I think "Points for Equipment" is a simple matter of technology catcing up with the game.

 

Example:

"Is it alright if I carry a cell phone?"

"Did you pay points for it?"

"Well, no, but if my DNPC can carry one and every NPC can carry one, why not me?"

 

Caused me to introduce the "Completely Disposable" rule. If you take non-point-purchased equipment into a fight, even if you are hit with the wimpiest blow ever, said equipment will break. Everything the modern world has, you can take advantage of like any normal person (provided you have enough money under the Money Perk), but expect things to get trashed that you try to use for superheroic purposes.

 

Example #2:

"It's a garage, right? Can I find an axe or a sledgehammer?"

"With a successful perception roll in the fight, you spot one."

[1 combat later]

"I did great with the sledge. I may make it standard equipment."

"Then you'll have to buy it with points."

"Why?"

 

Not many heroes running around with a standard sledgehammer. Not very super-heroic. Pointing that out sometimes falls on deaf ears. But saying flatly that it lacks the fortutitude of one purchased with points generally takes care of this.

 

I expect if I do cybernetics I'll require a mix of the two (That was a good suggestio), and I might even make it a matter of how well you work the system in order to get the implant. If I were running Dark Champions, I think nearly all equipment that is non-standard will be point based. Anything you get in the store today will be buyable and with only the regular tendancy to break.

[OddHat]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I run cash-for-real-tech Supers games by default, with perks required for access to anything that wouldn't be available by standard internet mail order. In a role-playing heavy game, where the War-Game elements are mainly there to advance the plot, I've never found it to be unbalancing. In a more combat-centered game, I'm sold the idea of Resource Points.

 

If starting a new game, I'd handle it like this:

 

1) Non-combat equipment and standard vehicles may be purchased with cash, limited only by logic and the players' wealth levels. Normal houses and apartments are purchased with cash. Non-combat staff with minimal profesional competence (an 11 or less in the appropriate PS) no more loyal than standard employees may also be hired.

 

2) Real tech combat equipment, bases, and combat worthy vehicles may be purchased as per the standard vehicles and bases rules, including the doubling for every 5 points. This makes a real-tech flak jacket cheap when compared to bullet proof skin; yes, that opens up a door to possible munchkinism in some campaigns. The answer to that problem is to learn how to say "no", or just not to allow personal equipment to be purchased in this way.

 

3) Skilled employees and contacts who are not under the direct control of the players may be purchased as a Contact Group. Employees who are under the direct control of players are standard Followers.

 

4) The Membership perk can be used at the GM's discretion to provide players with vehicles, equipment, contacts, and bases to further the plot.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I like the Resource Point system in Dark Champions. If you instituted that, it'd probably handle most problems, though you'd need some extra perks representing comic book level "agent tech" access.

[Katherine]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

POINTS!!!!!!!

 

Because damnit, if Pinnacle can't get 1d6 more damage for hitting someone broadside with an aircraft carrier without paying points for, Gunbunny can't carriy around Anti Tank weaponry for free.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

POINTS!!!!!!!

 

Because damnit, if Pinnacle can't get 1d6 more damage for hitting someone broadside with an aircraft carrier without paying points for, Gunbunny can't carriy around Anti Tank weaponry for free.

 

BINGO!

 

If points-free equipment is the rule, may as well buy lots of Wealth, some perks and some Driving skills. My character will fight from inside a state-of-the-art Sherman Tank. A combat helicopter replaces that if he needs to fly, or a submarine should the need arise.

 

My concept? He's the leader of a militaristic nation - 10 point perk, I believe, if that. Of course he can get his own tank, jet fighter, helicopter, submarine, etc. Black Panther isn't (ab)using those perks enough!

 

And the Punisher is always the problem!

[Mike W]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Okay. I have run/am running a street level Champs game where a Punisher type character would be appropriate. In fact, the original Punisher is guest starring tomorrow night.

 

Reasons why you want the Punisher to pay points for his guns, even if you use real world stats(which, by the way, is a limit in Champs -1/4 "real weapon") is twofold.

 

First, you still have to balance things out, especially when you get some of the nifty stuff like 2.5D6 RKA with +1 STUN multiplier and built in OCV bonuses(12 gauge shotgun). Or the 7.62 N assault rifle, 2D6+1RKA, 5 shot autofire, +1STUN multiplier, +1 OCV, +2 rge mod. That's a pretty nasty weapon. You better pay points for it. Also, if I don't have to pay 90 points for powers because I can buy a bunch of guns, a bulletproof vest, and listening equipment with nothing but a 5 point wealth perk, that means I've got lots of points to buy oh say, 20 skills, 10 languages(fluent conversation since I can afford to drop the 3 points on linguist), and enough weapon familiarities that GM will damn near have to invent something new to prevent me from being able to use any weapon I might come across. Even if you don't have any of them at ridiculous levels, that kind of skill set can be very powerful. The character should have to sacrifice something to get it. Not get it because all his "powers" come free because they are definied as equipment.

 

Second, do you really want to start adjudicating what counts as "supertech" and what counts as "modified normal tech"? Sooner or later, someone will want to take the above assault rifle and "tweak it" to get a higher ROF, another pip of damage, or whatever. Does he have to pay for it now? Or is it still "normal equipment" even if it doesn't have standard stats. It gets even worse for surveillance equipment since most of the "movie stuff" really does exist - but it's REALLY hard to get.

[David Blue]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

.... the question is' date=' does having mundane equipment, including guns that a character might reasonably get ahold of... create an unbalancing situation? Does one character type become more effective than others? Does Daredevil lose out because his character chooses not to use guns? What about the fact that he can grab a bo-staff or nunchaku for free now?[/quote']Daredevil can pick up a bo staff now? Good. That's basically a club: damage 4d6 normal.

 

"Does one character type become more effective than others?" Does Daredevil lose out by comparison to what Killer-Man gains? You tell me.

[OddHat]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Daredevil can pick up a bo staff now? Good. That's basically a club: damage 4d6 normal.

 

"Does one character type become more effective than others?" Does Daredevil lose out by comparison to what Killer-Man gains? You tell me.

 

If Daredevil chooses to use real karate weapons, he misses out compared to Killer-Man, but due to the strangeness of Hero System and depending on the campaign he may not lose that much. In a campaign where Killer Man finds it difficult to opperate in a crowded city while armed with machine guns and rocket launchers, Daredevil's weapon choices may prove less trouble. Added to that, assuming superheroic rules for adding damage with HAs, Daredevil can use martial arts and skill levels to add DCs much faster with his clubs than killer man can with his guns.

 

Of course, in a campaign where Killer Man is allowed to run around firing machine guns in the city with no consequences while normal weapons are capped at 2* Damage Classes the balance shifts back to Killer Man. That does change the tone of the campaign, but then some gamers may prefer that tone.

[David Blue]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I have no problem with this as a house rule to achieve the balance between different kinds of character concepts that you want in your game. That's what we all want - for things to balance out favouring a result that pleases us.

 

Here's where I double-disagree though:

 

RDU Neil: "If you feel this makes the game too gritty or not your thing... fine... but "I don't like it" isn't a legitimate problem. Balance is the answer, and I've yet to see such a problem."

 

First "what I like" is a legitimate problem, and solving that problem is actually the legitimate justification for this rule.

 

Second, no way is this rule neutral between character types as to who gains and who loses out. That fails the horse laugh test.

 

RDU Neil asked the question: "Does one character type become more effective than others?"

 

I'd answer, except Mike W already did, using the Punisher, the example named in the title of the thread.

 

OK, I will answer. Of course one character type becomes more effective: the type that suddenly gets free points equal to everything he used to spend on equipment, plus free additions to his arsenal that fit his character conception but which he couldn't afford before. Of course he gains, and others lose out by comparison.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I like the Resource Point system in Dark Champions. If you instituted that' date=' it'd probably handle most problems, though you'd need some extra perks representing comic book level "agent tech" access.[/quote']

 

Actually, I already do this... with my house rule that small arms start at -1 Stun Multiple (a flat x2) so +1 Stun multiple brings it up to a flat x3. Plus everything in the pool is "Real Equipment" which means easily destroyed, loss... and subject to GM approval on availability. This has been essentially fine in all respects... and is one of the reasons I'm thinking of just going all the way to "no point for mundane equipment."

 

I do use a similar, if not as complete as Oddhat's, series of Perks/Contacts to represent things like availability of weapons, equipment from supporting agency, whatever. I like that.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

My concept? He's the leader of a militaristic nation - 10 point perk, I believe, if that. Of course he can get his own tank, jet fighter, helicopter, submarine, etc. Black Panther isn't (ab)using those perks enough!

 

In all seriousness... if a Heroic level character had Leader of Nation... would you just allow him to fly around in attack helicopters at will. Would you actually allow such a perk? C'mon... it's a specious argument. Perks don't guarantee such things... just give a more solid role playing reason why they MIGHT be available... and I'll tell you this... the downside of having such a Perk would highly outweigh the upside. Those are role playing cues... and subject to all the same issues. Abuse your wealth... likely to lose that perk... same with Leader of Nation.

 

GM decides what those Perks mean... not the players. A ten point perk is hardly enough to justify any action like that. With or without points for equipment... you could justify the same kind of munchkinism by just using the Perk is some clever, but uniquely abusive way every time. One time it's an attack helicopter... the next it is sending in your wetworks team to grease the villain... the next it is using UN influence, etc.

 

Points for equipments and abusing Perks aren't even the slightest bit related.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Second, do you really want to start adjudicating what counts as "supertech" and what counts as "modified normal tech"? Sooner or later, someone will want to take the above assault rifle and "tweak it" to get a higher ROF, another pip of damage, or whatever. Does he have to pay for it now? Or is it still "normal equipment" even if it doesn't have standard stats. It gets even worse for surveillance equipment since most of the "movie stuff" really does exist - but it's REALLY hard to get.

 

This is already being adjudicated all the time. Do you make them pay for their flashlights and normal cars and cell phones, etc.? I certainly don't... I've never had a problem with my adjudications on equipment being an issue... and it happens a lot. Also... if the player wants anything "guaranteed" to be available... and tweaked at all above what is standard... then they are back to paying points. Their choice.

[David Blue]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Actually, I already do this... with my house rule that small arms start at -1 Stun Multiple (a flat x2) so +1 Stun multiple brings it up to a flat x3. Plus everything in the pool is "Real Equipment" which means easily destroyed, loss... and subject to GM approval on availability. This has been essentially fine in all respects... and is one of the reasons I'm thinking of just going all the way to "no point for mundane equipment."

 

I do use a similar, if not as complete as Oddhat's, series of Perks/Contacts to represent things like availability of weapons, equipment from supporting agency, whatever. I like that.

That's interesting.

 

I remember you also don't use the speed chart - you use an initiative system instead.

 

Are there any special interactions between the kinds of equipment you allow free and the speed system you use?

 

I can't see any offhand, but a report from the guy with lots of experiences is better than speculation.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

If Daredevil chooses to use real karate weapons, he misses out compared to Killer-Man, but due to the strangeness of Hero System and depending on the campaign he may not lose that much. In a campaign where Killer Man finds it difficult to opperate in a crowded city while armed with machine guns and rocket launchers, Daredevil's weapon choices may prove less trouble. Added to that, assuming superheroic rules for adding damage with HAs, Daredevil can use martial arts and skill levels to add DCs much faster with his clubs than killer man can with his guns.

 

Of course, in a campaign where Killer Man is allowed to run around firing machine guns in the ciy with no consequences while normal weapons are capped at 2* Damage Classes the balance shifts back to Killer Man. That doe change the tone of the campaign, but then some gamers may prefer that tone.

 

Not sure I understand the "Normal capped at 2" bit... but the rest. Exactly. Using real weapons has all kinds of downsides... including the fact that such weapons can be traced, are less reliable, and the fact is... points or not... characters running around blazing away with impunity now has better controls. Before, if I penalize one player because his powers are "SFX guns" but the player with SFX "Energy bolts" doesn't take the same heat... that makes little sense... I'm punishing for SFX.

 

Now, if someone choose to use a gun, they are role playing. They are interacting on a societal level, and are subject to the civil guidelines for weapon use, etc. Carrying heavy weapons around is a majore disadvantage compared to having your own personal laser vision that is easily hidden.