2 point STR

[Arthur]

This came up on the FH board: I am considering adopting it system-wide as a House Rule.

 

The cost as is doesn't seem too much of a problem in Superheroic games, as others have pointed out. Still, even there, Bricks can be built somewhat more cheaply than other archetypes. I would still make the change system-wide, for consistency.

 

At 2 pts per pt of STR, you have to change a few other aspects of the game to keep in line:

 

1. HTH attack: Doubles to 10 AP plus the Lim. Seems to clear up a lot of balance issues with that Power right there.

 

2. Extra DC for Martial Arts should also double to 8 pts per +1 DC. This is probably the biggest bugaboo. Do we then let extra DC bump up NND and KAs at 1/1 instead of 2/1?

 

3. CSLs used for damage become more effective. Perhaps they should increase damage at 1/3 instead of 1/2.

 

Has anyone else made this change? How did they deal with these issues? Were there any other ramifications? This enquiring mind wants to know!

[CrosshairCollie]

Now to add to the list of official debates ... THE GREAT STRENGTH DEBATE.

 

Me, I leave it as-is. I've never had a problem with it.

[gewing]

Re: 2 point STR

 

I'd just put HA to 5 points and drop the lim. just a fast thought.

 

Originally posted by Arthur

This came up on the FH board: I am considering adopting it system-wide as a House Rule.

 

The cost as is doesn't seem too much of a problem in Superheroic games, as others have pointed out. Still, even there, Bricks can be built somewhat more cheaply than other archetypes. I would still make the change system-wide, for consistency.

 

At 2 pts per pt of STR, you have to change a few other aspects of the game to keep in line:

 

1. HTH attack: Doubles to 10 AP plus the Lim. Seems to clear up a lot of balance issues with that Power right there.

 

2. Extra DC for Martial Arts should also double to 8 pts per +1 DC. This is probably the biggest bugaboo. Do we then let extra DC bump up NND and KAs at 1/1 instead of 2/1?

 

3. CSLs used for damage become more effective. Perhaps they should increase damage at 1/3 instead of 1/2.

 

Has anyone else made this change? How did they deal with these issues? Were there any other ramifications? This enquiring mind wants to know!

[Lord Liaden]

As I mentioned on the previous thread, I've used 2-pt. STR in my heroic-level campaigns for some time, while keeping it at 1 pt. in superheroic ones. The other distinctions and restraints between the two levels obviate any need to change HA or extra DC for Martial Arts in my experience. I've followed the rulebook's suggestion of not allowing extra DC for MA in heroic games; as for HA in heroic games, it's limited to weapons, which characters don't pay points for and whose power level I control, or spells, for which a little extra "oomph" compared to STR has not been a problem, particularly since the increased cost of STR tends to promote spellcasters with lower base STR scores.

[Talon]

I found that removing the figured characteristics calculations and keeping STR at 1 point was a good way to go.

 

I think raising HA to 10 points is a bad idea; people will just buy EB no range, or HKA works vs. non-resistant defenses to get around the hike.

 

I do definitely feel that some change is warranted, however, so congrats for taking the plunge!

[keithcurtis]

Originally posted by CrosshairCollie

Now to add to the list of official debates ... THE GREAT STRENGTH DEBATE.

 

Me, I leave it as-is. I've never had a problem with it.

 

I think the Great Strength Debate has been around nearly as long as the GLD and others. I charge double for pre-gunpowder heroic level, simply because it is a FAR more useful characteristic in Fantasy Hero, where nearly all damage is strenth-dependant.

 

As for the other suggested changes, I don't perceive them as a problem and have never considered them. I don't generally use HA anyway.

 

Keith "I have a formula for changing the cost of DEX to 3.141592654..." Curtis

[SCUBA Hero]

Originally posted by keithcurtis

Keith "I have a formula for changing the cost of DEX to 3.141592654..." Curtis

 

(Throws pie at Keith)

 

[TheEmerged]

I just want to emphasize something others have mentioned -- 1 pt for Strength isn't a problem at the superheroic level, but in campaigns in which characters have Normal Characteristic Maxima by default it becomes an issue.

 

Personally, I don't think raising the cost of STR to 2 points is the best way to solve it. I believe the influence of STR (and CON) on Figured Characteristic needs to be lessened if not eliminated. I've toyed with this in the past and it seems to work well; I'm giving serious consideration to using altered formulas in my next NCM-default campaign.

[Arthur]

So some have suggested leaving STR at 1/1, but changing the way Figured Chars are figured. I do not like the notion of eliminating them altogether - high CON *should* affect things like REC and END.

 

Lemme take a first stab at a change:

 

PD: Leave as is. Typically, high STR means "lots of muscle", which is great at absorbing blunt impact.

 

ED: Leave as is, for similar (if less exactly quantifiable reasons).

 

SPD: Leave as is. I'd consider going to 2+DEX/10, and set "average" SPD at 3. I'd set base Running at 4" along with this change.

 

REC: Change it to CON/2 or CON/3.

 

END: CON + EGO. I've seen a zillion stories where the hero stays on his feet "by force of will".

 

STN: BOD + STR/3 + CON/2 + EGO/5. Being large and massive (the usual justification for high BOD) is the prime determinant here - no change there. STR does help some. CON should retain its current addition, and EGO for the same reason as END, but not as important (the lesser contribution is to prevent EGO from being undervalued - it might have to go to 3x with these changes).

 

What we have here is a pretty fundamental rewrite of the core system. You always have to be careful with that sort of thing - you never know what else you're going to break.

 

I'd prefer to just go to 2 pt STR. The comment about Superheroic games has some validity, but even there I've seen a preponderance of Bricks - they are just too tempting with all the help STR gives.

[Fitz]

I've used 2pt STR for heroic games for years.

 

The only time I've ever considered going back to 1pt STR was when I got the latest incarnation of the Hero Bestiary, and I thought that if all the critters I was using were built with STR at a lower cost than the PCs, it wouldn't be fair.

 

Then I came to my senses.

 

In all seriousness, if you don't mind every character in your game being massively strong just because they might as well be, then it's not an issue and there's no need to change. If, on the other hand, you want people to actually start buying STR because it fits their character conception and not just because it's too cheap to pass up for the benefits, then hiking it up to 2pts is a Good Thing.

 

Another thing I've done in my campaign, for the same reason as I increased the base cost of STR, is to increase the cost of post NCM stats so that the cost doubles again for every 5pts over the Normal Maximum.

[ShadowRaptor]

Originally posted by Arthur

So some have suggested leaving STR at 1/1, but changing the way Figured Chars are figured. I do not like the notion of eliminating them altogether - high CON *should* affect things like REC and END.

 

Lemme take a first stab at a change:

 

PD: Leave as is. Typically, high STR means "lots of muscle", which is great at absorbing blunt impact.

 

ED: Leave as is, for similar (if less exactly quantifiable reasons).

 

SPD: Leave as is. I'd consider going to 2+DEX/10, and set "average" SPD at 3. I'd set base Running at 4" along with this change.

 

REC: Change it to CON/2 or CON/3.

 

END: CON + EGO. I've seen a zillion stories where the hero stays on his feet "by force of will".

 

STN: BOD + STR/3 + CON/2 + EGO/5. Being large and massive (the usual justification for high BOD) is the prime determinant here - no change there. STR does help some. CON should retain its current addition, and EGO for the same reason as END, but not as important (the lesser contribution is to prevent EGO from being undervalued - it might have to go to 3x with these changes).

 

What we have here is a pretty fundamental rewrite of the core system. You always have to be careful with that sort of thing - you never know what else you're going to break.

 

I'd prefer to just go to 2 pt STR. The comment about Superheroic games has some validity, but even there I've seen a preponderance of Bricks - they are just too tempting with all the help STR gives.

 

I like how you implemented EGO into the equations. Did you just come up with these or have you tried using them in the past?

[DynamiteKid]

STR is indeed a questionable characteristic because of its cheap cost and far reaching pay off in figured characteristics. Cheap STR leads to the prevalence of bricks. However, I have two issues that I look at that favours STR staying the way it is. The first issue is that the entire characteristics system should be looked at for a revamp. STR does stand out as a sore thumb but I'd rather "start from scratch" on the whole rather than just fix something bit by bit. The second issue is RP quality. I'm sure most have tried a brick character at least once but the Hero system is about RP more than anything else. To me at least. How many times can someone who is interested in playing an RPG make a "copy and paste" brick for a variety of campaigns? Unless I'm making a character that is something along the lines of a world class athlete, I can't see any justification for putting more than 5 points in STR. From a GM's PoV, I only see a problem with the STR/easy brick matter if I have the same player making bricks in campaign after campaign as well as having little background into the character other than a typical "Me angry smash everything guy!" concept or if the vast majority of my game members make bricks and basically come up with "Team Muscle!". Part of the GM's responsibility is to regulate the game. If a player can come up with a decent character concept that happens to be a brick, great. Game on! If the player just wants to make an easy bruiser for power playing, then don't let them make the character without more work(thought) put into it. It seems like a lot of people look at the STR/easy brick situation with just munchkins in mind. Remember that there are other "corners to cut" in the Hero system that allow cheap gaming and they've always been more of a concern to me than the STR issue. Maybe I'm lucky but the majority of players that I've had the honor to play with actually focus on character concept before stat calculating. They wanted to know what kind of character they were going to play before deciding where to allocate their points. Sure, there's always going to be power players around but Hero is the type of system that keeps the attention of decent quality players(in general). There are other systems out there that are easier to power play in. No offense to D&Ders but that's the type of RPG system that people can just pick up and say what they want to do like "I want to make a warrior and hack 'n' slash stuff." and not have to worry too much about why they want to do it other than "He/she's an adventure seeker.". You can have a party of fighters in AD&D and justify it easily by calling it a mercenary group. It's a little trickier to pull off in Hero. If people look at the situation from 50% RP and 50% game mechanics views, the STR issue isn't as bad as it seems. If the GM is the type that lets any ol' concept into his/her games, that's when it's a more serious problem.

[Dust Raven]

Originally posted by Fitz

In all seriousness, if you don't mind every character in your game being massively strong just because they might as well be, then it's not an issue and there's no need to change. If, on the other hand, you want people to actually start buying STR because it fits their character conception and not just because it's too cheap to pass up for the benefits, then hiking it up to 2pts is a Good Thing.

 

I've always been of the opinion that the GM is responsible for how the game is run and not the rulebook. I just don't see how telling a player "no, your nerdy brainiac computer wiz can't have more STR" is different than saying "everybody pays 2 points per STR". It's still controling how players make their characters. Only the first one really solves the problem though. The second one penalizes everybody, even the players who like to build well rounded characters and stay completely in concept.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Dust Raven

It's still controling how players make their characters. Only the first one really solves the problem though. The second one penalizes everybody, even the players who like to build well rounded characters and stay completely in concept.

 

Said it before, will say it again -- the veto power of the GM is not an excuse for maintaining a flaw in the rules.

[Kintara]

I was thinking on this. I just got HERO for the first time a few months ago, so these sorts of system quirks and issues interest me. I agree that STR is a good deal. The figured characteristics do pretty much give you a free point per level. On the other hand, I like where the figured characteristics are derived when STR is used. But who says that a figured characteristic needs to give you anything for free?

 

I say that the best way to do it is to take the figured characteristics that STR affects, and use the STR result as a hard guideline instead of free extra levels. The figured characteristics would start at what they would be with 10 STR; those are free (PD would be 2 for free, STUN would get 5 points at no cost). When you raise STR above 10, the figured characteristics tied to STR don't change for free. The idea is that you pay for what they should be now, unless the character in question has a justification for not raising them (what "justification" means is up to the GM, I'd be very forgiving). Basically you use the STR figureds as they are now, but you have to pay for them.

 

The good thing about this is that it doesn't mess up the normal curve when it comes to DCs and STR and Active Points. Or maybe you could increase the cost to 2, and allow a higher STR limit. I'm undecided about the way I want to go. The first way, leaving the price for STR at one, has the advantage of allowing the character to be more free with how much his STR is really affecting his toughness (not that he couldn't buy them down before). The second way is just simpler to explain.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Arthur

SPD: Leave as is. I'd consider going to 2+DEX/10, and set "average" SPD at 3. I'd set base Running at 4" along with this change.

 

REC: Change it to CON/2 or CON/3.

 

END: CON + EGO. I've seen a zillion stories where the hero stays on his feet "by force of will".

 

 

This is very similar to what I have done in my Fantasy Hero campaign. I'm not sure if I regret not having STR at 2pts per. So far it isn't a problem.

 

I raised INT to 2 pts per because my magic system limits AP in spells to 2 x INT or 2 x EGO, whichever is higher.

 

END like yours is calculated as CON + EGO. Willpower has a lot to do with how long you can last.

 

SPD is calculated as (DEX + INT)/10. I feel that being able to perceive and understand things better increases a character's reaction time. Another reason why INT is 2 pts per.

[Arthur]

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor

I like how you implemented EGO into the equations. Did you just come up with these or have you tried using them in the past?

 

I just made 'em up on the fly. I took a stab at designing my own RPG from the ground up many years ago, though, and used the same kind of logic then.

 

I was influenced by RuneQuest. It had base values for types of skills calculated from stats. For example, IIRC, Combat value included STR and INT along with DEX. STR to beat down someone's parries; INT because a smarter fighter is more dangerous.

 

If I were to do something like this in Hero, then I would change CV to (2*DEX + INT)/3. Base SPD would be (DEX + INT + 1)/10.

 

These are some pretty drastic changes, though. We are reaching the point where it is becoming Hero System Prime. If I had an established long-term RPG group, I'd consider something this drastic - since I move often, I'm probably better off sticking with the published rules, for the most part.

 

Furthermore, I've found that major rules tweaks, while they often sound like a good idea, usually wind up introducing more problems. For instance, the Martial Arts extra DC; how do you handle that if STR goes to 2 points?

[Dust Raven]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

Said it before, will say it again -- the veto power of the GM is not an excuse for maintaining a flaw in the rules.

 

Funny, I don't see a flaw in the rules. I just see a cleverly disguised Elemental Control.

 

And the veto power of the GM is the excuse to do anything anyway you want in any RPG, which includes maintaining any rule you wish. That's the beauty of role-playing games. The rules aren't in the book, they're in the GM. Most RPG books themselves admit to that.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Arthur

I just made 'em up on the fly. I took a stab at designing my own RPG from the ground up many years ago, though, and used the same kind of logic then.

 

I was influenced by RuneQuest. It had base values for types of skills calculated from stats. For example, IIRC, Combat value included STR and INT along with DEX. STR to beat down someone's parries; INT because a smarter fighter is more dangerous.

 

If I were to do something like this in Hero, then I would change CV to (2*DEX + INT)/3. Base SPD would be (DEX + INT + 1)/10.

 

These are some pretty drastic changes, though. We are reaching the point where it is becoming Hero System Prime. If I had an established long-term RPG group, I'd consider something this drastic - since I move often, I'm probably better off sticking with the published rules, for the most part.

 

Furthermore, I've found that major rules tweaks, while they often sound like a good idea, usually wind up introducing more problems. For instance, the Martial Arts extra DC; how do you handle that if STR goes to 2 points?

 

FWIW, what I've seen is that people don't object to even fairly large-scale rules changes so long as they're explained. So maybe it's worth trying it out even as you move around (maybe moreso because you may find one group it works great in while another group discovers some fundamental flaw and exploits it). YMMV of course.

[rayoman]

Someone wrote: "If I were to do something like this in Hero, then I would change CV to (2*DEX + INT)/3. Base SPD would be (DEX + INT + 1)/10"

 

So Nighthawk would have, by your calculations, a CV = (2*25 + 23)/3 = 24 ? That is a little excessive since his actual CV is 8.

 

did I do something wrong?

[Kintara]

I'd say that "3" is a "30".

[nblade]

Originally posted by Kintara

I'd say that "3" is a "30".

 

From the looks of the formula, more like 9.

[Kintara]

Originally posted by nblade

From the looks of the formula, more like 9.

Hah, oops, I got my SPD and CV mixed up. Yeah, that sounds right. Ignore me.

[Arthur]

Originally posted by rayoman

Someone wrote: "If I were to do something like this in Hero, then I would change CV to (2*DEX + INT)/3. Base SPD would be (DEX + INT + 1)/10"

 

That was me, and yeah, I forgot to divide by 3 again. I was thinking of a hybrid weighted stat from DEX and INT to base CV on.

 

So it should be (2*DEX + INT)/9

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Arthur

 

So it should be (2*DEX + INT)/9

 

I know a true Hero believer would never complain... but that's just too much math. I can fractionally divide by 9 in my head, but that don't mean I want to.