racial package with increased char maxima

[OberonGX]

ok, i already asked steve about this here:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3788

and i didnt quite get the answer i was looking for... so ill aks everyone this time:

ok, this is proabably a stupid question and might be more rellevant for the fantasy forum but i was having an arguement and it quickly began to become heated over this.

If you buy a package deal which contains a rise in your char maxima does this also mean your base value has increased and hence you dont have to pay points for it?

example: lets say the GM permits a race of super strong orc/dwarf half breed which contains a CHAR maxima of +10 STR. this would mean that one could pay 1 point for strength all the way up to 30, yes yes? ok. so where does he start at? what STR doe he get for paying for the package and spending no points at all on str? i thought it was 10 (same as usual), meaning the package really only affect the maxiam not the base. the GM thinks other wise and you START out at half your maxima; 15 STR for free! (the point being its really NOT free since you have to buy the package).

Then i brought up the point in the 4th Ed. fantasy hero book that the sample character seem to pay for ther CHAR based all on startting out at values of 10... then i seemed to have won the arguement but then something on page 13 of the book (right before dwarves) seemed to contradict how the sample char are made: it breifly seems to say that the average person of the race starts out 10 below the maxima... so in this example a orc/dwarf half race would start out at 20 STR! they'd have to buy the package containing 10 points to raise the maxima but then start at 20? but if thats tru why are the sample chars in this book paying points? like the dwarf sample char. has a raised char max, but pays 3 points for a 13 STR...

 

Mr. Long then responded with:

"No. There are no provisions in the 5E rules for raising Characteristic Maxima breakpoints via Package Deals, since there's no equitable way to handle that in terms of cost and application. The GM could certainly change Characteristic Maxima around if he feels like it, but that's a campaign ground rules thing, not a Package Deal thing.

Thus, if you had an Orc Package Deal with +10 STR, that just means all PCs who buy that Package Deal start the game with 20 STR. If such a character wants to buy any more STR, he has to pay double for it, since he's already at the Maximum of 20."

 

no, I wasn't saying that the package gave you a +10 STR but gave you a +10 to the MAXIMA so you wouldnt have to pay double until you were at 30 (instead of 20). but i guess the 5E has changed all of this...

what I AM asking is what the BASE char value starts out at (i.e. what do you get in that CHAR if you pay for NO points into it)... does it start at 10?, does it start at half your maxima?, or 10 below your maxima, or is your BASE increased by how however much you increased the maxima? or what?

[Derek Hiemforth]

In 5E, you don't increase the maxima. The maxima always stay at 20. (In the standard rules, that is... you could always apply house rules if you like.) In 5E, you build racial packages by increasing the base value. So, for example, if you want Half-Giant as a race, you need to decide what you want their average STR to be and (if necessary) add or subtract that much STR from the package deal. Let's say you want the average Half-Giant to have a STR of 18. You put "+8 STR" in the package deal for 8 points, and all Half-Giants now start with 18 STR instead of 10 STR, and raise it or sell it back from that point.

 

However, they still start paying double cost for STR once it reaches 20. Yes, this would mean that a Half-Giant could only buy two points of STR before bumping into the double-cost rule.

 

The reason this changed in 5E is that the old 4th Ed. way was unfair. It charged you points for being able to exceed a certain value, even if you were actually nowhere near that value. If you read the 4th Ed. rules on this, you'll see that a 30 STR character with increased char maxima that allow a 30 STR with no cost doubling, and character with no such change that had to pay double points for their STR from 20 to 30, actually end up spending exactly the same amount of points for STR! And if the Half-Giant (or whatever) didn't buy his STR up to 30, then he ended up spending points for something he didn't have! And this whole system didn't make the average Half-Giant any stronger than the average human.

 

The 5th Ed. way is much better.

[OberonGX]

yes yes! thats exaclty what i thought when i read it all! i saw that in the package deal you spent points to raise you maxima and thought to myself, how is this helping any? im glad to see that others figured this out... it seemed really dumb to me...

 

hey, the person who responded first is that guy who debugged the zodiac characters in a campaign im currently running... cool... so on an off note, thanks for helping out there as well...

[PhilFleischmann]

Even in 4th ed., the base was always 10. If the max for Dwarves is 23, that just means the average Drawf is 13. If you want to be average for a Dwarf, you still have to pay the 3 points to raise your STR from the base of 10, to the average for your race of 13.

 

It has been suggested elsewhere, that if char maxima are to be changed for different FH races, that the total increases should equal the total decreases (total in terms of character points). For example, if Dwarves have max 23 STR (+3 cp), they should also have -3 cp from some other maxima, say -1" max running, (-2) and -2 max COM (-1). This sort of maintains balance to a certain extent, but still has some problems.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by OberonGX

hey, the person who responded first is that guy who debugged the zodiac characters in a campaign im currently running... cool... so on an off note, thanks for helping out there as well...

No problemo. I always thought The Zodiac Conspiracy had a great concept that was shot in the foot by so many errors in the execution. Maybe at some point, I'll ping the PTB and see if I can get permission to completely rework the characters for H5E and post 'em on my web site or something...

[Old Man]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

 

It has been suggested elsewhere, that if char maxima are to be changed for different FH races, that the total increases should equal the total decreases (total in terms of character points). For example, if Dwarves have max 23 STR (+3 cp), they should also have -3 cp from some other maxima, say -1" max running, (-2) and -2 max COM (-1). This sort of maintains balance to a certain extent, but still has some problems.

 

That's the route I took in my campaign and I haven't had any complaints at all. Only one race isn't represented in the group. But that might be because nobody wants to play a 3 foot tall character.

[Lucius]

Species Traits

 

Yes, under the New Regime, if Characteristic Maximum is used at all, it is the same for everyone. The Giant and the Pixie both have Max STR of 20. Oddly enough, this is in spite of the fact that a 40 yr old man has a STR Max of 15. Age makes a difference, but not species.

 

Makes as much sense as global warming in CIV II (for those who don't know, in the computer game Civilization II, if your planet suffers global warming, it never changes the Glacier or Tundra terrains. No matter how much your globe warms, ice caps never melt and permafrost never thaws.)

 

Now, there is one easy way around this. Characteristics as Powers don't count against the maximum. What makes a characteristic a power? Good question, but it makes sense to me to say that a characteristic bought as part of a racial package deal is a "Power" and does not count against the Max - effectively raising the Max by the same amount. A characteristic bought DOWN is a "Negative Power" just like selling back some Running, and would effectively reduce the Max in the same way (since if the package is -5 pts for STR for example and you have a STR 15, you are actually at STR 20, minus 5 for the "power," and are already at Max.)

 

I have seen the whole concept of Normal Characteristic Maxima generate so much controversy however, that I am of the opinion that it is an idea the game can do without. It simply does not do what it was designed to do, and merely adds needless complication to the game. It should be a guideline only, and up to each Game Operations Director to set limits on the characteristics of characters. Not "it costs double past this point," a mechanic used nowhere else in the game to restrict skills, powers, or anything else, but a hard limit - "no, you cannot play a 'normal Human' with a STR of 24!"

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary observes that we have opened this brand of canned worms before....

[sbarron]

Re: Species Traits

 

Originally posted by Lucius

Yes, under the New Regime, if Characteristic Maximum is used at all, it is the same for everyone. The Giant and the Pixie both have Max STR of 20. Oddly enough, this is in spite of the fact that a 40 yr old man has a STR Max of 15. Age makes a difference, but not species.

 

...clip...

 

I have seen the whole concept of Normal Characteristic Maxima generate so much controversy however, that I am of the opinion that it is an idea the game can do without. It simply does not do what it was designed to do, and merely adds needless complication to the game. It should be a guideline only, and up to each Game Operations Director to set limits on the characteristics of characters. Not "it costs double past this point," a mechanic used nowhere else in the game to restrict skills, powers, or anything else, but a hard limit - "no, you cannot play a 'normal Human' with a STR of 24!"

 

I think that Fred's way of handling this is easily the best of any of the options I've seen. It is the same for all characters, and therefore both fair and balanced. If you want to be a giant, you have to pay for being strong. You want to play an agile elf, you have to pay for Dex. What's wrong with that?

 

It's already up to every Games Operations Director to set limits for his game. And NCM is designed to reinforce genre conventions in Heroic games, buy limiting the number of character that have characteristics above the "heroic" range (more than 20). By charging double for anything above 20, it does that effectively.

 

If a GM wants giants to be able to buy up their STR more cheaply than any of the other characters, he has several ways available for him to do that (upping their NCM, providing a higher starting point, etc). But any method you use is going to make playing a giant more cost effective than other types of characters (which I think we agree is bad). Of course, he could then penalize giant characters in other ways, or find ways to provide points to other races, but what would be the point? He could just as easily let the double costs for stats above NCM do that for him.

 

Age is a disadvantage. There has to be a penalty for taking it. Lowering your NCM is that penalty. You can play a 80 year old man without taking Age 80+, and buy the stats that you feel are apropriate without penalty. Again, I see nothing wrong with it.

[Lucius]

Re: Re: Species Traits

 

Originally posted by sbarron

I think that Fred's way of handling this is easily the best of any of the options I've seen. It is the same for all characters, and therefore both fair and balanced. If you want to be a giant, you have to pay for being strong. You want to play an agile elf, you have to pay for Dex. What's wrong with that?

 

Nothing wrong with it. Pay 26 pts for a DEX of 23, or 30 pts for a STR of 40, and you have your Elf or Giant. It's the same for all characters, and fair and balanced.

 

Originally posted by sbarron

It's already up to every Games Operations Director to set limits for his game. And NCM is designed to reinforce genre conventions in Heroic games, by limiting the number of characters that have characteristics above the "heroic" range (more than 20). By charging double for anything above 20, it does that effectively.

 

Not really. What it does is create yet another artificial breakpoint in a game that already has too many of them, and

results in every warrior taking a STR of 20.

 

It does not, in and of itself, prevent anyone from taking an unreasonable or unrealistic characteristic.

 

Say I am creating a pair of flower-selling monks in a heroic game with 75 base points and up to 75 disadvantages. Brother Rose has a Dex of 20 (costs 30) and spends 50 pts on SPD (10 pts ups it to 4, the "Max," and another 40 ups it to 6.) That costs 80 pts, and if he sells off 3" Running for -6 pts he still has a ground speed half again a normal Human's, and has all his points from Disads to pay for botany, flower arranging, and what the heck, he'll study some canon law too. His sidekick Brother Orchid has a STR of 40 costing 50 pts, and uses some disad points to buy his flowery skills, and still comes in as a "weaker than character" DNPC.

 

Now, is any sane G.O.D. going to permit this pair? No, they will probably change their names to Brother Ragweed and Brother Crabgrass and tell the player to toss them on the compost pile. But that is exactly what they would have had to do if there WERE no "Normal Characteristic Maxima," except that the outrageous characteristics would have been an 8 SPD and a 60 STR.

 

The message to G.O.D.'s is - You, and only you, can prevent florist friars. The Characteristic Maxima rule can't do it for you. And if it doesn't, what good is it?

 

Originally posted by sbarron

If a GM wants giants to be able to buy up their STR more cheaply than any of the other characters, he has several ways available for him to do that (upping their NCM, providing a higher starting point, etc). But any method you use is going to make playing a giant more cost effective than other types of characters (which I think we agree is bad).

 

How about this method - abolish Characteristic Maxima? It does not make a giant more cost effective (unless you think STR is incorrectly costed in the game to begin with, and many people do, but that is a seperate issue.) Then even a Pixie can have Giant's STR. Except of course that if you want a STR 40 you probably don't want a Pixie, and if you DO want a Pixie with super strength you better have a darn good reason if I'm the one running the game.

 

Originally posted by sbarron

Of course, he could then penalize giant characters in other ways, or find ways to provide points to other races, but what would be the point? He could just as easily let the double costs for stats above NCM do that for him.

 

I believe I've already made the point that "the double cost for stats above NCM" doesn't do a darn thing for him except needlessly complicate the game.

 

Originally posted by sbarron

Age is a disadvantage. There has to be a penalty for taking it. Lowering your NCM is that penalty. You can play a 80 year old man without taking Age 80+, and buy the stats that you feel are apropriate without penalty. Again, I see nothing wrong with it.

 

Hm. you see nothing wrong with this, and consider it a "penalty" if I want to play an aged mage with INT, EGO, and PRE at superhuman levels, heavy on EGO dependent mental powers (ECV 10 VS normal ECV 3) and without any STR dependent weapons or other combat options) and STR, CON, etc at about 10 - normal for a healthy 20 yr old? Isn't this making my mage "more cost effective?"

 

Yet you do see something wrong with creating yet another different cost schedule for characters of a different species or nature than the "norm?" It's okay in one case, but not in the other?

 

For any one who cares, by the way, based on the Age disadvantage, reducing Characteristic Maxima is worth about 1 pt for 7 pts reduced. So with Age as a precedent, you can pay 1 pt to increase the Maxima by 7 pts, or -1 pt to decrease them by that amount.

 

Now, what age SHOULD be is a Physical Limitation ("Waddaya mean, I have to make a CON roll to take a RECovery?" "You're not as young as you used to be, geezer, it's harder to catch your breath!") like "Lame," perhaps a Limitation you only permit to people with lower STR and CON than normal for the campaign. Just as you wouldn't give "Lame" to someone who bought up SPD and Running, or "Distinctive Features: Ugly" to someone with a COM of 18. Similarly, there should be a Physical Limit "Merely Mortal" in superheroic campaigns, for martial artists or gadgeteers who can hurt their fists if they hit brick walls, sometimes catch colds, and otherwise can't or don't take advantage of the assumption that playercharacters are all "superhuman."

 

Finally, I will suggest that if NCM were really such a great idea, it would have been adopted through the rest of the system. It is a complete anomaly in Hero. The New Dispensation emphasizes (Probably as the result of the collective experience of numerous players) setting "campaign limits" for things like Active Points, Damage Classes, Defense, etc. These are all only "suggested guidelines" - only Characteristic Maxima is a "rule" and only Characteristic Maxima is arbitrarily set at a certain point for all campaigns it applies to, rather than being flexible depending on style of campaign and subject to change at G.O.D. discretion. Further, nowhere else is it said "you can exceed the campaign limits if you pay double cost." It is always either a hard limit, or a limit that can be exceeded under some circumstances or with the right justification, not one you can break just by paying double. If the campaign rule is "No Mental Powers" you can't take an Ego Attack by paying 20 pts per die, or 40 pts even.

 

Hero is inherently a very complex system - in fact, I would judge it at just about the upper limit of practical complexity for a roleplaying game. NCM is a needless complication that adds nothing of value to the game. Putting characteristics among the things there should be "campaign limits" for would simplify the game and cost nothing.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary Enterprises

[AnotherSkip]

I think part of the problem with NCM is it is a suggested guideline for building a normal in a Supers World. Then it became the default and now it is waaaaaaaay wacked.

 

But heaven knows we definately need a base/guide line in this game, otherwise we would need a string of code just to let everyone know what the hell we were talking about.

 

NCM is justifiable as a concept, but not necessarily defendable as a genre convention or a real world concept.

 

Age is a limitation for some but an advantage for others.

For Conan (or Cohen) it is a limitation, for Gandalf it is an advantage.

(heck I built a Dwarven mentalist with the Age 40+ limitation so he could have an EGO of 26 to get that ECV of 9, runty gimpy freak that he was)

 

And no not all fighters have 20 STR.

 

in The last group I was in Str ranged from 13 to 37 even in the same character!!!! (13 Str plus 24 point VPP) only one person in the group had consistiently 20 Str and that was the Dwarven priest w/o his Str from his Magics (otherwise it was 37 also). The dual blade weilding fighter had 13, the eagle warrior had 15 the Axe fighters had either 18 or 23

[Markdoc]

In my games, NCM has performed valuable service, so I am keeping it, even though it is a bit of a blotch from the metarules point of view.

 

Actually, I would be happier, thinking about it, if ALL limits worked like NCM - you can exceed the campaign caps, but you have to pay double cost.

 

Simply put, I have no objection in my FH game to a fighter with a STR of 23 or a thief with a SPD of 6 (I have had neither, FWIW). But I do not want either to be common. Thus NCM serves as barrier, but not an absolute one. No figher is going to pay the extra points to get to STR 23, unless being really strong is an important part of character concept to the player. And NCM ensures he WILL be "really strong" because few other people will make the same choice.

 

If a player wants to go over the limit bad enough to cough up the extra points, who am I as GM to say no? It's THEIR character after all.

 

cheers, Mark

[PhilFleischmann]

I agree with Markdoc: What's the problem with NCM? If you don't want to use it, you don't have to.

 

But what if you want to *discourage* characters from having 25+ STR without *forbidding* it completely? I.e., you want it to be *rare*, but not *impossible*? It seems to me the best way to do that is by increasing the cost. Of course, any GM can change the level of rarification if he wants. You could make the double-cost threshhold 30 instead of 20, for example. You could even set a triple- or quadruple-cost threshhold at higher levels (say, 40 and 60).

 

It seems to me that one of the central ideas in HERO is that you can do anything you want if you pay the points, that nothing should be absolutely forbidden. That's the way I like to run (and play) my games. If certain powers/power levels/CHAR levels need to be rarified due to genre conventions or other considerations, then you simply adjust the cost.

 

In 4th ed., there was a book called "Mystic Masters" in which mental powers were intended to be more common than normal, so the cost was halved for that particular genre.

 

It's similar to government putting taxes on things it wants to discourage, or subidies on things it wants to encourage.

[Briguy123]

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

(heck I built a Dwarven mentalist with the Age 40+ limitation so he could have an EGO of 26 to get that ECV of 9, runty gimpy freak that he was)

 

 

You realize of course that if this character were ever convicted of a crime, but managed to evade the authorities, he would thn be a small medium at large. Sorry, I couldn't resist. That was an inside joke from a Role Master campaign I was once involved in.

[Talon]

Re: Re: Re: Species Traits

 

Originally posted by Lucius

The message to G.O.D.'s is - You, and only you, can prevent florist friars.

 

*smack*

 

Originally posted by Briguy123

You realize of course that if this character were ever convicted of a crime, but managed to evade the authorities, he would thn be a small medium at large.

 

*smack*

 

My work here is done.

[Killer Shrike]

Ahem....to get back to the original post, AIUI, under the current rules Characteristics bought thru Packages are Powers and therefore do not affect Maxima.

 

Thus if your Dwarf racial package has +3 STR in the package, then Dwarves have thier STR from Characteristic + STR from Power 3. If they have a STR of 20, then with thier package they have a STR 23 without paying the NCM penalty. Similarly if the same package had -1 DEX then a Dwarf that has paid 30 cp has a DEX 19 (20-1). To get a DEX 20 requires the Dwarf to spend 36 cp for (21-1) = 20.

 

So in effect, the altered Maxima is in place AND a given character doesnt pay for a potential that they dont necessarily use.

 

Of course, I dont have my book with me, so I could be wrong.

[Old Man]

That's the cleanest way to do it, but it still doesn't fix problems with altering the range of acceptable stats for a package. For example, if I wanted halflings to average STR 5, with the max at 10, then what?

[Briguy123]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Species Traits

 

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

*smack*

 

Why did you smack me? I was only pointing out the obvious. I shouldn't be PUNished for that!

[AnotherSkip]

that seems to me to be a subject worth of Good old Steve's Fantasy Hero supplement(though possibly it should have made it into SH).

 

definately should be considered for an anywhere so long as we can find it.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Old Man

That's the cleanest way to do it, but it still doesn't fix problems with altering the range of acceptable stats for a package. For example, if I wanted halflings to average STR 5, with the max at 10, then what?

Make all Halflings old.

 

 

Actually, I dont know. Ive asked for clarification on that sort of non-linear Avg vs Maxima before and havent gotten an answer. Im hoping that it will be addressed in FH.

 

 

Really, I dont see the problem with defining new Maxima for various races so long as some objective method is used to keep them fair, such as the buy back some maxima to buy up others method.

 

In the meantime the official method does in a pinch.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Make all Halflings old.

 

No no no...you make them YOUNG. Look at the stats for a 10 year old. Just ignore the max DEX and you're set.

[Lucius]

A Taxing Subject

 

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

But what if you want to *discourage* characters from having 25+ STR without *forbidding* it completely? I.e., you want it to be *rare*, but not *impossible*? It seems to me the best way to do that is by increasing the cost. Of course, any GM can change the level of rarification if he wants. You could make the double-cost threshhold 30 instead of 20, for example. You could even set a triple- or quadruple-cost threshhold at higher levels (say, 40 and 60).

 

It's similar to government putting taxes on things it wants to discourage, or subidies on things it wants to encourage.

 

There are other ways to "set policy" by encouraging or discouraging things.

 

Instead of taxation, try regulation. "If you want a primary characteristic above 15, you must have a disadvantage appropriate to that characteristic, such as Distinctive Features: Muscular, or Reputation: Very Agile. If you want any characteristic over the normal "Maximum" (however that is set for the campaign, character type, etc.) you must have disadvantages relating to the characteristic totalling the amount of points you spent on the characteristic." If you are enforcing disadvantage maxima, that should be a deterrent, and of course it is "tweakable" (if everyone still has a STR of 20, try requiring twice the points in disads - if even the Elven acrobat has a Dex of 14, try redefining it as based on points of characteristic, not real points spent, so that a Dex of 20 requires a 10 pt disad, not 30 pts of disads. ) It also has the advantage of being entirely reasonable and realistic.

 

Another possibility is to link over-the-top characteristics to "packages" of some sort. A rogue can't have a STR of 25 just because he has the points, but a gladiator or wrestler can.

 

To the person who asked about changing the acceptable range of characteristics, such as saying Hobbits have STR 5 and Max 10 - if you want to use the characteristic max rules at all, I have already pointed out that based on the precedent set by the Age disad, 1 real pt is worth about 7 pts of changed maximums. So for a 1 pt disad, the Hobbit's Str Max can come down by 5. If you can bring another characteristic max up by, say, 2 pts, I would say it's a "wash" and evens out, as a 3 pt difference in maxima is worth less than 1 pt.

 

But of course, the simplest and best solution is to toss out the whole mess and say "No Hobs over STR 10!" or "No Hobs over STR 10 unless you give me a REAL GOOD REASON"

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

(-: :-)

[Old Man]

Anybody ever limit the max according to starting values?

 

Assuming that your character creation rules are working, what happens when your PCs gain a dozen exp? Is it ok for the STR 8 wizard to spend it all in STR?

 

I've been tossing around the idea that I should limit my players to a full increase of 25-50% of starting value. This seems pretty reasonable, but I'm not sure how they'll take it. I'm sure some would feel betrayed in that I didn't tell them from the start, but if I had, I think a lot of characters would have 13s "just in case". Either that or a blanket 5 stat points over starting value cap.

[sbarron]

Originally posted by Shadowpup

Anybody ever limit the max according to starting values?

 

I tried it once. I just told the PCs that their starting values (150 pt char) were as good as they could get without magical enhancments. I figured that would prevent the eventual Str Dex and Spd race that invariably happens. It seemed like a reasonable idea to me at the time. I thought it would force the purchase of levels rather than characteristics, which I like. The game didn't go long enough to see the result, though.

[Lucius]

Shadowpup - believe it or not, I have had the same idea about putting a cap at 5 pts over starting value. Yes, it does seem odd that an aged mage, even if his lifestyle has suddenly gotten more strenuous, can go from STR 5 to STR 15 in less than a year.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary Enterprises

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Shadowpup

Anybody ever limit the max according to starting values?

 

...

I've been tossing around the idea that I should limit my players to a full increase of 25-50% of starting value. This seems pretty reasonable, but I'm not sure how they'll take it.

 

It's perfectly reasonable, but any new characters will have most of their points spent on stats as a hedge. That's what I'd do if I were playing in your campaign.