Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Like I said, I've always felt it was more of a game convention rather than a genre convention.

 

I'll grant that Colossus is slower than Wolverine, Angel, Nightcrawler, et al. But I am not so sure he falls behind Cyclops, and many of the others. He just doesn't generally dodge out of the way.

That would be my assessment as well. Cyclops is essentially a normal athletic man with eyebeams; Nightcrawler was a professional acrobat and at least arguably possesses superhuman agility. I'd give him both a SPD and DEX higher than Wolverine's.

[caris]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Like I said, I've always felt it was more of a game convention rather than a genre convention.

 

I'll grant that Colossus is slower than Wolverine, Angel, Nightcrawler, et al. But I am not so sure he falls behind Cyclops, and many of the others. He just doesn't generally dodge out of the way.

 

No, it applies to the genre to an extent as well. Is Colossus faster than Cyclops? No, but Cyclops is a lot closer to Colossus in concept than he is Wolverine, Angel, Nightcrawler or even Gambit. If you look at it Cyclops is a lot less likely to tag a person with a full out optic blast, because it is so devastatingly powerful. So effectively, when Cyclops is less effective at aiming his full out attack that he is at his more focused lesser powered attacks.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

also I guess you have to take the relative experience into consideration. Cyke has been training to be a warrior a lot longer than Colossus has. He has honed his reflexes and added some skill levels too.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

No' date=' it applies to the genre to an extent as well. Is Colossus faster than Cyclops? No, but Cyclops is a lot closer to Colossus in concept than he is Wolverine, Angel, Nightcrawler or even Gambit. If you look at it Cyclops is a lot less likely to tag a person with a full out optic blast, because it is so devastatingly powerful. So effectively, when Cyclops is less effective at aiming his full out attack that he is at his more focused lesser powered attacks.[/quote']

 

In game terms, one could build a fairly effective and true to game starting Cyclops with a few basic Multipower attack slots, high normal stats, few or no levels, but large attacks which normally are Spread to enhance OCV or hit multiple hexes. His biggest problem would be that he's realistically pretty "normal human" as far as defenses go, an issue translating any of the "one trick" mutant characters in the comics.

[assault]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

His biggest problem would be that he's realistically pretty "normal human" as far as defenses go' date=' an issue translating any of the "one trick" mutant characters in the comics.[/quote']

 

Most superheroes in comics are realistically more or less "normal human" in terms of defences.

[caris]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

In game terms' date=' one could build a fairly effective and true to game starting Cyclops with a few basic Multipower attack slots, high normal stats, few or no levels, but large attacks which normally are Spread to enhance OCV or hit multiple hexes. His biggest problem would be that he's realistically pretty "normal human" as far as defenses go, an issue translating any of the "one trick" mutant characters in the comics.[/quote']

 

Which means that a lot of his combat skill levels are DCV only, and he probably has some significant amount of a Combat Luck type build. Actually, I'd give Cyclops one major attack outside of a multipower to represent his heavey duty attack, and an MP with several less damaging attacks to represent his more precision related stunts.

 

None, of which is related to my point, which is that in some regards Cyclops is closer to Colossus than he is to Wolverine or Gambit.

 

I've noticed that on the boards, and with some players that their is a tendancy to get caught up in the archetypes of Brick, Martial Artist, Energy Projector, Armor Suit Wearer, etc. It is a valid way to look at the characters, but it isn't the only way. I believe that there is an old Adventures Club Magazine article that discussed characters in a different light like the role the character plays in the team.

 

One way to look at the characters is in terms of the amount of damage/ability to shut down the drama that the character can produce. Both Cyclops and Colossus are power houses easily capable ending a fight with one shot against all but the most hardy of targets if they connect at full strength. So what we see is them usually operating at a lower strength and/or missing a lot so as to draw out the drama/conflict. Characters that do not do as much damage are often allowed to hit more often, because it is more beleivable that one hit did not end the fight.

[Spence]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

I had never thought about it. I went back and looked at my bricks and they are slower, lower average spd and dex. But not because I wanted them that way, but because for a "brick" spending the points on defense and and "physical" stats were a higher priority than dex/spd stats.

 

After all, the really tough don't need to dodge

[assault]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Actually, I'd give Cyclops one major attack outside of a multipower to represent his heavey duty attack, and an MP with several less damaging attacks to represent his more precision related stunts.

 

That's a curious way of doing things. Having the big attack as one of the MP slots is a lot more conventional, and certainly more efficient in points terms, even if the big attack is a lot bigger than the less damaging ones.

 

eg:

 

110 MP - Eyeblasts (110 pt base)

11 u 1. Main blast - 22d6

7 u 2. Reduced Endurance Blast - 12d6, 1/2 End

7 u 3. Explosive Blast -

etc...

[Mr. Negative]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

I've been thinking about it and in the Comics Bricks are much more likely to be fast than to be slow. How did it become common wisdom in the HERO community that Bricks are slow & clumsy' date=' is it Ogre having the lowest speed of all the sample characters in early (at least in 3rd I don't have access to 1st or 2nd) edditions? Does the Blob have some stange hold on everyones imagination?[/quote']

 

 

What I've noticed, more than slowness, is that Bricks curiously, tend not to be acrobatic or graceful (with really, only Beast as an exception that I can come up with off the top of my head).

 

Given the ridiculous lifting capacity of most Bricks, relative to their weight, I'm very suprised that few people write them up as very, very graceful and acrobatic. For instance, for a normal human to balance on one hand requires that person to exert a significant portion of their arm and hand strength to supporting their body weight. A Brick, easily capable of lifting tons, instead spends a tiny portion of their strength lifting their body weight.

 

Same thing goes for "hands-up" leaps (where you put a hand on something and use arm strength to help "lift" you over it. I'm suprised that Bricks don't jump over people and obstacles this way all the time.

 

Also, given their terrific hand and arm strength, I'm suprised that bricks don't climb buildings with sheer grip strength alone (not punching handholds in builldings). After all, free climbers do this with hand and arm strength, and certainly have much less of it than the average brick.

 

HERO even gives the brick the greap leaping distances, but you seldom see most people using their Brick's strength to leap in and out of combats, confounding less mobile foes.

 

I'm not sure, but I think the limitation is that, in the real world, very strong things (oxen, rhinos, elephants) have tremendous mass, and use that mass (as well as muscle) to exert force. In the superhero universe, your Bricks have this "reactionless" strength that allows them to lift things that weigh a lot more than they do (rather than just yanking themselves towards the car they are trying to toss). Psychologically, we are probably hardwired to intuitively understand that it takes big massive things to move big massive objects. Even if we intentionally violate that rule in a superhero universe, we still "expect" it to be true.

 

For example, notice how many Bricks (particularly the Thing, but a lot of others too) are big, beefy (or rocky) massive guys. Given the disproportionate strength possible in superhero universes, there's no reason for this. Many female bricks are hugely strong without being HUGE. However, artists still envision really strong people as really massive, even if that mass would still be insufficient to allow them to lift cars and the like.

[OddHat]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

What I've noticed, more than slowness, is that Bricks curiously, tend not to be acrobatic or graceful (with really, only Beast as an exception that I can come up with off the top of my head).

 

Given the ridiculous lifting capacity of most Bricks, relative to their weight, I'm very suprised that few people write them up as very, very graceful and acrobatic. For instance, for a normal human to balance on one hand requires that person to exert a significant portion of their arm and hand strength to supporting their body weight. A Brick, easily capable of lifting tons, instead spends a tiny portion of their strength lifting their body weight.

 

Same thing goes for "hands-up" leaps (where you put a hand on something and use arm strength to help "lift" you over it. I'm suprised that Bricks don't jump over people and obstacles this way all the time.

 

Also, given their terrific hand and arm strength, I'm suprised that bricks don't climb buildings with sheer grip strength alone (not punching handholds in builldings). After all, free climbers do this with hand and arm strength, and certainly have much less of it than the average brick.

 

HERO even gives the brick the greap leaping distances, but you seldom see most people using their Brick's strength to leap in and out of combats, confounding less mobile foes.

 

I'm not sure, but I think the limitation is that, in the real world, very strong things (oxen, rhinos, elephants) have tremendous mass, and use that mass (as well as muscle) to exert force. In the superhero universe, your Bricks have this "reactionless" strength that allows them to lift things that weigh a lot more than they do (rather than just yanking themselves towards the car they are trying to toss). Psychologically, we are probably hardwired to intuitively understand that it takes big massive things to move big massive objects. Even if we intentionally violate that rule in a superhero universe, we still "expect" it to be true.

 

For example, notice how many Bricks (particularly the Thing, but a lot of others too) are big, beefy (or rocky) massive guys. Given the disproportionate strength possible in superhero universes, there's no reason for this. Many female bricks are hugely strong without being HUGE. However, artists still envision really strong people as really massive, even if that mass would still be insufficient to allow them to lift cars and the like.

 

 

Repped.

 

[Tangent]

As to mass and strength, that's always been an interesting aspect of real world strength tricks. Generally more muscle mass does equal more strenth, but there are 140 pound strength athletes who have pulled 30 ton trains along tracks and deadlifted over 800 pounds. All sorts of weird exceptions pop up. There's also the fact that strength in one trick or movement doesn't always translate to another. Being able to twist horse shoes like taffy doesn't mean that you have a punch that's all that exceptional, and while a longshoreman or farmer will often perform very well in movements close to what he does all day (deadlifts, cleans), his bench press and squat generally start out only a bit higher than those of a sedentary trainee (though they go up fast). In a game system like Hero, you'd need a long list of minor STR mods to more closely simulate real world STR (+5 STR only for back lift, +2 STR in right arm, etc). The Hoist skill from Ultimate Brick can be used as a nice nod to this issue.

 

[/Tangent].

[caris]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

That's a curious way of doing things. Having the big attack as one of the MP slots is a lot more conventional, and certainly more efficient in points terms, even if the big attack is a lot bigger than the less damaging ones.

 

eg:

 

110 MP - Eyeblasts (110 pt base)

11 u 1. Main blast - 22d6

7 u 2. Reduced Endurance Blast - 12d6, 1/2 End

7 u 3. Explosive Blast -

etc...

 

Three primary reasons for it:

 

1. I don't usually give squat about efficiency in the build.

2. To reduce the temptation to buy up the other slots to the level of the main blast because it is so cheap.

3. It allows me to buy 3 pt combat levels with the MP that would not apply the main attack therefore allowing me to be more accurate with it, but not become abusive with the more powerful blast.

[caris]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

What I've noticed' date=' more than slowness, is that Bricks curiously, tend not to be acrobatic or graceful (with really, only Beast as an exception that I can come up with off the top of my head).[/quote']

 

Actually, what people tend to forget is how many characters are "Bricks" in one regard or another because their schtick does involve graceful movements. Bricks with this kind of graceful movement are often referred to as Martial Bricks.

 

Spiderman is as much a Brick as the Beast. Neither of them have the kind of defenses that are normally associated with the pure Brick concept though, nor do they have quite the level of Strength that one usually associates with a Brick. (Granted, I don't know how that last mutation further augmented the Beast's strength, but I doubt he is throwing around tanks.)

 

I also think that a lot of our perception is based on that when we think of strong humans we think of big beefy people: Bodybuilders and Powerlifters. We do not think of gymnists, martial artists and dancers. Yes, we know these athletes are strong, but we also know that they have not necessarily trained themselves for the kind of strength that we associate with raw lifting power, because beyond a certain point the training one does for rqw lifting power interferes with the kind of training they have to do for their sport.

 

Now, the reason that women are rarely protrayed in the comics as big and beefy, is a matter of pure asthetics. There is a certain point where a lack of body fat and large amounts of muscle mass are found unattractive in women by the general taste of this time. Comic book creators are generally catering to the general tastes, so She-Hulk, who given how her cousin looks should look like an extreme female body builder is often drawn as more like a tennis pro or a track and field athlete.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

What I've noticed' date=' more than slowness, is that Bricks curiously, tend not to be acrobatic or graceful (with really, only Beast as an exception that I can come up with off the top of my head).[/quote']

 

By issue 150 or so of Uncanny X-Men, Colossus deonstrated training in acrobatics, although he rarely, if ever, uses it.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

I think there are three parts to the perception that bricks are slow and/or clumsy.

 

1) Most Bricks don't need to dodge very often, even if they are high dex bricks like Superman. A part of it is that they often play meat shield, while another part of it is simply that when you are nigh invulnerable you generally have better things to do with your time.

 

2) Bricks generally can KO or kill most of theri opponents in one hit. If the Juggernaut ran into the X-men and took out the whole team in the blink of an eye with five well placed shots it wouldn't be a very interesting story. So, for the sake of the story, the Juggernaut has to miss and miss often, even against foes that lack superhuman DEX.

 

3) Something that people often overlook is that many (though certanly not all) Bricks just aren't trained to use their strength properly. The Hulk, Juggs and Superman are mostly just brawlers that don't use a whole lot of techniqe. Each of them is looking for the one big hit that will instantly KO an opponent. Only rarely are they faced with a foe that requires multiple hits and when they are, then they will all stat throwing flurries. Then you have a character like Wonder Woman who, while not as fast or strong as Supes, is better trained and knows how to use everythign she has. Wonder Woman sets up her attacks, relys on proper technique, uses leverage and is almost always throwing combinations instead of big wild haymakers. She's tough enough to take full power hits from somone like Superman, but she actully dodges, blocks and missile deflects attacks all the damn time. So even though Superman might be faster then Wonder Woman, she is almost always going to look more gracful in general just by virtue of the way she fights...

[austenandrews]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

It's been awhile since I've read comics regularly, but as I recall, guys like Thor and the Hulk weren't so much "fast" as "faster than people thought." A martial artist facing the Hulk couldn't assume that his speed would prevent him from getting hit - he actually had to work at it.

 

Though I agree that Spider-Man & the Beast (and in the extreme, Superman) represent super-strong characters who are also superfast. For that matter, folks like Wolverine and Captain America rely more than a little on raw strength, enhanced by powers.

[Karmakaze]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

That's a curious way of doing things. Having the big attack as one of the MP slots is a lot more conventional' date=' and certainly more efficient in points terms, even if the big attack is a lot bigger than the less damaging ones.[/quote']

 

Actually, I would tend to put the one big attack outside the framework for a different reason. The framework has the big OAF visor/glasses limitation on it, which gets taken away reasonably often, leaving him with only the option of the all-or-nothing attack.

 

Back on the topic of bricks - I do still think that in the source material, non-hybrid-bricks do tend to be in the faster-than-human but on the slow end of superhero speeds. There are a lot of hybrid bricks out there though - flying bricks, or energy bricks that can be a bit faster.

 

The one brick I ever played regularly was a flying brick and fell about in the middle-low end of the SPD/DEX range on a team with a fair number of martial artists. I was distinctly faster than the mentalist though, and about par with the power armor guy.

[Blue]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Probably came from Real life. Generally the bigger and stronger you are the slower you are.

 

But in game terms, building characters that way probably from a desire to balance things out. And probably from necessity; You only have so many points to go around.

[austenandrews]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Plus the Hero system has two distinct "sweet spots" - STR and DEX. A character strong in both can easily be seen as exploiting the system.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Several of the oldest iconic examples of 'bricks' are slooooow. (Frankenstein's monster and the Mummy for example) The notion of the enemy being superhumanly strong and tough and relentless, but easily evaded and escaped makes for a good setup for the eventual triumph of the hero..

 

From a pure game balance standpoint, there's DPS balancing. If you're going to hit harder (as bricks are wont to do) then you're going to have to hit less often. This usually takes the form of lower DEX and/or SPD. This particular line of reasoning has weakened in the 5th ed, as the haymaker, long the trump card exclusive to the brick, has been nerfed and extended to everyone. Still, some habits die hard.

[levi]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

...there's DPS balancing. If you're going to hit harder (as bricks are wont to do) then you're going to have to hit less often. ...

 

This is untrue in the HERO system. Campaigns have DC limits and most characters have attacks at the limit or maybe a die below. Bricks don't usually hit any harder than any other charcter.

[austenandrews]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Right, in terms of game balance, bricks are slower because they have higher defenses, not because they deal more damage (though that is often the case as well).

[Trebuchet]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

From a pure game balance standpoint' date=' there's DPS balancing. If you're going to hit harder (as bricks are wont to do) then you're going to have to hit less often.[/quote']I'm not sure I agree with this. Bricks often do a bit more damage than other archetypes, but I don't think high damage is the most important distinguishing characteristic of bricks. I would consider two items to define bricks:

 

1) High Strength: I don't mean the damage, but the other factors that high strength grants - particularly the ability to lift or hold heavy objects. Even a martial artist who hits for the same dice of damage as a brick still cannot lift the weight bricks can. ("High" strength is of course relative; a STR 25 in a world of 8 - 10 STR normals has incredible strength.)

 

2) Damage Sponge: Bricks can on average simply take much more damage than other classes. Typically this includes higher PD and ED (and/or Damage Reduction), higher CON, and higher Stun in combination than any other archetype. This is I think the single most important portion of what defines a brick. (Other archetypes may have equal defenses, but lack the high CON and Stun that makes a true brick.)

[OddHat]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

This is untrue in the HERO system. Campaigns have DC limits and most characters have attacks at the limit or maybe a die below. Bricks don't usually hit any harder than any other charcter.

 

Which is one of the reasons I don't use DC limits as such. I like a good spread of damage potential in my groups, and I want the heavy hitting Thing tribute to do far more damage when he connects than the Mister Fantastic or Invisible Girl tributes.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Which is one of the reasons I don't use DC limits as such. I like a good spread of damage potential in my groups' date=' and I want the heavy hitting Thing tribute to do far more damage when he connects than the Mister Fantastic or Invisible Girl tributes.[/quote']My sentiments exactly.

 

I started our campaign in 1992 with a 12DC maximum attack, and every single character did 11d6 or 12d6 damage. When I eliminated the DC cap with the publication of Fifth Edition, the damage spread expanded to 10 - 14d6; and is now 10d6 to 15d6. Given the "threshold" nature of Hero defenses (since if your hit is below the target's defense you do no damage at all), 15d6 is a much bigger hit than 10d6.

 

And yes, if you're wondering how the low numbers got lower, one character actually lowered her maximum attack from 11d6 to 10d6. That was my character Zl'f; who also lowered her CON from 23 to 18, her total PD and ED from 13 to 12 each, and her STUN from 30 to 29 to better reflect the original concept of a fast but delicate character.

[levi]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

I do think that Damage Per Turn might be a better Campaign benchmark than Damage Classes. Instead of setting a 12 DC limit on a 350 point game, maybe using 60 DC per Turn (12x5) limit would better simulate what we see in comics.

 

That way the Thing-like brick could have a 4 SPD & 75 STR and the faster (Beast/Spidey-like) brick could have a 6 SPD & 50 STR.

 

Of course this give power-gamers the option of making a character with a 1 SPD & 300 STR and enough levels to punch anyone. So maybe a combination of DC Max & DC per Turn is the most appropriate, say 20 DC max / 60 DC per Turn max.