the point cost problem

[Thia Halmades]

Re: the point cost problem

 

On Force powers:

 

There are a few ways to do this. Anything on KS's site is going to be pretty clear cut, that's what it's there for. You can't fault the man. I would suggest an alternate route, though. First, go onto the 'net and go to Gamefaqs.com. From there, search for the following five games:

 

- Jedi Knight: Outcast

- Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

- Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

- Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II

- Jade Empire (nb: not a Star Wars game).

 

Each of those games is going to have a large list of example powers for you to adapt into any Star Wars environment; all you'll have to do it convert it over to HERO system rules, but the bulk of the work is already done. A few notes on the topic (as we've discussed it around the campfire at length).

 

The Force is an EC. It represents how 'strong' one is with the Force. "He is Strong with the Force, he has a 30 point EC which means his mind-control is freaky scary!" "He is weak with the Force, a Padawan. His 5 point EC and the attached TK is barely enough to unhook a bra."

 

There are many ways to do it, but using classic Power Frameworks, our vote was for EC; you just need to put a reasonable cap on the EC to keep it from getting out of hand. For example, my House Rules say the most Active Points you can have in a power or Framework is your CP * .30. It's a fair distribution and keeps everyone on an even keel. So for an EC, the EC couldn't be over 15 because you'd have to purchase all of the powers within said EC, which would ratchet up the cost to the Active Point cap.

 

But that's just one way of doing it. You can also purchase them as invidual, improvable powers, or construct Jedi Classes (Knight, Sentinel, Guardian, Sith, etc.) and give them a Multipower to reflect the group of abilities they know. For example:

 

Sith Lord (Force Multipower, 45 Base, Gestures (-1/4), Concentration (1/2 DCV, -1/4), (23 points)

 

Wound: 1d6 Killing NND (Force Choke)

Slow: Drain SPD

Fear: +X Presence Attack

Shock: 6d6 EB or 2d6 RKA (Force Lightning)

Drain Life: Transfer Body

 

Not full write-ups (apologies, got interrupted) but you get the gist. There's a lot of ways to do this with minimal difficulty, and they can be capped, controlled, etc. Someone wants to get crazy with the Force Powers? They pay for it, just as someone would pay to have Desolid to avoid explosions or get out of ropes.

 

Their equipment? Nope. Probably not even their Lightsaber, since they have character lims (psych) prohibiting them from using anything else. It's when they learn Lightsaber Throw you need to be nervous.

[mcgreeno]

Re: the point cost problem

 

Just my Two Cents; I'm currently running a Star Hero/Fantasy campain, that is to say Space Age with magic and Psionics and here is what I did to balance things.

 

1. Equipment is free, However I use a tech level, for every tech level above the characters their is a minus to the skill roll to figure out, build, or repair the Item (idecided on a -4 that grows steadly, aka if the game is tech 10 a tech 11 item would be -4 and tech 12 would be -8 and a tech 13 would be -16 to the skill roll, I am basing my tech levels on The gurps charts.

 

Now I do have a lot of equipment in the game, which the players puchase, I basicaly threw out reasources perk. Instead you could purchase some start up cash and thats about it. If a character wants to modify some eq and it is in his tech lv sure, takes a skill roll (-1 per 5 active points) time (one day per active point) and cash (use the chart out of star hero). This allows the characters unique equipment within game balance.

 

2. Unique power (Spells, Psionics) I've turened into individual skills, with prerequisites. AKA For telepathy, one must my Sense Emotion, Before Mind Read, then Can By Mind control.

 

The spells work the same, you purchase the skill, 3/2 and make the skill roll. For every point you make it by the effect gains 5 active points. During character creation I talked with each player and placed the limits and prerequesets on the powers and abilites. Then I built a simple chart for each of the more complex abilities. Most of the time I just wing in

 

Example, Player; I cast fire ball,

GM; Make your roll

Player; I made it by 3

GM; Excellent now roll to hit

Player; Got him

GM; Cool you get 1/2d to roll in that 1 hex area. (around 15 active points 1/2d6 rka area effect radius.

 

That is a baseline example. The characters enjoy the difficulty of buying the powers and while I enjoy the Freedom to create.

 

Anyway this is how I doing it, the process is defenatly a work of love and takes a little work on the GM.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: the point cost problem

 

Lots of good posts, folks. Thanks.

 

I don't want you to stop, I just want you to know that what you have already posted is helpful.

 

People don't mention that enough IMHO. It's always nice to hear that your efforts are appreciated.

 

bblackmoor, if what you're looking to do really is closely patterned after Star Wars, you might want to check my RPG conversion list (via the link in my sig, if you haven't visited before). Various HEROphiles have written up a ton of material dealing with most areas of the Star Wars universe, here on the boards and on several fan websites, which you can access from there. Even if you don't use the specific writeups I guarantee that they and the related discussion will help your own concepts percolate.

[CSgeekHero]

Re: the point cost problem

 

I had thought about a huge power framework for The Force, then I read Von D-Man's post. I think his is an excellent idea.

[alms66]

Re: the point cost problem

 

Mark hit it on the head in post #24, IMO. But, if you would still feel more comfortable with some sort of point-blancing measure, make all powers off-limits to those who don't buy the "Jedi" Talent (which costs whatever you're comfortable with - 10, 20, 30 points?). I'm not extremely familiar with the Star Wars universe, but IIRC Jedi are the only "people" with those sorts of powers, so everyone else is, in effect, a normal without this Talent.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: the point cost problem

 

According to the SW Universe, you can be "Force Sensitive" without using The Force intentionally. Usually manifests as luck, and in the original WEG system, it was spending a Force Point to do the nigh impossible.

[austenandrews]

Re: the point cost problem

 

In pondering a SW game, I've considered encouraging PCs to buy vehicle upgrades, droids, sidekicks, political followings, et al. I'd have to run the numbers to be sure, but I suspect you could mostly balance Luke's Jedi abilities with Leia + the Rebellion and Han + Chewie + the Falcon's upgrades.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: the point cost problem

 

Depends, which version of Luke are we using? If we're going by the film, Luke doesn't actually do much. Even taking his TK into account, it's Cumulative with the Extra Time limitation. Yes - he can lift an X-Wing out of a swamp, and he can jump and flip and pull his Lightsaber into his hands.

 

Well, that makes his Lightsaber an OIF (can by summoned by user if its in range, -1/2). His TK can be moderately strong, but require Extra Time and Concentration, which balances itself out. It's not a combat-capable teke. He can enforce his will on the weak-minded. The strong-minded get a breakout roll. He DOES have Force Leap, but like everything else, it costs END and is only useful in combat. His big ability, for mechanics purposes, is his insane speed, combat reflexes and that he bought Missile Deflection for Blaster Bolts (Limitation: must use Lightsaber, -1/2).

 

He is a skilled pilot, but he lacks common sense and diplomacy skills. He does have Clairvoyance, but it's No Concious Control. Han has a ship, a Follower (unless someone is playing Chewbacca), a good stack of contacts and with a clever player, a boatload of gear. Leia is Force Sensitive, has Royal Privliges and is a decent shot with a blaster. You'd really have to go in depth to fully justify her points.

 

But for Han, his follower, vehicle & skills should more than make up for Luke's Jedi training, I'd agree with that whole heartedly. If we go with the later material (Jedi Knight II: Outcast, any of the Zhan books) he's significantly more powerful, closer to NPC status. He has a Base, a Vehicle (oh, a clever GM would also make Luke pay for his X-Wing, which is personalized, and his Droids, both followers).

 

Wow. Luke is expensive.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: the point cost problem

 

Just in case this thread has piqued anyone's interest:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30644&highlight=star+wars+hero

 

I won't actually be running Star Wars, but I'll be cribbing a lot from the setting.

[austenandrews]

Re: the point cost problem

 

I'd rate R2 as a Follower and 3PO as a DNPC.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: the point cost problem

 

Actually, I've found the best way to balance this comes from how you administer your game, not in the point cost of things or what to charge for.

 

 

First off, some things "Jedi" can do are phenomenal, not reproducable by equipment (mind trick to name one.) Some are easily reproduced in "no point cost" equipment (missile deflection.)

 

 

So, the main issue is (and this happens in FH with fighter vs. wizard), the "non-powered" character spends all his points on skills, stats, skill levels, and martial manuevers. The "jedi" is forced to divide his points into other areas. Seems the "normal" has the advantage, no?

 

 

But, put the characters in a position where their equipment is unavailable (or ineffective) and the challenged "jedi" suddenly has the leg up.

 

 

You can also use "bonus disadvantages" for such a character. For instance, a "jedi" certainly has a code of conduct other characters are not limited by, on top of the normal disadvantes we all have. So, let him take the code as an extra disadvantage on top of the normal max. You end up with one character based on more points, but 20 or so points do not make a huge difference. If you are worried about the boosted power of this character, rule that the bonus has to be used to flesh out the character -- build the character on your base points, then let him spend the "bonus" on a limited list of things (I'd recommend skills, talents, perks, and characteristics only.)

 

I'm using this "bonus disadvantage" concept in my current game, just to make sure the ship's captain has all the skills and such he needs. He ended up spending the bonus on some skills, some contacts, and the ship.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: the point cost problem

 

Another balancing factor: Using money accurately.

 

For my SH campaign, I've worked out the following formula:

 

Standard Gear (conventional firearms, low-tech armor, tools, anything "low tech"):

Active Cost x Real Cost = Price in Credits, ammo is 1/10 of that per clip/reload.

 

High Tech Gear (energy weapons, power armor, etc.):

Active Cost x Real Cost x 10~100; ammo is 1/10 of that per clip/reload.

 

Big Stuff (vehicles, starships, starship weaponry & upgrades, etc.):

Active Cost x Real Cost x 1000+; ammo is 1/10 of that per clip/reload.

 

 

I like this better than the default formula, as this takes into account disadvantages. IIRC, the default cost system is just Active Points x 10 or some such.

 

 

Then, figure out the total cost of a decent starting "kit" for your Han Solo guy, and set up wealth to equate to starting cash. Make it so Han needs 15 points in wealth (or "hunted - debt" ) This way, they are still spending "points" for gear to balance things out a bit, at least at the beginning.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: the point cost problem

 

Wow, great point AA. I'm going to rep you for that, because I should've gotten there and didn't.

 

By the way. My NCC-1701D can kick your ISD's butt.

 

Edit: Curses, foiled again. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to austenandrews again.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: the point cost problem

 

Most/all of the fantasy and sci-fi games I've run have followed the "just give `em the gear, don't sweat the points" philosophy already advised by others. It's never been a problem, partly because I tend to be very cautious about what gear I hand out anyway. (I'm not much of a "gear guy" in general. In fact, one of the things that originally drew me to FH was that it was possible to design unique and interesting characters who weren't defined entirely by what magic items they're carrying. But I digress.)

 

That said, if equity does become an issue between your ability-based characters and your gear-based characters, another possibility would be to give the gear-heads a VPP, possibly with the limitation "Only to use existing equipment" to differentiate it from the standard I can invent anything gadget pool. So if Gear Man has 75-points in his gear pool, he can use up to 75 AP worth of gear at any one time. (Alternately, you could base it off real cost with a little handwavium.) If he finds a new Blastemizer Rifle, he can swap out other gear to make room for it, or sink more XP into the pool.

 

Oh, as for statting out every single piece of equipment in the universe, an alternative is to let everyone use certain common, inexpensive items -- com links, binoculars, etc -- as freebies. After all, even a Jedi needs a flashlight now and then. Save the point-crunching for the weapons and big-ticket items.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: the point cost problem

 

Yah, a "real point" VPP would work nicely for the gear-monkies, allowing them to carry their 11 RP Energy Blade, and their 24 RP Laser Cannon, and so on. That's really not a bad idea, BDH, I may import that at a later time.

 

Although, seriously, so long as we're talking military grade weapons, and the PCs are carrying them, and the bad guys are carrying them, who cares? Sorry, repeating myself.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: the point cost problem

 

To me, it only matters if you have one player sinking 50 character points into innate abilities (Jedi powers, et. al.), while another player gets all his "powers" for free because they're equipment. Sure equipment can be taken away, but you can only play that scenario so many times before the players revolt. You could argue that it's really a matter of player equity, rather than character equity; as long as your players are fine with it, then I agree why worry about it. But if they're not...

[David Johnston]

Re: the point cost problem

 

To me' date=' it only matters if you have one player sinking 50 character points into innate abilities (Jedi powers, et. al.), while another player gets all his "powers" for free because they're equipment. [/quote']

 

Of course as I said before, that's only an issue if the equipment duplicates the powers. Otherwise Mr. Jediman just gets the same equipment and they're even.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: the point cost problem

 

You might want to check out my MetaCyber setting. I deal w/ gear oriented vs characters with inherent powers via Origins:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/MetaCyber/MetaCyberCharacters_Origins.shtml

 

Generally Im using what you refer to as "inherent abilities cost points equipment costs money", with the slight caveat of Im using Resource Pools and all characters start with some "free" gear via Resource Pools.

 

I don't agree with you that this penalizes characters with inherent abilities arbitrarily however; there is value attached to having abilities that can't be taken away, broken, run out of ammo, and are reasonably exclusive / restricted, not to mention the benefit of Powers that let a character do extreme things that other people simply cannot do. The real balance point revolves around whether the points that are spent on inherent abilities are competitive or not -- do they offer a valid means of acheiving parity with other characters of differing builds.

 

 

Finally, balance is ultimately acheived and maintained by the GM taking an active role in setting a level playing field, reviewing character builds for reasonableness, and otherwise keeping the playing field generally level in a broad sense. While individual characters might be advantaged circumstantially no character should be allowed to dominate the game.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: the point cost problem

 

Of course as I said before' date=' that's only an issue if the equipment duplicates the powers. Otherwise Mr. Jediman just gets the same equipment and they're even.[/quote']

For non-combat abilities, absolutely; that is in fact the way I have usually run it in the past. But if Jediman's combat schtick is built around his inherant abilities, then it doesn't help to say "Oh, you can also use a blaster" because that's not part of the character concept. Now of course it's perfectly valid to say "Then don't allow that character concept" if it doesn't fit your world. But the question was how do you allow a concept like that while keeping it balanced.

 

I don't agree with you that this penalizes characters with inherent abilities arbitrarily however

I'm not saying it is unfair; I'm saying it could be unfair (or be perceived as such) in some campaigns or with some players. If it works in your campaign with your players, then that's fine. I was merely suggesting a possible way to deal with it if it's not working. Of course balance and fairness are up to the GM. But that's why we have mechanics - to help the GM do his/her job.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: the point cost problem

 

I'm not saying it is unfair; I'm saying it could be unfair (or be perceived as such) in some campaigns or with some players. If it works in your campaign with your players' date=' then that's fine. I was merely suggesting a possible way to deal with it if it's [u']not[/u] working. Of course balance and fairness are up to the GM. But that's why we have mechanics - to help the GM do his/her job.

Players that don't perceive a value in inherent abilities should just not buy any. Self correcting.

[Old Man]

Re: the point cost problem

 

I'm wondering whether there is even a problem here. Using Han and Obi-Wan as general examples, Obi-Wan sank all his points into force powers while Han's went to blaster levels and piloting. Where is the imbalance? Granted Obi-Wan could probably defeat Han in a stand-up fight but that's not the issue--relative effectiveness in the campaign is.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: the point cost problem

 

The way I've dealt with it, and works well for heroic games is as follows:

 

Equipment costs $$. Special Items cost points. Special Items can always be rebuilt/recovered or represent an inherent ability to channel power through mundane items.

 

Equipment should be classified as common/street/military/advanced using the same system as from DC. This means a gear focused character has to pay points to be able to purchase extremely useful mundane equipment.

 

Alternatively, have everyone pay 1 point per "active" piece of equipment they can have in their kit. This is a simplified version of resource pool that ignores the point value of items.

 

If the special abilities in the campaign are strongly themed, give them a themed item. Lightsabre is an example. This item is defined, everyone of that character type has this item, and only people with the special abilities can effectively use it. The character doesn't pay points for it, and their may be a delay while he rebuilds it if it is lost, but he will always have one in general.

 

So, an epic fantasy game might require 1 pt to be paid for each magic item "attuned", mages might get a free magestaff (3 powers: limited range attack, 10 point magic aid ritual (1 minute to perform), as many 10 active point cantrips the mage wants at 1 pt each - can't combine with any other powers), but have to buy spells as normal (perhaps some "special" limitations such as "Spell -1/2" and "Signature/Trackable Casting using Magic Senses -1/2").

 

Star Wars: lightsabre for "Jedi"; Jedi can buy powers and may use multipowers for tight sfx (e.g. TK & Energy Blast (OIF: objects of opportunity & Leaping). Otherwise, equipment costs $$ unless it is bionics. Essentially, if it's inherent - pay points. Han is going to be buying things like Combat Luck, Rapid Shot, and plenty of Super-Skills (see DC for ideas), so inherent abilities is really a moot point.

 

You can also allow a key ability (Jedi "Sense Minds") to be purchased at a reduced cost (1/3 or so). Since all Jedi can sense other Jedi you can justify this as almost a prereq. Sure it's a gimme, but players like to get deals and since this doesn't really upset the balance of the game it's not a big deal.

 

I've been running my Fantasy Game like this for years and it hasn't been a problem. Fighters and mages seem balanced.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: the point cost problem

 

I'm wondering whether there is even a problem here. Using Han and Obi-Wan as general examples' date=' Obi-Wan sank all his points into force powers while Han's went to blaster levels and piloting. Where is the imbalance? Granted Obi-Wan could probably defeat Han in a stand-up fight but that's not the issue--relative effectiveness in the campaign is.[/quote']

Depending on how you handle it, there may not be a problem. But let's say both characters start at 100+100 points. Obi-Wan sinks 50 points into TK, mind control, missile deflection, et al. Meanwhile, Han gets 50 points worth of blasters and other gear for free. That means he has 50 extra points to spend on characteristics, CSLs, etc to make him better at using his "powers". Yes their abilities are not identical, but strictly in terms of combat ability you could argue that Han is effectively a 250-point character compared to Obi-Wan.

 

Now as has been discussed in other threads, there's nothing inherantly wrong with having PCs of different point-levels. I am not claiming that point cost is the be-all, end-all of character generation! But it is a good tool for helping ensure that characters are roughly balanced, especially for new GMs.

 

In standard heroic-level games, equipment costs don't matter because most characters have access to the same gear. In Champions, equipment costs do matter because some characters have innate powers while other use gadgets; it's a function of the genre. But that convention can apply to games in other genres as well. If you introduce inherant superpowers into a game, the line starts to blur, and there is the potential to create imbalances. Yes, there is more than one way to deal with that -- I was merely suggesting one.

[John Desmarais]

Re: the point cost problem

 

I'm wondering whether there is even a problem here. Using Han and Obi-Wan as general examples' date=' Obi-Wan sank all his points into force powers while Han's went to blaster levels and piloting. Where is the imbalance? Granted Obi-Wan could probably defeat Han in a stand-up fight but that's not the issue--relative effectiveness in the campaign is.[/quote']

 

And his ship - I figure Han plugged a fair number of points into the Falcon.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: the point cost problem

 

Depending on how you handle it' date=' there may not be a problem. But let's say both characters start at 100+100 points. Obi-Wan sinks 50 points into TK, mind control, missile deflection, et al. Meanwhile, Han gets 50 points worth of blasters and other gear for free. That means he has 50 extra points to spend on characteristics, CSLs, etc to make him better at using his "powers". Yes their abilities are not identical, but strictly in terms of combat ability you could argue that Han is [i']effectively[/i] a 250-point character compared to Obi-Wan.

There are a number of flaws with this line of thinking that have been talked to death in previous threads.

 

Im not going to rehash those old arguments here, but I will point out a few things and leave it at that:

 

A) you are measuring characters solely by who can beat up who in a toe to toe fight, which fails to factor in a huge collection of other considerations. It also fails to take into account a wide variety of factors including tactics, circumstances of when combat starts, timing, and luck. Unless your campaign is just a giant king of the mountain exercise this is a poor measurement technique. All that aside, I'd put my money on Obi Wan rather than Han in a standup fight any day of the week unless the character designer of both characters was just on crack.

 

you are assuming that its an either / or arrangement. There is nothing stopping characters with inherent abilities from also using equipment if they want to.

 

C) you are failing to give credit to the utility of having one or more unusual options available to a character that are not normally possible. Some tasks that are extremely difficult to impossible for the character without inherent abilities are easily surmounted by the character with applicable inherent abilities. The best way to solve problems is not always just a matter of applying enough brute force; finesse matters.

 

D) you are assuming that access to Equipment is an open license to have a piece of gear that does whatever. Usually however there are definite and finite limits to what gear can and can't do. Characters with innate abilities that allow them to do things that gear can't do, or to do things better than gear alone can do have an advantage.

 

E) you are assuming that Equipment is freely available and any character built to take advantage of Equipment will always have exactly the gear they want or need available to them. Generally this is not the case; acquisition of gear is limited by some combination of in game factors not to mention situational timing of when a character realize they need some doohickey or other it may not be possible to go fetch it at that exact moment.

 

F) you are assuming that the gear using character is never deprived of their gear or otherwise suffers the downfall of relying on breakable, stealable, or otherwise not always available gear. It is generally much less likely that a character with inherent abilities will be deprived of their abilities than a gear using character.

 

G) you are not giving enough weight to the realized value of playing a character that is "cool", different, or otherwise stands out due to having unusual abilities and / or not looking like every other character in play for some players. For many the ability to play a character with fantastic special abilities is more important than whether they may be at a disadvantage because they didnt load up on a bunch of equipment that doesnt fit their concept, whether such a problem is real or perceived.

 

Players that are more concerned with powergaming will naturally gravitate to whatever build they feel is most conducive to abuse; if this means they steer clear of innate abilities because they perceive a loss there then I say "GOOD". It leaves the archetype open for players that want to make interesting characters and generally keeps the riffraff out. Of course in my experience its been the opposite effects -- powergamers tend to gravitate towards inherent power builds, where they attempt to design custom abilities that allow them to cheese the rules in some way rather than the other way around, but YMMV obviouly.