Another Discussion about the cost of STR

[Dust Raven]

You know what? I'm convinced. STR really should cost 2 per instead of 1. It really is as unbalanced as everyone says it is.

[pinecone]

Re: Another Discussion about the cost of STR

 

And I am convinced it's just fine as is......I know its too cheap...but I just have not had that many troubles with it, so I don't see it as "broke"...so I don't wanna fix it...

[Lucius]

Another Discussion about the cost of STR

 

Thank you for taking this discussion out of the recent thread I started.

 

If anyone wants my opinion, I'm almost sold on the idea of increasing STR cost, but I wanted to solicit the opinions and experiences of those who have actually playtested it before firming up my own position. Thus, the thread I began.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

--

> NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the

> National Security Agency may have read this email

> without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do

> this without any judicial or legislative oversight.

> Don't even ask what the palindromedary says to that.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Another Discussion about the cost of STR

 

Personally.... I think 2pts is fair. On the other hand 1pt hasn't unbalanced any game I've played in either.

 

If I sat down at a table and the GM said STR is 2/1 I'd go with it, no arguements.

 

But I don't feel strongly enough about it to try and change it either way myself.

[John Desmarais]

Re: Another Discussion about the cost of STR

 

And I am convinced it's just fine as is......I know its too cheap...but I just have not had that many troubles with it' date=' so I don't see it as "broke"...so I don't wanna fix it...[/quote']

 

Eh. I'd never make that change myself, but if I sat down to play a game and the GM said "STR costs 2 points per" I wouldn't get up and walk away (although, if it were a Champons game it might have a significant impact on eh type of character I built - I wouldn't even consider building a brick with STR costing 2 per 1).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Another Discussion about the cost of STR

 

I come at this from the reverse perspective. The single biggest issue with costing STR is the impact it has on figured characteristics. I want Bricks to be able to compete with Energy Projectors, and making them pay 10 points per DC (or kludge some Hand Attack/Martial Arts structure together) doesn't meet that objective.

 

Rather than raise the cost of STR (and CON - both generate more figured char than they cost themselves), what about reducing the cost of END, STUN and REC so the benefits granted by STR and CON are less costly for a lower STR/CON character to purchase directly.

 

I'd like to see +15 STR grant +5 stats (and a -1/2 limit for "No Figured"), and +15 CON grant 22 points of figured (with "no figured" priced at -2 3/4). At this point, you could sever them without complications (leaving only BOD). No need to change DEX - it works already.

 

This would require lowering the price of REC, STUN and END. Changing PD and ED changes the dynamic between other defense powers, so it should be avoiced. As a rough guideline, I would consider the following:

 

Reduce the price of STUN to 1/2 point, REC to 1 point and END to 1/3 point. Declare them "defensive powers" so that adjustment powers do not gain a huge advantage.

 

Grant figured as follows:

 

STR grants STR/5 in PD and STR/7.5 in REC.

10 STR grants 2 PD and 1 REC

 

15 STR grants 3 PD and 2 REC, which costs 5 points otherwise.

No Figured is a -1/2 limitation on STR.

 

CON grants CON/5 in ED, CON/3.75 in REC, 2/3 CON in STUN and 2x CON in END.

10 CON grants 2 ED, 3 REC, 7 STUN and 20 END.

 

15 CON grants 3 ED, 4 REC, 10 STUN and 30 END, which costs 22 points otherwise. 30/(30-22) = 3.75, so No Figured on CON is a -2 3/4 limitation (yes, I know, it's more than -2; utter blasphemy - break it down into separate limitations for each figured stat to get them each below -2 3/4 and stop whining).

 

BOD grants BOD x 1 1/3 STUN.

10 BOD grants 13 STUN

 

15 BOD grants 20 STUN, which is worth 10 points. No Figured is a -1/2 limitation on BOD.

 

RESULT: No Figured Char is now mathematically correct - someone might actually take CON - no figured! DEX and SPD are unchanged, so -1/2 works.

 

We can now eliminate the "can only sell back 1 figured" restriction, since there's no advantage to buying up a stat and selling the figured characteristics back.

 

A standard (10's across the board) guy has the same base figured's as before.

 

BOD and CON contribute more, and STR contributes less. Appropriate as STR gives considerably more other benefits.

 

Potentially, this will cause other changes to the dynamic. For example, since there is no longer a "figured' advantage to high STR and CON, do we need to allow EC's of characteristics for Bricks and other stat-based characters to stay balanced with, say, blasters and others more reliant on frameworks?

 

In my experience, the system works. If it ain't broke, why fix it? However, the above approach, to me, makes more sense than doubling the price of STR, then adjusting Hand Attacks and martial arts DC's, then moving on to DC's of other attack powers, ad infinitum.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Another Discussion about the cost of STR

 

Eh. I'd never make that change myself' date=' but if I sat down to play a game and the GM said "STR costs 2 points per" I wouldn't get up and walk away (although, if it were a Champons game it might have a significant impact on eh type of character I built - I wouldn't even consider building a brick with STR costing 2 per 1).[/quote']

 

Ditto.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Another Discussion about the cost of STR

 

DR:

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Another Discussion about the cost of STR

 

I come at this from the reverse perspective. The single biggest issue with costing STR is the impact it has on figured characteristics. I want Bricks to be able to compete with Energy Projectors, and making them pay 10 points per DC (or kludge some Hand Attack/Martial Arts structure together) doesn't meet that objective.

 

Rather than raise the cost of STR (and CON - both generate more figured char than they cost themselves), what about reducing the cost of END, STUN and REC so the benefits granted by STR and CON are less costly for a lower STR/CON character to purchase directly.

 

I'd like to see +15 STR grant +5 stats (and a -1/2 limit for "No Figured"), and +15 CON grant 22 points of figured (with "no figured" priced at -2 3/4). At this point, you could sever them without complications (leaving only BOD). No need to change DEX - it works already.

 

This would require lowering the price of REC, STUN and END. Changing PD and ED changes the dynamic between other defense powers, so it should be avoiced. As a rough guideline, I would consider the following:

 

Reduce the price of STUN to 1/2 point, REC to 1 point and END to 1/3 point. Declare them "defensive powers" so that adjustment powers do not gain a huge advantage.

 

Grant figured as follows:

 

STR grants STR/5 in PD and STR/7.5 in REC.

10 STR grants 2 PD and 1 REC

 

15 STR grants 3 PD and 2 REC, which costs 5 points otherwise.

No Figured is a -1/2 limitation on STR.

 

CON grants CON/5 in ED, CON/3.75 in REC, 2/3 CON in STUN and 2x CON in END.

10 CON grants 2 ED, 3 REC, 7 STUN and 20 END.

 

15 CON grants 3 ED, 4 REC, 10 STUN and 30 END, which costs 22 points otherwise. 30/(30-22) = 3.75, so No Figured on CON is a -2 3/4 limitation (yes, I know, it's more than -2; utter blasphemy - break it down into separate limitations for each figured stat to get them each below -2 3/4 and stop whining).

 

BOD grants BOD x 1 1/3 STUN.

10 BOD grants 13 STUN

 

15 BOD grants 20 STUN, which is worth 10 points. No Figured is a -1/2 limitation on BOD.

 

RESULT: No Figured Char is now mathematically correct - someone might actually take CON - no figured! DEX and SPD are unchanged, so -1/2 works.

 

We can now eliminate the "can only sell back 1 figured" restriction, since there's no advantage to buying up a stat and selling the figured characteristics back.

 

A standard (10's across the board) guy has the same base figured's as before.

 

BOD and CON contribute more, and STR contributes less. Appropriate as STR gives considerably more other benefits.

 

Potentially, this will cause other changes to the dynamic. For example, since there is no longer a "figured' advantage to high STR and CON, do we need to allow EC's of characteristics for Bricks and other stat-based characters to stay balanced with, say, blasters and others more reliant on frameworks?

 

In my experience, the system works. If it ain't broke, why fix it? However, the above approach, to me, makes more sense than doubling the price of STR, then adjusting Hand Attacks and martial arts DC's, then moving on to DC's of other attack powers, ad infinitum.

 

This is pretty much my take on thje subject as well, with one difference...

I'd keep Stun from Body at 1:1 but use EGO in place of STR for base STUN. I'm of the opinion that Ego doesn't give quite enough benefit for its 2 point cost, and willpower effecting your ability to stay concious seems very appropriate to me.

I'm also in favor of dropping the leaping bonus from STR.

[SuperKlaus]

Re: Another Discussion about the cost of STR

 

I have simply altered STR's connection to its baby stats in my supers game and everything's smooth. You still get STR/5 PD but for calculating REC and STUN we pretend STR is fixed at 10 (that is to say REC is 2 + CON/5 and STUN is 5 + CON/2 + BODY). STR's No Figured Lim is now a mere -1/4 to allow for this.

 

I couldn't quite wrap my head around the idea of strength increasing recovery time and resilience anyhow. I couldn't bear to double STR's cost due to the effect on Active Points.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Another Discussion about the cost of STR

 

You know what? I'm convinced. STR really should cost 2 per instead of 1. It really is as unbalanced as everyone says it is.

 

To save on additional PMs and such... April Fools everybody!

 

I'm still expecting a heated debate of course.