Point Efficiency vs. Concept

[gewing]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

Sounds like you want to be a brick, power armor user, gun bunny and possibly a martial artist all rolled into one. Depending on the attitudes of other people in the group, you might be stepping on toes. "Oh, gewing's playing a brick? Well I won't play a brick then, I'll play a martial artist. What? He's also a martial artist? And the power armor guy? And he has a machine gun!?!?! Is there anything he's isn't doing?"

 

That sort of thing crops up from time to time in groups I have played in so I thought it might be worth mentioning. Myself I like versatile characters and would have no problem with this one.

 

It reminds me of somthing one of my friends does. He has an absolute obsession with power armor and gadgets. Every time he makes a superhero, the guy just has to have a laundry list of specialized equipment that enhances his inate powers or coveres for an existing weakness. He thinks it's idiotic that more supers don't have utility belts and such. I think I've seen at least four character write ups that have the line "No one knows the real source of his powers!" I assume he's itching for the day the suit get's stolen so he can save us all when the villians underestimate him, but it's never actually come up in game...

 

 

You have a point, but realistically, I would probably only have him start out with a rifle or shotgun (size up to discussion Russian 23mm shotgun might be good. ) I have never really played a "Brick" I used to play martial artists, and I got rather tired of getting one punched when I got hit.

 

How many bricks have SOME kind of ranged attack. I would bet a lot of them do. His is just a Focus.

 

The armor wouldn't even have to actually BE Powered, it could just LOOK like it is, but I kind of like the idea of "Do you know how much it STINGS to get shot? Of COURSE I looked for some armor. Also, I got tired of picking pistol bullets out of my skin, they make really ugly lumps!"

 

This basic character would probably not actually have any martial arts. that would be more for another character, though I don't see anything too problematic about a MA package, if the damage/ocv/Dcv etc didn't go out of bounds. A weak brick is probably kind of screwed, unless he has something to make it up. A rifle is fair, martial arts could be interesting.

 

Re-watching Buffy The Vampire Slayer and seeing her get her *** kicked by Glory reminded me that Buffy REALLY should have trained in some Aikido/Aikijutsu/Jujitsu/judo in addition to the striking style she uses (one of the Korean ones, isn't it?). Glory would have gotten pretty damned annoyed if she got thrown around the room by her own strength used against her.

 

 

I may make up a loose team of characters, The Brick Wall.

 

All of them are bricks of one form or another.

So far the only one I have a rough on (two different origins/special effects) is a multi-limbed, stretching Brick.

[gewing]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

Well presumably what the friend found ludicrous was the strength enhancing armour and that has nothing to do with concept versus point efficiency. After all' date=' in "reality" that isn't a +10 str armour. It's a STR 50 armour. So the character spent a huge fortune of money on building an armour that only gives him a slight increase in capability. A suit of armour that gave the same protection but didn't replace his strength could be built for a fraction of the cost.[/quote']

 

Actually he argued that it was ludicrous for me to ONLY put 10 of the strength into the focus, it was too point inefficient.

[gewing]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

The problem the friend had is (I'm supposing from the thread title) that the powers could 'efficiently' all be lumped in with the suit for a cheeky OIF limitation on them all.

 

This sort of thing has come up a lot when we play the hero system... the character who takes the mega-limiter on all of his powers (Only Works In City, OIF, Only At Night, etc.) outshines all the other PCs the majority of the time and then every so often becomes pretty rubbish for a bit. Hard one to workaround without disallowing half the limitations in the game.

 

I wouldn't mind so much except one of my players blatantly refuses any character concept with a limitation on his powers!!!

 

 

That is more my problem. I don't like lims much, and so characters tend to be expensive.

[gewing]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

That's where I balk. The suit is as strong as it is. It doesn't really add +10 STR to the wearer. That's just how you buy it. Really it's a STR 50 suit because that's how much its motors can lift

 

 

Valid point. I was posting pretty late at night, so see some of my later posts today.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

It's unrealistic kevlar from the outset in defending against all types of attacks. My understanding is that kevlar is very effective against bullets' date=' not so much against knives, fire, lightning, cold and radiation. [/quote']

Correct: standard Kevlar is much less effective against knives and the like, although they make "stab vest" variants that do protect against such attacks. We discussed this recently over in the DC forum:

http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46217

 

(Ignore the post where that bigdamnhero idiot tries to argue that all kevlar is stab resistant - he's completely wrong.)

 

Another argument for supers not wearing kevlar is that the stuff is still relatively bulky. A soft, concealable DEF 6 vest might not slow you down much, but a DEF 9+ tactical-level vest is going to really hamper your leaping about. Not much of an issue in heroic games, where characters aren't expected to be able to dodge bullets. But some supers might have more faith in their ability to dodge attacks (whether thru actual Dodging, or just high DCV) if they're not wearing heavy, restrictive body armor. And yes, I know we don't typically use Encumerance rules in supers games - I was offering a character/genre rationale, rather than a game-mechanics reason.

[mattingly]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

As for multi-archetype concepts, I was once in an Amalgam Universe game in which we had to merge teen superheroes from the Marvel and DC Universes. I combined Robin and Nova into Rocket Red, a flying martial projector brick with a utility belt, vehicle, and base. Whew!

[David Johnston]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston

That's where I balk. The suit is as strong as it is. It doesn't really add +10 STR to the wearer. That's just how you buy it. Really it's a STR 50 suit because that's how much its motors can lift

 

Ah, I was thinking of it as the suit provides a power-assist to my own strength, not that the suit is doing all the lifting itself. If the later, you're probably right.

 

It doesn't make much difference. The str 40 guy is lifting about 3 tons of the suit's 25 ton capacity. The rest is all suit.

[gojira]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

Yeah' date=' because a 15d6 Lightning Bolt is so ovbviously non-lethal compared to a 1/2d6 RKA batarang[/quote']

 

He said "He would probably use something like an xm25 or a barrett Light 50, and have a rocket launcher on his back. A belt fed lmg might be another good weapon" not "a kid's toy." Please keep your eye rolling to yourself, and learn to read.

 

 

This assumes he built it himself (which is the case for this character, but need not be). As well, I think he's pointed out that the armor he's building is comparatively low tech, so he shouldn't need to be Tony Stark (or even Abner Jenkins) to build it.

 

Go build a suit of battle armor and then tell me how hard it is. Are you even an engineer?

 

 

 

He could be a mediocre engineer with some blueprints for fairly standard "supermerc" armor. This stuff isn't even Turtle Armor.

 

Assuming that stuff exists. It doesn't in my world.

 

If you require powered armor characters to load up on 25 points worth of skills to justify your SFX, do you also require a magic using character to have 25 points worth of arcane lore, dead languages and magic skills to use magic spells?

 

Pretty much yes. Less on the skills, more on the Limitations. And Magic Dispell is much more common than any other type of Dispell (in fact, I only allow Dispell vs. Magic SFX by default).

 

I dislike the idea of charging a character a lot of points for selecting one SFX versus another.

 

Bummer.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

It doesn't make much difference. The str 40 guy is lifting about 3 tons of the suit's 25 ton capacity. The rest is all suit.

 

"The suit amplifies your Strength fourfold" for exmple, sound like a pretty common superhero line to me.

[OddHat]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

"The suit amplifies your Strength fourfold" for exmple' date=' sound like a pretty common superhero line to me.[/quote']

 

Yup. There's also the question of why we pay points in the first place. To go from STR 40 to STR 50 costs 10 points. Buy that extra 10 STR with a -1/2 limit and it costs you 7 points. Right or wrong, that's the agreed on cost in this system. Saying that you can buy those extra 10 points with (say) a Magic Ring OIF but not a Power Suit OIF is in the GM's rights, but from a mechanics point of view the character with the suit isn't getting any more utility out of it than the guy with the ring.

 

As KS suggested, one way around it might be to require that all power suits be purchased as vehicles, starting from 0 in all characteristics and building up from there. OTOH, that opens up a range of balance issues the GM will need to consider.

[sinanju]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

Now the thing is, he tries not to let anyone know that all his powers are not based on the suit.

 

My friend felt this was a ludicrous way to build a character. I just figured it was a relatively fun idea.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

I confess, part of the appeal is when he is captured, and considered harmless...

 

Well...duh! I love when that happens. I've played a sorceror in a couple of fantasy games who went to great (some might say obsessive) lengths to masquerade as a mere swordsman. Or in some cases, as several different sorts of characters. He only used subtle magics that nobody would notice to enhance his abilities and maintain the illusion. Only once did a PC catch him doing magic (but he was easily cowed into keeping the secret).

 

I understand entirely, and approve. And as long as your GM is willing to let you do it, who cares what anyone else thinks? The point is to have fun with the game.

[jkwleisemann]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

Re: Gojira (mostly)

 

I think part of this comes down, ultimately, to the question of how one person likes to handle SFX versus another person. There's not a thing wrong, in my mind, with saying "it's power armor, we're handwaving how it was built." I prefer characters who have the skills to build their own if they did, but I agree that a particular special effect shouldn't penalize characters.

 

"I'm a mutant, I get all my powers out of my 350 points!"

 

"I'm a power armor, I have to pay 10-25 points for science skills and such before I even start on powers, and that's before any other skills are brought up."

 

Doesn't really seem fair to me.

 

But, then again, YMMV, as always.

[David Johnston]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

Re: Gojira (mostly)

 

I think part of this comes down, ultimately, to the question of how one person likes to handle SFX versus another person. There's not a thing wrong, in my mind, with saying "it's power armor, we're handwaving how it was built." I prefer characters who have the skills to build their own if they did, but I agree that a particular special effect shouldn't penalize characters.

 

"I'm a mutant, I get all my powers out of my 350 points!"

 

"I'm a power armor, I have to pay 10-25 points for science skills and such before I even start on powers, and that's before any other skills are brought up."

 

Doesn't really seem fair to me.

 

 

The power armour user will save a lot more points than that just by getting most of his points with OIF. But if it bothers him, he could always just get the suit's inventor as a Contact, or give the armour self-repair or treat it as a OIHID suit so it can never be damaged.

[gojira]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

Re: Gojira (mostly)

 

I think part of this comes down, ultimately, to the question of how one person likes to handle SFX versus another person. There's not a thing wrong, in my mind, with saying "it's power armor, we're handwaving how it was built." I prefer characters who have the skills to build their own if they did, but I agree that a particular special effect shouldn't penalize characters.

 

Right, and I thought the tone of my original post conveyed that. I don't understand when someone posts a personal opinion, why some people seem to treat it as a statement of fact. That, and the whole batarang comparison was dumb.

 

"I'm a mutant, I get all my powers out of my 350 points!"

 

"I'm a power armor, I have to pay 10-25 points for science skills and such before I even start on powers, and that's before any other skills are brought up."

 

Doesn't really seem fair to me.

 

But, then again, YMMV, as always.

 

The issue is that mutants seldom take (or get) a lot of cost breaks on their powers (if any cost breaks at all). Whereas the whole OIF battlesuit thing gets a pretty large -1/2 and seems to upset a lot of (non-battlesuit) players. It's really up to the group as a whole how to handle this. Taking away 100% of a player's powers enough to justify the -1/2 isn't really fun, so the "skill tax" is there to help even things out, and it's in character too. Even taking less than 100% gets old pretty quick.

 

I don't have an objection to the original idea, as I already stated. A 250+ character with OIF on top is great. I would make him depower the armor, or come up with a better explaination of how he came by it. No type of power-assisted exosuit is simple to build, but different people have different levels of handwavium. The +10 STR wouldn't be hard to justify if the player is just a little more creative.

 

All obviously in my own opinion.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

"I'm a mutant, I get all my powers out of my 350 points!"

 

"I'm a power armor, I have to pay 10-25 points for science skills and such before I even start on powers, and that's before any other skills are brought up."

 

Doesn't really seem fair to me.

 

But, then again, YMMV, as always.

 

I can understand your point here, but I also know some people that consider that 10-25 pts worth of skills a small price to pay for the ability to add OIF or OIHID limitation to most or all of their powers.

 

In addition, IMX, GM's are WAY more lenient about allowing a character to have justy about anything so long as it's a tech or magic orign SFX.

 

If you want to play an alien or mutant with high defenses, super human strength and speed, the ability to fly, shoot energy blasts, survive in space and most other harsh environments and possess a wide array of superhuman senses, you better hope your GM is a big fan of Superman.

 

By contrast, you can build the exact same character for less points and so long as you stick the word Power Armor in there somewhwere most GM's will be ok with it

[gojira]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

I can understand your point here' date=' but I also know some people that consider that 10-25 pts worth of skills a small price to pay for the ability to add OIF or OIHID limitation to most or all of their powers.[/quote']

 

I went back to check my power armor guy. It's actually 21 points, 7 points in Inventor 15-, plus Scientist (3), Mechanical Engineering (3), Electrical Engineering (2), Biology (2), Physics (2) and Metellurgy (2).

 

I also gave him Mechanics, Electronics, Deduction, Security Systems and Computer Programming so he'd be good "in the field."

 

Oh, and 3 points in PS: Battlesuit Systems.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

Right' date=' and I thought the tone of my original post conveyed that. I don't understand when someone posts a personal opinion, why some people seem to treat it as a statement of fact. That, and the whole batarang comparison was dumb.[/quote']

 

The whole "killing attacks aren't heroic" bit always bugs me. Killing attack is a mechanic. A 15d6 Energy Blast is also lethal, and should be treated as such. There's nothing that says the character in question can't restrict the use of his KA's to non-living targets and opponents who have already shown they can take that kind of punishment. Just as there's nothing to prevent a 15d6 normal attack killing bank robbers, agents and certain Supers who have nonpersistent defenses.

 

The issue is that mutants seldom take (or get) a lot of cost breaks on their powers (if any cost breaks at all). Whereas the whole OIF battlesuit thing gets a pretty large -1/2 and seems to upset a lot of (non-battlesuit) players. It's really up to the group as a whole how to handle this. Taking away 100% of a player's powers enough to justify the -1/2 isn't really fun' date=' so the "skill tax" is there to help even things out, and it's in character too. Even taking less than 100% gets old pretty quick.[/quote']

 

If you're not going to enforce the limitation, I agree it's not worth the point savings. In that case, reduce the value of the limitation, or disallow it.

 

OIF does not have to be all or nothing, however. Maybe a system in the powered armor suit gets broken now and then. In a fast-paced scenario, he won't have time to repair it between scenes. A character who has a -1/2 "not at night" limitation on all his powers should expect to be useless once in a while - some scenarios will be at night. A hero with all his powers on OIF should expect to have them unavailable sometimes as well. This is a good reason for NOT limiting everything the character can do - leave something so the player won't be bored if the OIF is not available, or the sun is down.

 

Which actually makes the character that starts the thread superior - he has some limited powers, but the character can still accomplish something (and the player isn't whining or sleeping) when the limitation comes into play.

[gojira]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

The whole "killing attacks aren't heroic" bit always bugs me.

 

Obviously. But killing attacks are capricious, and more likely to cause severe unintended damage. And a 15d6 EB is equal to a 3d6 RKA, points wise, which is really really lethal.

 

I believe I did say "just for me personally" in my original post. I think that's the key point that you're missing here.

 

 

 

If you're not going to enforce the limitation, I agree it's not worth the point savings. In that case, reduce the value of the limitation, or disallow it.

 

Or come-up with something that works for your group.

 

OIF does not have to be all or nothing, however. Maybe a system in the powered armor suit gets broken now and then. In a fast-paced scenario, he won't have time to repair it between scenes. ... A hero with all his powers on OIF should expect to have them unavailable sometimes as well. This is a good reason for NOT limiting everything the character can do - leave something so the player won't be bored if the OIF is not available, or the sun is down.

 

One thing that does bug me personally is having powers removed by just a roll of the dice. Dramatic necessity under GM control, sure no prob. But unless it's something like a Drain where that's the intent of the power, I don't care for having random stuff removed. I'd rather pay the point tax. Obviously, this doesn't work for all people, or all character-builds.

 

Another thing that bugs me is No Figured Characteristics being forced on a player. This totally hoses a lot of power armor builds, esp. the very strong ones. I believe mechanics should be divorced from effect, and the player should get to choose his limitations and even specify how they work (within reason).

 

Check out the house rules for battlesuits at Global Guardians, for example:

http://www.globalguardians.com/houserules/houserulesindex.php

These are way over the top, imho. Skill tax, breaking stuff every time you take any body at all, and required No Figured Characteristics. Why not just outlaw battlesuits altogether and get it over with?

 

 

If you'd rather get your suit broke or taken away than pay a skill-point tax, fine. Just please don't tell me you built it with your 8th grade science kit and some parts you found at the junk yard. Maybe a cranky corporate research scientist is letting you try it out, or it's government issue to the team. But the SFX doesn't lend itself to back yard projects with out something (Inventor, etc.) to back it up.

[OddHat]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

Just please don't tell me you built it with your 8th grade science kit and some parts you found at the junk yard.

 

Sounds like a great back story for a telekinetic who thinks he's a battlesuit user.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

I've both played and GM'd battlesuit characters, and in neither case did I find them unbalancing. Powerful, yes, but so are they typically in the source material. As long as the GM watches closely what Characteristics get put into that battlesuit there shouldn't be a problem. As long as you've got a fairly normal human being inside that suit they should be pretty well balanced. It's when you stick Spider-Man in Iron Man's armor you get problems.

 

While both of the PA characters I've dealt with built their own armor and hence paid a "concept tax" with a bunch of science and related Skills, I find typical of many of the most interesting/best played characters (not just PA types). In our MidGuard campaign we have a detective/sorcerer called Le Magister. The player spent a LOT of points building a good detective with appropriate Skills and Contacts; only then did he buy the magical Powers and skills. Our team brick Silhouette was a Nobel-Prize winning physicist (complete with the Perk: Nobel Prize Winner) and spent something like 35 points on science and related skills, plus more for Contacts suitable to a Nobel Prize winner. And yet even with that and inherent powers rather than PA she still manages to be at least arguably our team's most powerful PC (and one who could almost certainly pound our now-retired PA character into scrap metal and Carbon-60 powder in a standup fight). You'll never persuade her player that those were wasted points; on the contrary that's what makes her a three-dimensional character and not just a bunch of numbers on a character sheet.

 

Is an expenditure on Skills to build your own PA really a "tax", or simply a well designed and well conceived character? If a PA character is as helpless (and useless) as a newborn baby out of his armor, any good GM will send him back to the drawing board before the first game session. Champions is a role-playing game; and players should be bringing characters to the table, not combat machines taking advantage of every loophole. The GM also has a responsibility to the other players not allow any one PC to totally dominate the game because of a cheesy build.

[jkwleisemann]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

Is an expenditure on Skills to build your own PA really a "tax"' date=' or simply a well designed and well conceived character? If a PA character is as helpless (and useless) as a newborn baby out of his armor, any good GM will send him back to the drawing board before the first game session.[/quote']

 

If you make the choice to spend it there, it's a well designed and conceived character. If it's being required in order for you to play the concept by the GM, it's a tax.

 

And I agree, the character should be useful in and out of his armor. I'll go on record as saying I load up the background skills and such on PA's and Mystics 99 times out of 100. I just don't like the idea of requiring a player to do so in order to play the character type.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

Obviously. But killing attacks are capricious' date=' and more likely to cause severe unintended damage. And a 15d6 EB is equal to a 3d6 RKA, points wise, which is really really lethal.[/quote']

 

Actually it's 5d6 KA equivalent. But a small KA is considerably less lethal than a large normal attack. KA's do have more variability in damage, both BOD and STUN, however. I don't think "KA's aren't heroic" bugs me so much as the underlying assumption that "it's not a KA, so I can use it without restraint".

 

Still, I do agree the character with a machine gun mounted to his shoulder and a ropcket launcher on his back is more likely to scare people than comfort them.

 

One thing that does bug me personally is having powers removed by just a roll of the dice. Dramatic necessity under GM control' date=' sure no prob. But unless it's something like a Drain where that's the intent of the power, I don't care for having random stuff removed. I'd rather pay the point tax. Obviously, this doesn't work for all people, or all character-builds.[/quote']

 

Here we come down to the player's choice. If you want the point savings offered by that -1/2 limitation for an OIF, you pay for it with having powers removed on a fairly regular basis. That's why it's a -1/2 limitation. If you want to reduce the incidence of your powers being taken away, take a reduced limitation. Or take no limitation on the basis that, although it's a powered armor suit, it's basically impossible to remove the character from it without his consent, and it doesn't readiliy get damaged (just like Dr. Destroyer's suit).

 

The skills should have a function in the game as well. Whether your science skills were taken to justify your powered armor, or because your mutant is also a scientist, the points spent are the same, and you should derive some benefit from those points.

 

Another thing that bugs me is No Figured Characteristics being forced on a player. This totally hoses a lot of power armor builds' date=' esp. the very strong ones. I believe mechanics [i']should[/i] be divorced from effect, and the player should get to choose his limitations and even specify how they work (within reason).

 

Here I agree. In fact, I think it's good for the player to specify not only the limitation he takes, but what he anticipates the effects will be. That makes it much more likely any difference between player and GM interpretation will be identified up front, and the value of the limitation adjusted to meet the level of restriction the player is prepared to suffer, rather than have dissatisfaction during the game with the manner in which it's enforced based on the value the player put on it.

 

Just please don't tell me you built it with your 8th grade science kit and some parts you found at the junk yard. Maybe a cranky corporate research scientist is letting you try it out' date=' or it's government issue to the team. But the SFX doesn't lend itself to back yard projects with out something (Inventor, etc.) to back it up.[/quote']

 

Again, I come back to source material. How did Peter Parker, a high school student (albeit one who's good in science class) develop those web shooters?

[Guest Cougar]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

Again' date=' I come back to source material. How did Peter Parker, a high school student (albeit one who's good in science class) develop those web shooters?[/quote']

 

Because he wasn't just "good in science class"? Peter Parker is a brain. Maybe not Reed Richards level -- though I seem to remember Reed being surprised a time or two that Spidey knew what he was talking about -- but a brain none-the-less. He should have a high INT and some solid science skills. Perhaps not Inventor, because he doesn't whip up gadgets every day, but there should be something in his write up to reflect his braininess.

 

Paul

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

Because he wasn't just "good in science class"? Peter Parker is a brain. Maybe not Reed Richards level -- though I seem to remember Reed being surprised a time or two that Spidey knew what he was talking about -- but a brain none-the-less. He should have a high INT and some solid science skills. Perhaps not Inventor' date=' because he doesn't whip up gadgets every day, but there should be something in his write up to reflect his braininess.[/quote']

 

He's still a high school student. And, when forced to find gainful employment to support his family, he didn't qualify for anything in the sciences, did he? You'd think Stark Enterprises would be interested in someone with those solid science skills and high INT, even on a part-time basis, wouldn't you?

[Guest Cougar]

Re: Point Efficiency vs. Concept

 

He's still a high school student. And' date=' when forced to find gainful employment to support his family, he didn't qualify for anything in the sciences, did he? You'd think Stark Enterprises would be interested in someone with those solid science skills and high INT, even on a part-time basis, wouldn't you?[/quote']

 

Two reasons for him not going to Stark Enterprises for a job:

 

The first, which is "in story", is that revealing himself to be smart enough to develop the web fluid and webshooters would have risked compromising his secret identity (or he would have worried about that).

 

The second, which is "out of story", is that Marvel didn't make their comics that tightly entangled for years after it was established the Peter was taking photos for the Bugle.

 

Plus, as was demonstrated a few times in the various Spidey books, Peter is often called away to go and be heroic. This often causes him to lose better paying/regular workhour jobs.

 

Paul