Active Point Maxima?

[The Main Man]

Just as with the spirit of Normal Characteristic Maxima, what if a player had to pay double per extra Active Point over the GM's stated maximum?

 

The Power Creation process would continue the same as always, with Base Cost, Active Cost, then Real Cost.

The difference is calculating the surplus AcP and doubling it, then moving on.

 

Let's say that you are running a typical Standard Superheroic campaign with a 60 AcP limit.

 

A player wants to have a power that is greater than the limit and you trust the player but you make them pay 2xAcP over 60.

 

70 - 60 = 10 x 2 = +20 AcP.

 

These extra AcP would factor into everything, including END, Requires a Skill Roll, and they would apply before Power Limitations.

 

Whaddaya think?

[Insaniac99]

Re: Active Point Maxima?

 

hhmm.... I think it has merit, I deffinately want to give it more thought and try it out on a couple characters, I think it works well for the GMs who want to allow players the choice of having a single power or two over the normal limit but not to have everyone take it.

[Rapier]

Re: Active Point Maxima?

 

Just as with the spirit of Normal Characteristic Maxima, what if a player had to pay double per extra Active Point over the GM's stated maximum?

 

The Power Creation process would continue the same as always, with Base Cost, Active Cost, then Real Cost.

The difference is calculating the surplus AcP and doubling it, then moving on.

 

Let's say that you are running a typical Standard Superheroic campaign with a 60 AcP limit.

 

A player wants to have a power that is greater than the limit and you trust the player but you make them pay 2xAcP over 60.

 

70 - 60 = 10 x 2 = +20 AcP.

 

These extra AcP would factor into everything, including END, Requires a Skill Roll, and they would apply before Power Limitations.

 

Whaddaya think?

 

Nope. When I tell em 45 AP max, I mean it!

 

There are two main problems with spending over a maxima. One is that it costs a lot of points, and those points have to come from somewhere...and that somewhere is usually background skills.

 

The second problem is that maxima are there for a reason. The main point of the maxima is to deter someone from buying beyond that point. A single point or two (STR 23 or something) isn't that bad. But an additional 2d6 N is now 20 points. That's a pretty hefty investment.

 

We are working on a new campaign and I told them that there was no Maxima, but the Maxima was a good guideline. I told them 40 - 45 AP max, without approval. I've already had a couple of people request an exception for a power (in both cases, it was Regen). We talked it over and I explained some things and they both took the power, even though it was above the "max" I had set. I would rather deal with over builds on an individual, case-by-case basis.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Active Point Maxima?

 

The problem with maxima (and this coming from someone who is usually pretty strict about them) is that they can homogenise characters to an extent: everyone wants that 60 AP attack, whether it be a 12d6 EB or a 4d6 RKA or a 4d6 ranged stun drain: few characters will take the view: I'm not so hot with the old EB, I'll just take 8d8 thanks

 

Why? Well, Hero encourages a certain balance point in any game because of the nature of defences i.e. they are a cut-off point.

 

For example, if the campaign average defences are 20 DEF and characters can be expected to have, say, 50 STUN, a 12d6 EB will take 3 successful hits to whittle away that stun, a 10d6 EB will take 4 or 5 (there will almost certainly be a significant recovery in there somewhere) and an 8d6 will take all night: probably 10 or more hits, given recoveries.

 

In short, if you plot point values against actual utility you do not get an even progression for most plausible game values: the last 1d6 you buy is almost always the most valuable.

 

For this reason it actually makes a great deal of sense to increase the cost of powers over a certain point: it redresses the balance to an extent.

 

Mind you, this is assuming that you are comparing like for like, and that is probably rarely the case - Hero (despite what I said about homogenisation) has enough variation to get a reasonable balance of characters who rely on different defences - speed and DCV, ED, PD, damage reduction, exotic defences...

 

What you may well find, if you adopt the Doubling After AP Limit (DAAP limit) protocol, that you will not end up with a better mix of characters and powers, but just with a different strategy for building efficient ones. You are not necessarily increasing choice, but simply changing the choices that have to be made.

 

Although I'm philosophically with The Main Man on this one, in practice, I side with Rapier: you are better off with an eyeball test from the GM than any number of balancing rules. In practice, the best bet might be to simply say that you need permission to exceed AP, and not expect taht the GM will always say 'Yes'.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Active Point Maxima?

 

One other problem is XP. Superhero games often have a lot mroe than heroic games, and, unless you keep upping the DAAP limit, you are going to find a lot of characterrs beginning to fill all the avoilable space below the limit and homogenising that way.

 

If you DO increase the DAAP limti you have to recalculate the costs of a character constantly as previously double value powers are now cheaper.

 

Confusing.

[Rapier]

Re: Active Point Maxima?

 

The problem with maxima (and this coming from someone who is usually pretty strict about them) is that they can homogenise characters to an extent: everyone wants that 60 AP attack, whether it be a 12d6 EB or a 4d6 RKA or a 4d6 ranged stun drain: few characters will take the view: I'm not so hot with the old EB, I'll just take 8d8 thanks

 

Why? Well, Hero encourages a certain balance point in any game because of the nature of defences i.e. they are a cut-off point.

 

For example, if the campaign average defences are 20 DEF and characters can be expected to have, say, 50 STUN, a 12d6 EB will take 3 successful hits to whittle away that stun, a 10d6 EB will take 4 or 5 (there will almost certainly be a significant recovery in there somewhere) and an 8d6 will take all night: probably 10 or more hits, given recoveries.

 

In short, if you plot point values against actual utility you do not get an even progression for most plausible game values: the last 1d6 you buy is almost always the most valuable.

 

For this reason it actually makes a great deal of sense to increase the cost of powers over a certain point: it redresses the balance to an extent.

 

Mind you, this is assuming that you are comparing like for like, and that is probably rarely the case - Hero (despite what I said about homogenisation) has enough variation to get a reasonable balance of characters who rely on different defences - speed and DCV, ED, PD, damage reduction, exotic defences...

 

What you may well find, if you adopt the Doubling After AP Limit (DAAP limit) protocol, that you will not end up with a better mix of characters and powers, but just with a different strategy for building efficient ones. You are not necessarily increasing choice, but simply changing the choices that have to be made.

 

Although I'm philosophically with The Main Man on this one, in practice, I side with Rapier: you are better off with an eyeball test from the GM than any number of balancing rules. In practice, the best bet might be to simply say that you need permission to exceed AP, and not expect taht the GM will always say 'Yes'.

 

Too lazy to edit...anywhoo....

 

All valid points. I would add that as a GM I have to balance the villains against the heroes. I have to ensure that the amount of damage the villains can dish (and take out) are appropriate for the role I need them to play. If I need the heroes to smash through the opposition unhindered then I underpower the mooks. If I need to delay the heroes with some serious competition I up the power of the super-baddies.

 

When I have had limits, it makes it easier for me to judge this. A 60 AP EB (that's Active Points not Armour Piercing, btw) does 12 BODY and 42 STUN. I use this as a gauge.

 

Except now there is one character who has sacrificed 30 points in skills to give himself an extra 3d6 in his EB. He is now firing 15 BODY and 53 STUN attacks. Everyone else is still firing away at 12B/42S. Now I have to compensate for the anomoly. Not too desparate at this level, but you can see where I'm going.

 

The second issue is one that you brought up. Everyone else is firing 12d6 blasts. BlasterDude is firing 15d6 blasts. He is outshining everyone. Pretty soon everyone is going to want to get to 15d6 also. Homogeneity strikes again.

 

Homogeneity is not much of an issue in some games. It depends a lot on the players. My main character has a huge gun that dishes out tremendous damage at range (maxed out the AP limit). His melee is about two or three dice lower than max. There is another character who his greatest attack is two or three dice lower (and martial). Another character can easily push well above the cap with any of the standard maneuvers, let along martials. Our group is rather diverse and each character has a schtick to fulfill.

[Vondy]

Re: Active Point Maxima?

 

I think, unless you use Hero Designer and set a template to do the math for you, that it will make accounting uncessarily complex - and how does this work with advantages and limitation? That in of itself could prove to be a sticky wicket. Also, I've found that the previous poster's sentiments generally hold true. If you do want some sort of maxima as opposed to general ranges and a sharp gamemaster balance sense (which isn't a bad idea if you are an inexperienced GM), then you might investigate implementing a Rule of X. I generally provide a range appropriate for the intended campaing and insist anything that exceeds that range be approved before play begins.

[David Johnston]

Re: Active Point Maxima?

 

The approach I preferred to was to limit Speed according to the size of your attack.

[The Main Man]

Re: Active Point Maxima?

 

I am strict on Active Points in my game and don't actually have a huge problem with players wanting too many Active Points, but sometimes (sometimes) they have merit to go a little over.

 

I also don't do the conventional book Active Points.

 

I divide the total Character points (not the cost, mind you) by 5, and that is their maximum Active Points.

 

In a "Standard" Superheroic Campaign, I tend to give 250 Base CP + 100 Disadvantage CP --> 350 / 5 = 70 Active Points instead of 60.

 

This means that their Maximum Active Points go up by 1 per 5 CP.

 

Usually I give a "3 Active Point Leeway" rule to avoid clunky power increments that multiply to goofy levels after Power Advantages, but I am looking for a possibly better alternative and this website provides good insight.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Active Point Maxima?

 

I like the concept to a certain extent, but I think that it gives bricks too much bang for the buck.

 

in a 60 point 'cap' game, a EB guy who wants to toss 14d6 needs to put 80 points into it.

 

In the same game, a 70 STR brick needs only to put 70 points into it, and gets additional PD, REC, leaping distance and STUN in the process.

 

Were I to implement such a thing, I would also apply the concept to SPD, CVs and Defenses, which any given PC could only exceed the 'cap' in one area.

 

$0.02

[Trained Chicken]

Re: Active Point Maxima?

 

It has been a while since I played face-to-face, so YMMV and so forth, but it was our rule at the table that we had a 60 more or less active point cap for powers, except for a single power which had to fit under 80 points. This let each character be the best at what he or she did in a certain way. This is especially helpful when modelling characters with one schtick, with or without a handy power framework.

 

For instance, characters with Desolid as their SFX will have trouble doing half the things Desolidifiers do in comics. High-STR characters will have trouble making Powers based on their great strength (either through Naked Advantages or other means) without breaking the 60-point cap.

 

So, in this particular game, 60 AP on all powers and 80 on a single power. Add salt to taste.

[zornwil]

Re: Active Point Maxima?

 

There are many who don't use AP caps at all, partly because of the homogenization effect Sean speaks of. This could be a good way to establish a baseline by declaring an AP maxima as the original post suggests. In my experience GMing/playing, I have found that as I don't use caps, people tend to be confused/concerned as to how far they can go. I often exacerbate that, frankly, as I like to see how far people are willing to go and then roll with it, and the approach has proven to be a lot of fun. But it does require mature players, including players willing to reign in their own characters. I personally have not had trouble with this, but I realize others do. Anyway, all that being said, I do have the problem that my approach doesn't fundamentally answer the question of "but how much of an attack and defense do I need just to be at least up and about in combat for a while?" I am dodgy in answering those questions because people then tend to recreate any figure given as an effective cap and soon people end up with very similar power levels for their attacks and defenses. A system like the original post proposes would allow for establishing that baseline, realizing that people tend to "land rush" to the limit, but allow for flexibility without the rigid constraints (in my perception) of a Rule of X or the like.

 

But BNakagawa points out what I think is the most significant danger in terms of how characteristics and powers interact, along with accounting issues others have spoken of. So I find the idea intriguing but not sure it can be made reasonably workable.

 

An interesting side point is how to balance breadth and depth - the guy who has tons of lower-than-cap attacks but compensated for by versatility versus the guy who has one massive higher-than-cap attack but that's most or all of his offensive capability. It's another area where answers are limited.

[TaxiMan]

Re: Active Point Maxima?

 

Since an additional d6 "on top" adds directly to the damage taken after defenses, it's easy to CON Stun with very little extra.

 

Hero is about fun, so ... whatever! However, if you want the math to "balance" things for you (and I like the "GM Approval" personally), you might try something serious like a mandatory Side Effect: 1d6 DRAIN CON / +1 DC. Of course, the value of such a limitation should be -0. That way, the character is paying a real price (risk of being CON Stunned himself) for "pushing" his power.

 

Just don't save your big bad guy for the very, very end - BBG should always have a minion secreted away somewhere with a sniper rifle.

[Rapier]

Re: Active Point Maxima?

 

Since an additional d6 "on top" adds directly to the damage taken after defenses' date=' it's easy to CON Stun with very little extra. [/quote']

 

Well, not quite. I would say that adding additional dice increases the liklihood of doing meaningful damage. But is that not ALWAYS the case? Don't we expect a 4d6 attack to do more damage than a 2d6 attack?

[Rapier]

Re: Active Point Maxima?

 

There are many who don't use AP caps at all' date=' partly because of the homogenization effect Sean speaks of. [/quote']

 

I normally don't use caps. In my Champions games, there are no caps. Do what y'all want, because the villains don't have point limits!

 

However, I find in other genres it's important to set guidelines. Without these guidelines it's easy for players used to a particular genre (like Champions) to get frustrated when they can't afford the 60 STR and SPD 6 they are used to. Guidelines can greatly help a player understand the types of conflicts they will encounter and they can tailor their character to deal with those types of conflicts (eg 6rPD max and using the normal equipment chart allows 2d6+1 Killing Attacks, so stock up on Block and High DCV Martial Arts and/or Regen etc). Some of that is reasoning from effect instead of character driven, but you get the idea.

[TaxiMan]

Re: Active Point Maxima?

 

Well' date=' not quite. I would say that adding additional dice increases the liklihood of doing meaningful damage. But is that not ALWAYS the case? Don't we expect a 4d6 attack to do more damage than a 2d6 attack?[/quote']

 

OK, I'm all like, "Huh?" and stuff. Also feeling silly.

 

I was trying to say that, once you have an attack that does even 1 pt of damage, you have overcome defenses. After that, the 1d6 you added hits the defender 100%.

 

Since we're talking about attacks that are at campaign max to begin with, I'd expect the vast majority of shots to overcome defenses, if only by a little bit.

 

A villian's CON is usually scaled for campaign max attacks - chance to Stun should go up dramatically with a couple of additional dice.