STR discussion

[Talon]

Didn't read this whole thread, so maybe this was discussed before.

 

I am a strong 2 pts for STR proponent, but years of argument have convinced me that such a change would cause too many problems for the customer base at large. Instead, I think that figured characteristics should be done away with (i.e., all stats must be bought independently). If you do that, you can keep STR at 1 point and not have it be terribly unbalanced. That would be the least disruptive way to make the change -- and it would have the side benefit of making the system simpler, since you wouldn't have to worry about STR/5 breakpoints and the like when designing a character.

[Alibear]

If you did that Geoff you might have to drop the cost of CON to 1/1.

 

Worth CONsidering though..

[Talon]

Originally posted by Alibear

If you did that Geoff you might have to drop the cost of CON to 1/1.

 

Yeah, and there are other changes that might happen (BODY to 1, maybe). But I'm guessing a lot fewer people would complain about stats getting cheaper.

[RadeFox]

The core of the idea was/is, that in Hero, things with COMBAT worth tend to cost more then non-combat. STR, especially in heroic settings, is seriously more value/use then INT. So that would be why INT cost is fine, even though you get a lot from INT too.

 

It is pretty apprarent to most FH players, that a fighter and a mage made along similar point lines are serisouly scewed in favor of the fighter in terms of Combat effectiveness. A mage burning long term END is out of the battle after two turns, and then is useless for the rest of the day, while the fighter just sits down for a few seconds and is ready to go do it all again.

 

I think with SteveL's sidebar on the topic and most folks who have issues with the cost of STR, just switching it to 2/1 in their games, the matter is easily handled. I am glad, though, too see I was not alone in my views. A little confirmation is a good thing.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by RadeFox

STR, especially in heroic settings, is seriously more value/use then INT.

Heh. You obviously haven't played in my FH games.

It is pretty apprarent to most FH players, that a fighter and a mage made along similar point lines are serisouly skewed in favor of the fighter in terms of Combat effectiveness.

This is more of a philosophical point, but I think this is as it should be. A mage can do lots of things, both in and out of combat, that a fighter can't do. Combat is the fighter's main schtick. Shouldn't the fighter be better in a straight fight? If not, why play a fighter? I mean, if a mage can do eleventyseven kinds of nifty tricks, plus also kick just as much butt as the mundane with a sword, why is the mundane with the sword even there?

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

[bCombat is the fighter's main schtick. Shouldn't the fighter be better in a straight fight? If not, why play a fighter? I mean, if a mage can do eleventyseven kinds of nifty tricks, plus also kick just as much butt as the mundane with a sword, why is the mundane with the sword even there? [/b]

 

The problem is that STR is so cheap everyone buys it. You can expect fighters to have 20-23 STR, thieves and clerics to have 18 STR, and even mages rarely sell back their STR because they lose so much for so little. Most mages wind up with 13 STR.

 

Real Roleplayers, of course, won't buy their STR up to such absurdly high levels for non-warriors, but there's nothing in the system to discourage people from doing so.

[CorpCommander]

Originally posted by Old Man

Real Roleplayers, of course, won't buy their STR up to such absurdly high levels for non-warriors, but there's nothing in the system to discourage people from doing so.

 

It's still the GM who gives out experience for role playing and he is definitely IN THE SYSTEM. As a GM I look for cheeze in characters. If you come up with an idea for your character but then violate it because the numbers run better another way you get penalized when it comes time to get the rewards.

 

The system works best when people work towards better role playing. Hell this goes for any system out there. When the players don't want to play nice then its up to the GM to stomp on their character sheets. Their easily hurt feelings be damned.

[RadeFox]

heehee, Rock on CC!

[Old Man]

Originally posted by CorpCommander

It's still the GM who gives out experience for role playing and he is definitely IN THE SYSTEM.

 

As has been said before, the presence of the GM is not an excuse for maintaining a flaw in the rules.

[AnotherSkip]

Originally posted by Old Man

Real Roleplayers, of course, won't buy their STR up to such absurdly high levels for non-warriors, but there's nothing in the system to discourage people from doing so.

 

Whoah!!!!!

 

What the flying flip makes you think that my spellcasting character is a non warrior?

 

'ell at the battle of Corraine I took out 10, 5th Bestiary zombies with one boulder!!!!

 

see any warriours taking out that kind of scum with their froo froo little metal toys?

 

NOTT!!!!!

 

This has been brought to you by your friendly neighborhood "Druid".

Who BTW weilds a Bastard Sword, has no pets, and does all his magic through a spirit. And the dang Gm suggested(hinted? reinforced with threat of concept violation penalties?) very strongly that I not ignore STR(13), Con(15), Body(13), Dex (17) ect... because it is part of the philosopy of these druids to Play well with others, and that includes combat without magics.

 

 

Also Don't assume that all Magics are Int Based!!!

 

I personally in my favorite campaign have two of the three types of magic under my belt, Int and Pre, the other spellcaster has the EGO based magics.

[Mr. Negative]

Originally posted by Old Man

The problem is that STR is so cheap everyone buys it. You can expect fighters to have 20-23 STR, thieves and clerics to have 18 STR, and even mages rarely sell back their STR because they lose so much for so little. Most mages wind up with 13 STR.

 

Real Roleplayers, of course, won't buy their STR up to such absurdly high levels for non-warriors, but there's nothing in the system to discourage people from doing so.

 

 

While this is true, it is also true of other attributes in the HERO system. "No one" buys a 12 Dex, or a 17 Con. Why? Because there are no game benefits from buying them. However, there is little to no argument about the flaws of the system there. Most everyone accepts that you should expect to see the scores cluster around "break" points, rather than follow some sort of more normal statistical curve, centered on average stats. I still don't see why people accept one sort of mathematical gamesmanship but decry another.

 

Furthermore, for sheer combat effectiveness, all players should simply buy 5, 10, or 15 points of RKA. Why don't they do this? After all, it's in the rulebook. The reason why they don't do it is because they are not allowed to do so by the conventions, guidelines, and rules that the GM has set up. Despite RKA being a "book legal" power, you can't buy it. Thus, do the same with Strength. Simply tell people that you are not going to allow them to have an 18 (or a 23 strength).

 

You might allow one player, with the strongest concept for it, to have such a high strength, but disallow it for all other players, so as to avoid them "stepping on the character concept" (stealing his thunder by also being exceptional in the same way). Thus, you maintain the "aura" of coolness about a high strength without forbidding it outright.

 

You might disallow it out of RARITY (which doesn't normally factor into Hero costs, unlike GURPS). Ambidexterity is rare, and shouldn't be allowed for every single character in the group, nor lightsleep, etc. You could restrict high strengths in this way to make the group better reflect a gathering of adventurers, rather than weightlifters.

 

You might allow characters to increase their strength, but perhaps only allow them to buy it up slowly, regardless of the cost in points. This would allow you to have incredibly strong characters once they are experienced and battle-hardened, without having a bunch of green recruits all storming around with 18 Str.

 

I don't think that the mechanic is broken, but I will wholeheartedly agree that the implementation is almost certainly busted. However, points costs shouldn't substitute for GM discretion. If you don't want someone/everyone to have an ability/attribute/skill/power, don't make it unattractively expensive, don't allow them to take it. This is no more "abusive" or "unfair" than telling a PC that you don't have mind flayers or drow in your campaign, so they can't play one (shows D&D roots).

[Chris Goodwin]

By that argument, everything should cost only 1 point, because hey, it's the GM's job to make sure that things aren't being abused and that characters aren't stepping on each others toes.

 

But we can go even further. Why bother to have points at all? Why bother to roll dice or even have rules? Why doesn't everyone just make everything up?

 

We have point costs to (theoretically, at least) provide an objective benchmark against which everything can be measured. The whole point of the 2 point STR crowd is that the benchmark needs to be adjusted to make certain other parts of the system work better. I don't think that a desire to see it work better needs to be dismissed with the statement, "However, points costs shouldn't substitute for GM discretion."

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by archer

to see it work better needs to be dismissed with the statement, "However, points costs shouldn't substitute for GM discretion."

 

Forced to agree with archer, here: if I considered the STR cost to be truly imbalanced, I would certainly change it in my own games, and wouldn't mind seeing it changed.

[Markdoc]

I also agree with Archer.

 

There's two reasons.

 

The Theoretical: STR is such a great bargain, when you cost out the points that truly appears unbalanced.

 

Unlike some other Stat.s which people debate the price of such as CON, almost all of the benefits of STR are so game useful, that they have price attached, so you can see what you get: There really is no other way to interpret the math. OTOH, people may differ on the value of "Does not get stunned so often" although it is clearly advantageous.

 

The fact that STR is particularly out of whack is evidenced by the other kludges in the system which have to made to accomodate it at the current cost, such as "HA costs 3 points per dice, but it's really 5" or "You are not allowed to by STR, ranged"

 

But if it was just theory, then I'd consider the cost a blotch on the system: it would offend me but I probably would not change it.

 

Then there's the empirical. In my own experience, STR is overbought almost everywhere. In Heroic games, the abuse is most obvious, but just look at published characters for any system: gadgeteers with 18 STR, Speedsters with 25, Batman clones with 30...

 

That's why although you can make a weaker case that INT is also underpriced, I don't plan to change the cost of INT in my games: I have never suffered from a flood of INT-monsters. And while CON scores tend towards the upper end, I have never had a problem with every player wanting 18 CON in my games.

 

In line with emperical testing, I changed the cost of STR in my games (also HA, which went to 5 points per d6, which is how it should be) and Voila! Just like that, all my problems went away

 

You could say I am sold on the idea

 

cheers, Mark

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Markdoc

I also agree with Archer.

 

There's two reasons.

 

The Theoretical: STR is such a great bargain, when you cost out the points that truly appears unbalanced.

 

Well, I agree with him that *if* it's imbalanced, saying "The GM can just disallow it" is not a good fix. He never said that he would actually change the cost (in this thread, anyway), and if he did, I would disagree with that.

 

Just making my position clear

 

STR is simply not that effective. It is *very* effective, and to a certain mind-set a must buy. I don't know a good way to put this that will not be in danger of giving the wrong impression: you are always better off buying something within your character conception. This is not "snooty role-playeritis", but powergaming: you only have a certain number of points, and if you're paying for unneeded STR just to get the two-for-one sale, you are throwing points away that could more effectively be spent elsewhere. People are fooling themselves into thinking they got a great deal, without looking at the cost.

 

Is a 20 STR really as effective for a thief as a +5 Stealth or a +3 with Stealth skills? Or even some Limited Invisibility? Is a 13 STR really as useful as a +2 with Blaster Rifles (assuming the character actually bought it down to 9) to a sniper? Or another slot in a multipower for a mage? If the answer is "yes", of course it should be increased, but so far as I have ever seen it's "no".

 

Of course, if people in your game don't think that way, a perfectly acceptable way to encourage them into other pursuits is upping the cost. You're really doing them a favor, by getting them to stay away from the 2-for-1 Sale trap. Doesn't mean it needs to be fixed in the regular rules, though.

 

[Markdoc]

>>> Is a 20 STR really as effective for a thief as a +5 Stealth or a +3 with Stealth skills?<<<

 

Yep. Stealth is good an' all, but all players know that eventually they will get seen. And attacked. STR is not all about shouting "by Crom" and whacking the guard with your mighty broadsword. The extra PD, REC and STUN will keep your thief alive when the inevitable happens. Two extra DC, the ability to lift heavy things, bend bars, carry your loot away and so on make it just that much more attractive.

 

And should a thief have to whack a guard with his mighty broadsword, the Fafhrd style thief who sneaks up and whacks his opponent with a heavy sword for 11 BOD and 33 stun is going to have far better life expectancy than the mouser type who sticks his opponent with a rapier for 4 BOD and 12 Stun.....

 

Players notice little things - like how the muscular guys get major advantages, but in fact surrender vey little in return.

 

As I say, YMMV. If it was one group of Hero players, or one particular game, then maybe it's not an issue. But it's been EVERY game. There's almost always one player who chooses character conception over points and it used to annoy me that that player almost always suffered as result.

 

In non-FH game, STR is probably not such a big issue. But in FH, where all non-magical damage is defined by your STR, it makes a huge difference.

 

Even for magic-users.

 

At one point I was playing a big, bald, boastful fire mage (18 STR, big honking sword) and the party's other magic user was your archetypal weedy little guy, with a staff. Our magical powers were not significantly different. But whenever something fanged and spiky got close to the magic users, Caranx whipped out the two handed sword and waded in, while the weedy mage cowered and snivelled. OK, good roleplaying, but Jeff (the weedy mage's player) folded the character after a few sessions and went with a buff cleric type instead....

 

If STR had been 2 points per instead, I would still have bought 18 STR for Caranx. It fitted his loud abrasive personality and how I envisaged him. However, giving the weedy mage 16 points more to spend on other things might have let him shine in the magical arena as much as my character did in the blowing-and-chopping-things-up-department.

 

cheers, Mark

[Blue Jogger]

My two cents.

 

Make 2 STR cost 3 points. (This keeps it inline with the No figured Characteristics being a -1/2 limitation.)

 

-7 pts for 5 STR

-6 pts for 6 STR

-4 pts for 7 STR

-3 pts for 8 STR

-1 pt. for 9 STR

0 pts for 10 STR

1 pt. for 11 STR

3 pts for 12 STR

4 pts for 13 STR

6 pts for 14 STR

7 pts for 15 STR

9 pts for 16 STR

10 pts for 17 STR

12 pts for 18 STR

13 pts for 19 STR

15 pts for 20 STR

+3 pts for +1 STR

 

Things that Aid STR are aided only 2/3 the amount listed OR cost 3/2 more (whichever makes more sense)

 

[Dauntless]

I think a part of the whole problem is people trying to make FREd into some kind of Bible. It's the idea that if it's not in the rules, then it's not valid. The trouble is that the Hero System is really a meta-rules system; it's a framework of rules, mechanics and conventions to help a group develop the system they need. There's nothing sacred about any rule in FREd.

 

Unfortunately, I think there's a conception that if it doesn't follow the rules to the letter, it's "unofficial" and therefore illegal. I don't see why someone shouldn't try playtesting their campaigns at STR costing 2pts. What's important is consistency with your game group. So maybe if you go to a convention your character will be invalid, but then again, I've known few GM's who allow crossover characters without going through them with a fine-tooth comb anyways.

 

Do I think STR is cheap? Yes I do. Unfortunately the costs of powers, attributes, skills, talents etc. are based off an assumption of what will be effective in the "average" campaign. However, every campaign is going to diverge from the average in some ways, and it's up to the GM to try to spot these "loopholes" and fix them. For example, why shouldn't everyone use poison? In a heroic campaign it'll only cost you money, and it would be incredibly cheap. Even in the real world, poisoned weapons were extremely rare (although an early form of biological warfare was to rub excrement on weapons). So why don't people in gameworlds or the real world use them? Well because there's more to life than points.

 

The point system should be a guideline....not a law. Do what you have to, playtest it out, and give others your feedback on how it worked.

[AnotherSkip]

I think part of the problem is the Splatbook/publish or perish theory.

 

anything good has to be published first.

 

I have a Gm who likes fantasy ( and probably nothing else done by Hero Games) and the first words out of his mouth when I suggested he run a HERO fantasy agme is "ill have to check out the splatbook on that!!!"

 

Some people just don't get HERO.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by Dauntless

I think a part of the whole problem is people trying to make FREd into some kind of Bible. It's the idea that if it's not in the rules, then it's not valid. The trouble is that the Hero System is really a meta-rules system; it's a framework of rules, mechanics and conventions to help a group develop the system they need. There's nothing sacred about any rule in FREd.

I haven't encountered too many people who do this in their own games. Almost everyone has at least a couple of "house rules" or unusual takes on one thing or another.

 

When discussing the system on the boards here, you are more likely to get the impression that people view FREd's word as gospel, just because it's the common denominator. When someone posts and asks, "How do I build this?" the unspoken assumption is that he's really asking, at least as a starting point, "How do I build this under the rules?"

 

If someone asks me for a suggestion on how to build something, I won't normally start off by offering them a "solution" that isn't book-legal. Stuff that's not book-legal may not fly in their game for whatever reason. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't allow it in my game.

 

I think your take on the HERO System as a framework of rules, mechanics, and conventions from which to assemble a more specific system is right on the money. DOJ, of course, calls it "The Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit." And I like that analogy.

 

The HERO System rulebook is like a toolkit. You can use the tools to build whatever you want or need, but you have to know how to build it. It doesn't provide blueprints or instructions or how-to information, and certainly doesn't include a pre-fab finished product. If you're already an expert craftsman, this may be all you need. (Though many expert craftsmen still get the support books, to "keep up with the trade," so to speak.)

 

A Genre Book (like Fantasy Hero) is like the blueprints, instructions, or how-to information. It helps you with guidelines for using your tools to build certain things, but it still doesn't include the finished things themselves.

 

A Setting Book (like the forthcoming Turakian Age) or a Powers book (like the Grimoire) is a pre-made thing for folks who lack the time, inclination or expertise to make things themselves, or who want things to use as examples for their own building.

 

The rulebook is a hammer, nails and wood. A Genre Book is a set of plans for building various kinds of birdhouses. A Setting Book is a birdhouse.

 

To go back to your original point about some folks being too strictly wedded to the letter of the rules, I'd say that some folks forget that you can use the tools in your HERO System toolkit to build anything... including other tools!

[Alibear]

Okay, pretend that I'm convinced( I nearly am anyway) and that I want to raise the cost of Strength to two ponits in my upcoming fantasy campaign.

 

What other knock-on effects will there be? Are there any? Will this one change affect the cost of other powers or skills?

[Old Man]

If STR costs 2 then drains and transfers will hit STR only half as hard. Aids too. Entangles might work a little better. Density increase and growth become a bit too cheap, and would probably have to go up to 10/level which I think is more balanced anyway given all the extras that they provide. That's all I can think of offhand.

[AnotherSkip]

The only problem I have with people and rules is if they are breaking the rules (or misusing or whatever) is if they are not aware of what they are doing.

 

otherwise so long as they understand what they are doing(like changing the cost of all stats to 3 points/point) then fine ,im happy, gimme my 3d6 and let's rumble.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Yamo

STR costing 1/1 is a system flaw.

 

Why?

 

It's objectively provable that you get numeric benefit in excess of numeric cost. A drastic amount in excess, in this case.

 

That's demonstrably true. How can it not be a flaw?

 

Fix it, then encourage people to change it if they want. Don't leave it broken and then encourage them to fix it. That's not good game design. It's completely bass-ackwards.

 

Well, STR is far from the only characteristic to which this applies.

 

For 5pts of STR, you get x2 Lift, +1DC damage, +1 PD, +1 REC, +2.5 STUN, etc. - the last things alone are more than the 5pts for STR. However, CON, DEX, etc. work out similarly, so just changing STR isn't enough if you're trying to "fix" the system flaws. And once you start that process, you have to reevaluate many powers (Growth, Density Increase, Drain, etc.) to see if you have "balanced" your system.

 

I just let it ride, it's easier that way. And I have players allocate points based on character concept, to curb excesses.

[Markdoc]

>>>>Okay, pretend that I'm convinced( I nearly am anyway) and that I want to raise the cost of Strength to two ponits in my upcoming fantasy campaign.

What other knock-on effects will there be? Are there any? Will this one change affect the cost of other powers or skills?<<<

 

Well the obvious one is that HA should move up to 5 points per d6, but that's really about it. I have never changed - nor noticed the need for changing - anything else.

 

I use the following structure:

 

STR costs 2 points per.

STR (no figured CHA) gives you a -1/2 limitation but leaves things like lifting, STR vs STR roll, jumping, etc, intact.

STR (only for specific attack) gets you a -1 limitation and functions just like HA, which, funnily enough, costs 5 points.

 

cheers, Mark