STR discussion

[Mr. Negative]

Originally posted by archer

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."

 

My point was in specific response to Old Man's quote that :

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.

 

This complaint does not necessarily imply that strength is too effective for it's point cost, but may imply that a high strength is too easy to acquire, and thus too inexpensive for its supposed rarity ("...everyone buys it").

 

It may be (or it may not be) the case that strength is appropriately costed for the benefits conferred, but that, even though appropriately costed, those benefits are so desirable that everyone, regardless of conception is willing to pay the points cost. Consider Resistant Defenses. Most players, in most games, desire to purchase resistant PD and ED, possibly even against their character conception ("I have 9 PD through Combat Luck!). Similarly with Speed. Even if a character isn't conceived of as particularly speedy, most players will shell out for a 3 or 4 Speed for the benefits involved. This doesn't mean that Speed or rPD is too cheap, but that the benefits are perceived as so desirable that few characters are created without an investment in each.

 

It may be the case that STR is undercosted for its effectiveness. However, I'm unconvinced that it is substantially undercosted compared to other attributes (Dex gives you a load of benefits too).

 

However, I totally agree that its benefits are perceived as desirable to virtually all players. This makes a high strength more common than would be normally expected. While making it more expensive MAY prevent them from purchasing it in huge amounts, the "perceived benefits" of a high strength may still lead players to shell out disproportionate points for it. If achieving a proper "rarity" of high strength is your goal, it may be more productive to use methods other than simply increasing the points cost of Strength.

 

I think that we are simultaneously dancing around two linked but not identical topics on this thread, and I know that I, for one, am not always consistently perceiving the difference (or making my distinctions correct).

 

Is Strength too effective for it's point cost? Regardless of role-playing considerations, does strength convey more game benefits per point, than other attributes of the same cost?

 

Is a high strength too easily achieved, and too often desired? Do players "bend" their conceptions to justify purchasing a high strength, just to reap the benefits of doing so?

 

My own answer to the second would be yes, emphatically, but I would also state that I feel that the same occurs with Dexterity as well.

 

My answer to the first would be "I'm not sure". I'd want to see, in particular, more writeups with the higher cost before I was convinced. I'd also like to see if anything needed to be done to the following"

 

Telekinesis

Density Increase

Hand Attack

Martial Arts (as Martial arts would now be twice as effective, than before, in increasing damage compared to Strength)

Extra Damage Classes (for the same reason).

 

I'd be interested in seeing specifics on these, either in this thread or another.

 

However, my own opinion stands that, from a "rarity" perspective, GM input, rather than recosting, is often the best way to moderate high ability scores (strength or anything else).

[Herolover]

See the following thread

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6759

[Markdoc]

While it is true that "desirability" and cost are not quite equivalent items, they do play off each other.

 

My players would agree that SPD6 is highly desirable, but only one player ever bought it, in any of my games. SPD4, which is more easily attainable, was also thought desirable, but at the end of a 2+ year campaign I still had two SPD3 characters.

 

DEX 20 is also highly desirable - but again, relatively rare (it requires 30 points - a hefty investment for a 150 point chrcater)

 

But STR.... well, as pointed out, everybody buys it. You can max it out for only 6% of your starting points

 

Saying "the GM must decide" is a wretched cop-out. It is easy for players to pick an archetype that permits them to buy a big STR and any GM who arbitrarily decides that no, the mighty fighter must buy 15 STR, because the party already has a STR 18 character, deserves the pointed pencil in the eyeball they'll surely get. If the GM attempts to enforce characteristics via character concept, you'll end up with similar character concepts, further limiting variety....

 

Having said that, some changes need to be made:

TK stays as it is, since it is essentially STR usable at range, with the (only attack, -1) limitation

 

HA goes to 5 points per d6.

 

Density increase and growth (Hmmm. It's never been a problem in my games, though I should check them - but I'm currently in Africa, far away from my roleplaying stuff)

 

Martial arts seem to be OK. They can be fiendishly cost effective in heroic games (primarily those annoying twerps who buy just two or three maneuvers), but changing the cost of STR only makes them more marginally more effective relative to STR. This is primarily because, with big weapons, the big STR guy maxes out his damage at a higher level than the Martial arts guy, so that tends to balance out. In my games, both the "big bruiser" and the "martial artist" were equally effective, with different strengths and weaknesses. Big STR guy tended to dish out more damage and have a similar OCV, since he could pick up a few cheap 2 point levels to offset the martial bonuses, and he could tote around a big shield and heavy armour to compensate for lowered DCV. Martial artist guy had access to more cool maneuvers and usually had a better DCV. Of course, he did better where heavy armour could not be used.

 

As a bonus, increasing the cost of STR meant there were fewer 20 STR martial artists....

 

So it works OK: and this is not theory - I've been using the 2 point cost for FH games for more than a decade now, without any problems at all.

 

cheers, Mark

[Dan Canada]

Strength costs

 

In my experiences, fantasy hero characters are more combat effective and survive longer when playing a character with high strength scores, as it is relatively cheap and the extra points go into weapon skills. When something large strong, and wearing heavy armour goes up against skilled fencers with light armour and high dex, the combat usually ends with the first hit from the large opponent stunning the wily one, and it goes down hill from there.

 

I would give my vote for strength costing 2 per point.

[Arthur]

Without going through all the posts (damn dialup connection), I have a solution I use in my games and it extends beyond merely fixing STR in Heroic games.

 

I apply a Genre Modifier Advantage to certain Powers.

 

One of the great flaws of any Universal Roleplaying System is that different levels of certain things vary in usefulness based on genre. I saw this with great clarity with GURPS. In a SF setting, with X-Ray Lasers, DR (Damage Resistance - the equivalent of rPD and rED) of 10 was almost meaningless. The weapons routinely did 6d or more damage, often with an Armor-Piercing divisor.

 

However, in a Fantasy game, where typical damage was in the 2d to 3d range, DR 10 made you close to invincible.

 

Yet, that same DR 10 cost the same 30 points in both settings.

 

Hence the Genre Modifier. Or Usefulness Modifier. Or whatever you want to call it. Certain Powers are "too good for the points" in a typical low-tech Fantasy setting (depending on how restricted magic is). Therefore, Powers like Armor, Force Field, Flight, and a few others have to take a mandatory +1/2 Genre Advantage.

 

STR is a little more tricky to finagle with most character-creation software, but it's hardly insurmountable. I just add an entry in the Powers column for Custom Power and call it "STR Mod" or somesuch. So if I spent 10 points on STR, I add a 5 point STR Mod "Power". Piece o cake.

[Mr. Negative]

Another, related, but different idea:

 

Has anyone used a sliding points cost for Attributes? This would be, in concept, similar to GURPS, where you pay more for higher scores, relatively, because they are both more likely to help you make your attribute checks, and because they are rarer.

 

Rather than do something complex, you might simply increase the price of each attribute by 1 point for every 5 points of the statistic. I'd do this only to base attributes, as well. You could consider it a variation on 'Normal Characteristic Maxima', so that it would only apply to points spent directly boosting the attribute, allowing Strength spells, DEX drains, and the like to work as they do now.

 

So

 

STR would be 1 point per point up to 15, then 2 per point up to 20....

(that would also apply for every other 1 point attribute)

Dex would be 3 per point up to 15, then 4 per point to 20, then 5 up to 25..

CON would be 2 per point up to 15, then 3 per point up to 20....

(same for all the other 2 point attributes).

 

I know that this was a thread dedicated to Strength discussions, but one of the complaints about strength, other than it's basic cost, was that you tended to get STR scores clustered around certain high numbers (18, 23).

 

These same clusters also occur with INT and DEX, while few people who spend ANY points in INT and DEX end up with scores in the 11-15 range. This could serve to curb that "attribute clumping" a bit, and make those with a genuinely high score rare and exceptional.

 

It would also be a little more "granular" than the current Normal Characteristic Maxima, in that it would gradually get more expensive to be exceptional, but it wouldn't be any "rarer" to be exceptionally Dextrous than exceptionally Strong (the "exceptional" cost for each would be the same.)