Only to affect secondary characteristics?

[Kdansky]

I came upon this when I pondered about a character concept. Let me summarize campaign world and concept quickly: A mentalist in a 200/100cp, fantasy/steampunk/sci-fi world. Nearly anything is possible if there's a solid background. Which in this case was (abridged): "Physically fail, mentally strong". There's no NCM. When I looked at the PD/ED/Stun/END, I realized something: If the character would buy some more STR, he'd actually get a couple points cheaper. Still, his STR would be below par (par meaning: fellow PCs, not "average peasant"), and only be used for grab-break-out-rolls and similar. But the character concept stated: "physically frail" and the stats reflected that. We all know the phenomenon, and it most often crops up in heroic campaigns. It is caused by the grandfathering of STR and CON which actually cost negative points (10 points of STR give you 11 points of secondaries PLUS 10 points of STR).

Now, since the character just needs a decent PD/ED/Stun/END, even if that is clearly lower than the rest (25 stun instead of 30, 5/5 pd/ed instead of 8/8), it absolutely does not make sense to punish him further by making him buy these lower attributes for the same cost the others pay for higher values, just because they also have higher str/con. He has already taken care of his background by having lower stats, he should not pay more for having a well-described background. Leaving "frail" out of the description makes the character stronger AND cheaper.

Suddenly I had an idea: There is a limitation "does not affect figured characteristics: -1/2" (never take on str/con!).

 

What about this "fix":

 

Only to affect secondary characteristics: (-1/2)? (or even -1?)

 

STR or CON (well, anything, but only with these two there's a point of that) makes the stat not give STR/CON, but only PD/ED/stun/END/etc. So now you can play a physically frail mentalist and still cope with campaign standards for PD/ED.

 

Thoughts? Anyone done that?

[Akiva]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

I could be reading you wrong but it seems that you want someone who has a low strength but high derived attributes or, to put it another way, you want to buy figured characteristics using primary characteristic costs. I'm still pretty new to the system but, as a GM, I don't think I'd allow it. It doesn't make sense that someone who is physically frail should be able to shrug off physical attacks as easily as someone who is physically fit. I'd make you buy your Figured Characteristics at their individual costs.

[Kdansky]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

As a GM, I need make sure that all PCs have certain base abilities, especially defenses. A game where one PC only has 5 rDef and another 5 PD, suitably equipped with 20 Stun does not work out well when everyone else is running around with 20 PD (total), 40 stun and fitting 10d6 EBs. He'll get cleanly one-shotted every single time he's hit (35 stun -10 pd = 25 stun, 5 more than he has), whereas the rest of the party only goes from 40 to 25, easily taking two hits.

 

But strangly, the fitting characters are not more expensive due to huge point-saving with STR/CON. If he'd buy a decent amount of secondaries (15 def and 35 stun, still a lot less than the average of 20/40 of everyone else), he'd spend MORE points than them. On the other hand, if he buys STR up to 25 (?) to get his points back, he'll not fit his concept very well anymore. Being decently tough and being very strong is not the same.

 

Does that mean that "frail" is a bad concept? Because the system punishes it horribly.

 

As a player: If you don't allow me to do that, I'll just buy STR and CON up to high values and remove the "frail" part out of my description, and reminding you at every single opportunity that you disallowed a more interesting/detailed concept due to being stubborn (yeah, I'm sarcastic here, don't take me serious. ever.)

[caris]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Is frail a bad concept? No, at least not anymore than "I'm a warrior goddess" is a bad concept.

 

Of course, that isn't your problem. Your problem is that the concept isn't balanced with the rest of the player characters. We tend to spend most of our time worrying about the over powered and over efficient characters, that we some times forget that things can go the other way. That some times players want to create and player characters that are too weak or too incompetent for the GM to include them at a reasonable effort with the other characters. How would you have been dealing with the issue, if the person brought an interesting and viable concept that was so much more powerful than the other characters that it overshadowed all of them?

 

Frail is a problemsome part of any concept in a heavy combat game. You are concerned that he is going to get one shotted on a regular basis. I have question, how can you define someone as "frail" when they can take a beating as well as characters that you are thinking of as "robust"?

[Outsider]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

I've never been that in love with "Provides No Figured Characteristics" as a flat -1/2 limitation, and I would not particularly like "Provides Figured Characteristics Only" at a fixed value either. I'd especially be against it in regards to CON, which, comparatively ot STR or DEX at least, has no great use -besides- providing figured characteristics.

 

Example :

If we set the value at -1, then CON (Figured Only) becomes flatly broken :

1) Buy 10 CON (Figured Only) : 10 points

2) Sell back 20 END : -10 points.

3) Gain 2 ED, 2 REC, 5 STUN for no overall point expenditure.

 

 

Even if we didnt allow the selling back of any figured characteristic that gained anything from a "Provides Figured Only" prime stat, then it would still throw things off as it would make figured characteristics too cheap.

 

Instead of getting 21 points of figureds for 20 points by buying CON, one would get 21 points of figureds for 13 or even 10 points.

 

 

While STR provides considerable benefits aside from its figured characteristics, making it half cost (-1 lim) would make it more efficient to buy up STR (FCO) than to buy STUN directly.

 

1) Buy 10 STR (FCO) : 5 points

2) Gain 2PD, 2 REC, 5 STUN

 

vs

 

1) Buy 5 STUN : 5 points

2) Gain nothing but 5 STUN.

 

 

 

 

Finally... you're making your argument on the 'why should the 'frail' character concept be penalized on points for not being frail. ????

 

Sorry, but if you have 5PD and 35 STUN, and a REC of 6 or so, you're not 'frail'.

 

You may be slightly less durable than the other PCs, but that doesnt equal 'frail'.

 

 

JMO (Just My Opinion)

[Kdansky]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

But your point is completely invalid. You're telling me: "Sorry, that does not work, it breaks the system exactly like it does currently, but instead of getting 10% for free, it's now a bit more." If you buy 100 STR and sell back all secondaries, you still get 10 points and 100 blank STR out of it. If you allow that limitation, it becomes 40 points and 100 blank STR. There's only a linear difference in real points, but the principle is the same. Free 100 STR, the same as "EB, 20d6, No range", which costs 60 points. (Which BTW makes "no figureds" very well priced with -1/2 in this case)

 

Why can't I play a weak character who's "less durable" than the rest? "Can't play" in this context means: same powers, same stats (except str and figureds), but illegal. My 10 str character is 355 points, your 35 str character is 350 points. Oh, and yours also has more PD/ED/STUN/END. Fine? No.

 

The more I think about it, the more I'm all for that idea (or removing figureds alltogether).

 

More points spent = stronger character (that's the idea, isn't it?). Now if my 10 str character is more expensive due to PD/Stun/Rec than your 50 str character, clearly, 10 str must be better than 50 str. Right?

 

I am kinda astonished that the problem is discussed, not the idea. I thought the problem of str and con being mis-priced is already well established here.

[caris]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

I'd really like to see some more detail, because after thinking about it. I'm not sure how frail guy is spending more points. Robust Guy spends 10 more points on STR and 20 more on CON than Frail Guy. Frail Guy to keep up in the Defense/STUN area has to spend 4 points on PD, 4 points on ED, and 10 points on STUN. This leads to Robust Guy spent 30 points, and Frail Guy spent 18 points. Where exactly is Frail Guy spending buckets or more points than Robust Guy on things that Frail Guy wants as part of his concept?

[caris]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

I am kinda astonished that the problem is discussed' date=' not the idea. I thought the problem of str and con being mis-priced is already well established here.[/quote']

 

First, what has been long established here is that some (possibly even most) people feel that CON and STR are mispriced, but I don't really have the impression that is the consensus view.

 

If you really feel the problem is thant CON and STR are too cheap, than the appropriate fix would be to change their pricing for your game and let the "robust" characters take the hit.

[casualplayer]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

One of the ways I've dealt with the "burly scholar" problem in fantasy is to reduce STR Char Maxima to 15. I have also tried reducing NCM to 15 across primary stats but allowing one normally priced stat to 20 of player's choice. I've also realized that "frail" in fantasy is most often code for "concealing vast magical power, please underestimate the weakling." There's a whole lot of mages out there who bought their CON with Invisible Power Effects.

[caris]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Kdansky, on my drive to the office, I did realize what is probably the key issue you need to consider when implenting your idea, if you do. You are really going to not solve your problem or at least create a different out of game issue. If you allow your Frail character to use this limitation to buy up his secondary characteristics at a reduced price, what is to prevent the other characters from doing the same? I'm making a wild guess here, but I think at least one or two of them have bought up their Figured Characteristics from their base. If they did and do buy those increases this way, aren't you back to where you started?

[Outsider]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

But your point is completely invalid. You're telling me: "Sorry, that does not work, it breaks the system exactly like it does currently, but instead of getting 10% for free, it's now a bit more." If you buy 100 STR and sell back all secondaries, you still get 10 points and 100 blank STR out of it. If you allow that limitation, it becomes 40 points and 100 blank STR. There's only a linear difference in real points, but the principle is the same. Free 100 STR, the same as "EB, 20d6, No range", which costs 60 points. (Which BTW makes "no figureds" very well priced with -1/2 in this case)

 

Why can't I play a weak character who's "less durable" than the rest? "Can't play" in this context means: same powers, same stats (except str and figureds), but illegal. My 10 str character is 355 points, your 35 str character is 350 points. Oh, and yours also has more PD/ED/STUN/END. Fine? No.

 

The more I think about it, the more I'm all for that idea (or removing figureds alltogether).

 

More points spent = stronger character (that's the idea, isn't it?). Now if my 10 str character is more expensive due to PD/Stun/Rec than your 50 str character, clearly, 10 str must be better than 50 str. Right?

 

I am kinda astonished that the problem is discussed, not the idea. I thought the problem of str and con being mis-priced is already well established here.

 

 

 

First, it is specifically against the rules to sell back more than one figured characteristic. Its right there on page 25 of my rulebook (5th edition (not revised)), so your counter-example is not only invalid, but illegal

 

 

Second, if the current rules are 'unbalanced' in that they provide 21 points of figureds for 20 points of CON, and 11 points of figureds for 10 points of STR, how is it possibly more 'balanced' to provide all those figured stats for even less points?

 

Third, I think STR is too cheap for what you get. If I had my druthers I'd move it to 1.5 or even 2 points per pip (especially in a heroic level game), but that is another thread entirely, and has been discussed many times before on these boards.

 

Fourth, and again, you seem to think that 'frail' means lower lift and less punch only. To me 'frail' means overall less physically robust, which means lower PD, ED, REC, END, and STN as well. Calling yourself 'frail' but having much the same secondary stats as someone who is 'robust' is non-sensical to me.

 

 

Fifth, if you're worried about your mentalist being one-shotted, buy him an extra defensive power or powers with a mental special effect. Then he can be physically frail, but not one shotted by a campaign standard shot.

 

If , for example, the campaign standard is 35 stun per hit, and the other characters have 20 PD/ED and 40 STUN, they go down in 3 hits. How do you then stretch 10PD/ED and 20 STUN into 3 hits and down?

 

 

A)

Psychokinetic Sheild : 17/17 Forcefield.

 

It can be taken with you anywhere and can not be taken away from you, unlike armor, and you can put it in a framework to make it cheaper.

 

 

Pain Tolerance : 50% Damage Reduction P/E (Resistant), vs STUN only (-1/2)

 

It can also be taken with you anywhere and can not be taken away from you (unlike armor) and it works against NNDs also. Take it with a small (5/5)Psychokinetic Shield and you take 3 hits to drop.

 

 

C)

Mind Over Body : +50 STUN, 3 recoverable 1 minute continuing charges (-0)

 

Take anywhere, cannot be taken away. You 'recover' the charges by meditating deeply for some period of time. Now you have 70 STUN, take 3 hits to drop in combat, and are special-bonussy resistant to oversized attacks. A 60 STUN haymaker KOs your compatriots, but you've still got 10 STUN left after taking that.

 

D)

Combat Prescience : +5 DCV levels.

 

Sure, you're one hittable, but now you're a LOT harder to hit. If it takes them 5 shots to hit you once, while they'd hit your compatriots 3 times in 5, then you're even, eh?

[Akiva]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

I don't want to derail this conversation too much but this kind of thing is what makes me really nervous about running HERO. I like the game's flexibility but I would drop the game in a heartbeat if my players spent all their time trying to figure out how to 'beat' the system. The point, to me, isn't to [ab]use the system through creative application of one's character conception; to me, that's the same as people min/maxing AD&D. As far as I'm concerned, if you create a character concept that is somehow limited compared to the norm, you have to expect the game to address it properly. In this case, as others have pointed out, don't try to find a loophole to balance out your character's purposeful limitation but, instead, find other creative ways to compensate.

 

Furthermore, in this case, I, as a GM, would find alternate ways to reward such a creative character concept. Making your character frail, and thus more likely to be hurt, isn't cause for me to take advantage of that limitation but, instead, to reward the creative roleplaying that it should generate. Having a character concept such as 'frail' but then ensuring your character isn't frail would earn nothing at all from me. Having such a character concept but then playing up to it would inspire me to offer all kinds of rewards.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

I am kinda astonished that the problem is discussed' date=' not the idea. I thought the problem of str and con being mis-priced is already well established here.[/quote']No, it's been often discussed on these boards but there is no consensus STR and/or CON are mispriced. Since Hero is designed to recreate characters from film and literature and not reality, high STR and CON are probably two of the more common attributes of fictional heroes.

 

Me, I think you're just looking for a cheap way to buy up secondary Characteristics and as such I wouldn't allow it because that violates a Hero metarule. Simply being cheaper is not a valid argument to allow a build. What you do in your own campaign of course is entirely up to you.

[JmOz]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

First, The argument on over wether or not they are overpriced almost ALWAYS overlooks how frameworks interact with the system and wether or not Characteristics are balanced next to them, not wether or not you get more than you pay for. Or put another way, in Fantasy is it fair that Mickey the Wizard's Apprentice can put his spells in a Multipower, becoming a swiss pocket knife of magic, while Donald the Beserker is stuck with CSL's and High Str and Con, put bluntly STR and CON are not overpriced, once you start looking at frameworks.

 

To the original question: I call it a -1/4 lim, and define it as does not include X, such as lift, or not to protect vs stunning, etc...

 

Ohh and Metarule 6 can go hang itself...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

I've never been that in love with "Provides No Figured Characteristics" as a flat -1/2 limitation, and I would not particularly like "Provides Figured Characteristics Only" at a fixed value either. I'd especially be against it in regards to CON, which, comparatively ot STR or DEX at least, has no great use -besides- providing figured characteristics.

 

Example :

If we set the value at -1, then CON (Figured Only) becomes flatly broken :

1) Buy 10 CON (Figured Only) : 10 points

2) Sell back 20 END : -10 points.

3) Gain 2 ED, 2 REC, 5 STUN for no overall point expenditure.

 

 

Even if we didnt allow the selling back of any figured characteristic that gained anything from a "Provides Figured Only" prime stat, then it would still throw things off as it would make figured characteristics too cheap.

 

Instead of getting 21 points of figureds for 20 points by buying CON, one would get 21 points of figureds for 13 or even 10 points.

 

 

While STR provides considerable benefits aside from its figured characteristics, making it half cost (-1 lim) would make it more efficient to buy up STR (FCO) than to buy STUN directly.

 

1) Buy 10 STR (FCO) : 5 points

2) Gain 2PD, 2 REC, 5 STUN

 

vs

 

1) Buy 5 STUN : 5 points

2) Gain nothing but 5 STUN.

 

 

 

 

Finally... you're making your argument on the 'why should the 'frail' character concept be penalized on points for not being frail. ????

 

Sorry, but if you have 5PD and 35 STUN, and a REC of 6 or so, you're not 'frail'.

 

You may be slightly less durable than the other PCs, but that doesnt equal 'frail'.

 

 

JMO (Just My Opinion)

 

More than anything else, I think this just highlights how underpriced the "no figured" limitation is when applied to STR or CON.

 

First, what has been long established here is that some (possibly even most) people feel that CON and STR are mispriced, but I don't really have the impression that is the consensus view.

 

If you really feel the problem is thant CON and STR are too cheap, than the appropriate fix would be to change their pricing for your game and let the "robust" characters take the hit.

 

An alternate fix would be to change - ie reduce - the cost of END, STUN and REC (leave PD and ED - they link with other defensive powers) and the Figured formuli so that buying CON and STR just for the figured stats would not be cost-effective. The "no figured" limitation would then be customized stat by stat to reflect the actual value of the Figured's granted.

 

Are those figured's overpriced now? Well, how often do you see someone buy up END and REC rather than buy Reduced END when they feel they go through END too quickly? How often do you see a character who's perceived as too quick to fall in combat buy up STUN and REC, rather than defenses? If your answer is "rarely if ever", it would seem these stats are overpriced compared to alternatives.

[caris]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

An alternate fix would be to change - ie reduce - the cost of END, STUN and REC (leave PD and ED - they link with other defensive powers) and the Figured formuli so that buying CON and STR just for the figured stats would not be cost-effective. The "no figured" limitation would then be customized stat by stat to reflect the actual value of the Figured's granted.

 

Are those figured's overpriced now? Well, how often do you see someone buy up END and REC rather than buy Reduced END when they feel they go through END too quickly? How often do you see a character who's perceived as too quick to fall in combat buy up STUN and REC, rather than defenses? If your answer is "rarely if ever", it would seem these stats are overpriced compared to alternatives.

 

Agreed, I got a little caught up with the whole, STR and CON are too cheap mindset. Generally, I see buy up CON more than STUN, but that is because you get the STUN, and are harder to Stun. Generally, that second benefit is almost as big if not a bigger benefit than not going unconscious.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

What about this "fix":

 

Only to affect secondary characteristics: (-1/2)? (or even -1?)

 

STR or CON (well, anything, but only with these two there's a point of that) makes the stat not give STR/CON, but only PD/ED/stun/END/etc. So now you can play a physically frail mentalist and still cope with campaign standards for PD/ED.

 

Thoughts? Anyone done that?

 

Eh. Having read the thread (for once) I'm of two minds on this. One, it's true that you get way more bang for your buck on STR/CON than you would purchasing up Figured Characteristics individually. That's groovy, I understand it. I fall into the "STR is mispriced for Heroic Games" camp, but I'm not looking to pummel that deceased equine with this post. However, Akiva makes a strong point: If your concept is frailty, then why aren't you going with being frail? To which I'm going to add what is to me, blatantly obvious:

 

If he's some all powerful mentalist, why isn't playing the Professor X card? X is frail, he's wheel chair bound, but with a little tweaking (giving him Jean Grey TK, frex) he'd have all the defenses you could possibly want. He could also 'cloak himself' with psionic power, much like a sort of mental power armor, that grants him all the physical tricks that he currently lacks. He could even be the most "powerful," for a short time, if he goes into over drive and starts really chewing through his END, but unlike the rest of the bricks he'd never keep it up. But a Force Field of the type you're talking about is dirt cheap and would easily provide the DEF he needs (or you feel he needs, as it were) without violating the concept.

 

Make sense? I just see a lot of mental one-tracking on this; why not just go: "Frail, but powerful. Powerful means he can buy the cheapest thing in the damn system. Defense."

[Kdansky]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Interesting last point there in Hughs Post. I rarely ever buy END/REC/STUN, but I usually take reduced End cost or more defenses (be it armor, FF, plain PD or DR) rather quickly if I think I need something in that area. Characters with more than 50 END seem to be few and far, but characters with quite a few "half end", "no End" powers are prevalent everywhere.

 

The AP-cap-issue aside: If I spend 10 points on END, I get 20 END. If I spend 10 points on my 40 point Attack power, it will only cost 2 instead of 4 END per use. Assuming I have 40 END to begin with, I go from 10 to 15 uses, or from 10 to 20 uses. But that does not seem to be too far off, does it? And everyone 'likes' END reserves though, since then END is really cheap with 1:10.

[Diamond Spear]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

I came upon this when I pondered about a character concept. Let me summarize campaign world and concept quickly: A mentalist in a 200/100cp' date=' fantasy/steampunk/sci-fi world. Nearly anything is possible if there's a solid background. Which in this case was (abridged): "[b']Physically fail, mentally strong[/b]". There's no NCM. When I looked at the PD/ED/Stun/END, I realized something: If the character would buy some more STR, he'd actually get a couple points cheaper. Still, his STR would be below par (par meaning: fellow PCs, not "average peasant"), and only be used for grab-break-out-rolls and similar. But the character concept stated: "physically frail" and the stats reflected that. We all know the phenomenon, and it most often crops up in heroic campaigns. It is caused by the grandfathering of STR and CON which actually cost negative points (10 points of STR give you 11 points of secondaries PLUS 10 points of STR).

Now, since the character just needs a decent PD/ED/Stun/END, even if that is clearly lower than the rest (25 stun instead of 30, 5/5 pd/ed instead of 8/8), it absolutely does not make sense to punish him further by making him buy these lower attributes for the same cost the others pay for higher values, just because they also have higher str/con. He has already taken care of his background by having lower stats, he should not pay more for having a well-described background. Leaving "frail" out of the description makes the character stronger AND cheaper.

Suddenly I had an idea: There is a limitation "does not affect figured characteristics: -1/2" (never take on str/con!).

 

What about this "fix":

 

Only to affect secondary characteristics: (-1/2)? (or even -1?)

 

STR or CON (well, anything, but only with these two there's a point of that) makes the stat not give STR/CON, but only PD/ED/stun/END/etc. So now you can play a physically frail mentalist and still cope with campaign standards for PD/ED.

Thoughts? Anyone done that?

 

I've bolded the parts of your origional post that my answer applies to. The problem here is not the system. The problem is that the character concept is “physically frail” BUT you are turning right around and saying that his physical stats need to be higher in order for him to survive in the campaign. What that means is not that you have an unworkable system but an unworkable character concept. The correct solution, since he is noted as being “mentally strong” is to allow him to buy powers to compensate for his physical weakness. A good force field bought to 0 END can make up for deficiencies in PD/ED/Stun/END without having to try and “fix” the system.

 

Just my two cents.

[Kdansky]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Ok, since you are really making a big fuss about the mediocre example, let me put it this way:

 

Why is it more expensive to play a guy with 10 STR / 10 CON and defenses of X, than playing the other guy with 40 STR / 40 CON and the same defenses of X? Do you honestly believe that it is a good game balance if having less of a useful stat is more expensive?

 

On the other hand, if I'm playing a character with an EB Attack, I can choose between armor/FF/Force wall, and they are all fair and square. My attack does not influence how expensive my defenses get. (With the exception of desolid, but let's not cover that here...)

[Diamond Spear]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Because stronger, healthier guys are more resistant to damage than weaker, less healthy guys are. Looking at it like that than it makes perfect sense why it costs more for the less physicaly capable guy to be as resistant to damage as the more physicaly capable guy.

 

In other words if you punch me (10 STR, 10 CON) in the stomach I'm going to take more damage (STUN or whatever) than if you punched a professional boxer (18 STR, 18 CON) in the stomach. Does that example help?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

I'm totally not following how having "less of a useful stat is more expensive." I stand behind my original point; if the concept is frailty, there are plenty of other ways in the system to work around that don't involve violating the concept. And I only go with END Reserve if there's a strong SFX reason and the recovery is properly limited. But that's me.

[caris]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

I'm totally not following how having "less of a useful stat is more expensive." I stand behind my original point; if the concept is frailty' date=' there are plenty of other ways in the system to work around that don't involve violating the concept. And I only go with END Reserve if there's a strong SFX reason and the recovery is properly limited. But that's me.[/quote']

 

Basically, he is just back to the CON and STR are underpriced (or Hugh's Figured Stats are over priced) arguement, but focusing on how two characters with different CON and STR, but equivalent END, REC, PD, ED and STUN the character with the lower CON and STR pay more points than the one with the higher CON and STR.

[caris]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Ok, since you are really making a big fuss about the mediocre example, let me put it this way:

 

Why is it more expensive to play a guy with 10 STR / 10 CON and defenses of X, than playing the other guy with 40 STR / 40 CON and the same defenses of X? Do you honestly believe that it is a good game balance if having less of a useful stat is more expensive?

 

On the other hand, if I'm playing a character with an EB Attack, I can choose between armor/FF/Force wall, and they are all fair and square. My attack does not influence how expensive my defenses get. (With the exception of desolid, but let's not cover that here...)

 

It isn't. 10 STR/10 CON Guy with 8 PD and 8 ED spent 12 points. 40 STR / 40 CON Guy with 8 PD and 8 ED spent 90 points. It is only when you make the PD, ED, REC, END and STUN, (well most of them you don't have to raise all of them but if you leave REC out people are paying the same amount of points) that you have the point savings. By constantly only focusing on a limited section of the support for your position you muddy the waters.

 

Now I'm sorry for a 30 stat range difference a savings of 6 points does not seem that much when I know that you can squeek out that much or more with skill modifiers, Multipowers, Elemental Controls, Naked Advantages, Martial Arts, etc.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Basically' date=' he is just back to the CON and STR are underpriced (or Hugh's Figured Stats are over priced) arguement, but focusing on how two characters with different CON and STR, but equivalent END, REC, PD, ED and STUN the character with the lower CON and STR pay more points than the one with the higher CON and STR.[/quote']

 

Because he had to work harder at it. The premise is that being stronger and heartier makes you tougher. If you want to be tougher without being stronger & heartier, it costs more. I don't see a glaring system flaw here. A quirk, if that, and it's a giant "mebbe."

 

I suppose I'm too forgiving; I just don't agree that the cat with the lower STR/CON should have paid the same points; that's why they're "figured" characteristics. Looping argument, because we're down to 'should' and 'shouldn't' and not 'does' or 'does not' work. It works. If he wants to be tougher, buy the appropriate stats through powers. Give him Multiform in "Psychic Warrior" mode or OIHID. Lots of way to do it that don't utterly derail the system and have people tearing their hair out.

 

*pause*

 

Although upon reflection, why am I advocating common sense on this board?