Only to affect secondary characteristics?

[caris]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

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?

 

Ah, but you see that arguement is pretty much counter to the percieved game design theory that things that do more/give you more cost more. Your reasoning is bringing in too much "special effect," if you will. The reasoning is that you should be paying for what you get. As I said in my post to kdansky, STR and CON are for me low level fish to fry on the "saves too many points" fish fry.

[sbarron]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Why is it more expensive to play a guy with 10 STR / 10 CON and defenses of X' date=' 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?[/quote']Honestly, no I don't. However, we're not talking about a lot of points here to at least break even...

 

A 20 STR and 20 CON guy and 8 STR and 8 CON guy, both having the same figured characteristics cost exactly the same. (30 points for 4 PD/ED, 8 REC, 40 END, and 30 STUN.) (I didn't include leaping, though maybe some would...)

 

A 40 STR and 40 CON guy and a 8 STR and 8 CON guy with the same figured characteristics only cost 6 points different. (8 PD/ED, 16 REC, 80 STUN, and 50 STUN costs 90 for 40 STR guy and 94 for 8 STR guy.)

 

In all my years of gaming, I've never come across a character that took only an 8 STR, but wanted to have 8 PD/ED, 16 REC, 80 STUN, and 50 STUN. If you want to make a "tough" character, then buying up STR and CON are the way to go. If you want to make a "frail" character that has survivability, then you need to buy combat luck, DCV levels, and stay out of the line of fire. Buying up figured characteristics but leaving your STR and CON low is counter-intuitive to me.

 

And just for the record, every heroic level game I play anymore has STR cost 2 for 1. This is primarily because a) I think it makes more sense, and generally, there are not the power frameworks for non-muscleheads to take advantage of in heroic level games to balance the scales. YMMV.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Ah' date=' but you see that argument is pretty much counter to the perceived game design theory that things that do more/give you more cost more. Your reasoning is bringing in too much "special effect," if you will. The reasoning is that you should be paying for what you get. As I said in my post to kdansky, STR and CON are for me low level fish to fry on the "saves too many points" fish fry.[/quote']

 

Well, I think that's what I'm saying though; at the end of the day, this isn't really a big argument, and there are other ways to achieve the result within the confines of the stated SFX. That's why I'm still somewhat baffled; we can argue all day over costs and balancing and if I have (this stat block) and you have (that stat block) then we should have paid the same for (those stats), but that doesn't make sense to me. I just don't see it that way, so I'm advocating just giving it a miss and moving on to making the character work, rather than filibuster over whether STR, CON & Figured are 'priced' correctly because it comes up every three months and no one bleeding agrees anyway.

[JmOz]

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...)

 

Well because mr. energy Blaster's EB most likely does effect the cost of his FF, thanks to Elemental Control

[Kenn]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

With all of this talk about STR and CON, why isn't BODY being mentioned, as it also impacts at least one of the affected figured characteristics.

 

For the record, a character who spends 34 points for a 20 STR, 20 CON, and 12 BODY and zero points on his figured characteristics will have a 4 PD, 4 ED, 8 REC, 40 END and 32 STUN.

 

The guy with 10 STR, 10 CON and 10 BODY will have to spend 34 pts on his figured characteristics to have a 4 PD, 4 ED, 8 REC, 40 END, and 32 STUN.

 

The guy with 15 STR, 15 CON, and 12 BODY (19 pts.) will spend 15 more points (gee, for a total of 34) to get to 4 PD, 4 ED, 8 REC, 40 END, and 32 STUN.

 

I'm sure this could be used to prove that the system's broken. I don't think it's broken.

 

Personally I think it goes back to the idea that any person engaging in a physically demanding endeavour that, yes, the strong healthy guy is going to have an easier time of it then the frail guy.

 

And... I might add since we're comparing stats in a vacuum, the frail guy probably will have an easier time coming up with appropriate physical limitations as Disavantages to offset the points then Joe Quarterback.

 

But then one gets into what other Disadvantages they might take... which leads into the question of "If you're playing in a game with a 75 point maximum on diasadvantages must one take 75 points of disadvantages, or can one stop at 60 or 65?"

 

There's so much variance with how people can do, Point Balance is a rough guide, not an exact science anyway.

[Kenn]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Here's an idea: +3 INT, only to boost INT based skills(-1) (1 real point)

 

After all, if I have a character with 5 INT based skills, and an INT of 10 that I have to pay 25 pts. to have them each be 12 or less (5x3 for the intitial skills, 5*2 to increase them each by 1), but the other player who has the same five skills only had to pay 18 points (3 to increase his INT to 13, and the same 15 for the same initial skills.) Why should my unintelligent character have to spend 7 more points to be just as skilled the kind of smart character?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

With all of this talk about STR and CON, why isn't BODY being mentioned, as it also impacts at least one of the affected figured characteristics.

 

For the record, a character who spends 34 points for a 20 STR, 20 CON, and 12 BODY and zero points on his figured characteristics will have a 4 PD, 4 ED, 8 REC, 40 END and 32 STUN.

 

The guy with 10 STR, 10 CON and 10 BODY will have to spend 34 pts on his figured characteristics to have a 4 PD, 4 ED, 8 REC, 40 END, and 32 STUN.

 

The guy with 15 STR, 15 CON, and 12 BODY (19 pts.) will spend 15 more points (gee, for a total of 34) to get to 4 PD, 4 ED, 8 REC, 40 END, and 32 STUN.

 

I'm sure this could be used to prove that the system's broken. I don't think it's broken.

 

I don't think it's terribly broken - it works in play. However, at the same time, the character with 20 STR/CON has greater leaping, more HTH damage, greater ability to use weapons, greater lift capacity, better STR rolls, less likeliness of being Stunned and better CON rolls. Should all of those things be free?

 

Ignoring rounding, 1 point of CON costs 2 points and generates 0.2 CP of ED, 0.4 CP of REC, 0.5 CP of STUN and 1 CP of END, a total of 2.1 points. Is that reasonable? Is it reasonable that +15 CON with no figured characteristics costs 20 points, but +15 CON selling back 15 END costs 15 points (5 points less to have +3 REC, +3 ED and +7.5 STUN)?

 

1 point of STR costs 1 point and generates 0.2 CP of PD, 0.4 CP of REC, 0.5 CP of STUN, so 1.1 points in total.

 

Doubling the cost of STR may, in some games and some genres, solve the problem for STR, but the CON issue remains, and the inequity of "no figured" is still out there. I'd like to see +1 STR grant about 1/3 point of Figured Characteristics, so -1/2 makes sense, and prices +5 STR No Figured at the same as +1d6 EB, No Range. CON could grant a lot more figured, but have a much higher "No Figured" to compensate. I've posted a theoretical rejigging that drops the cost of STUN, END and REC, and retools the formuli a bit, in the past. This would level the field - if your Energy Projector wants low STR and high figured's, he just buys the high Figured's.

[Kenn]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

To add fuel to the fire, one way or the other... Buffy and the Frailman

 

Buffy

 

20 STR 10

20 DEX 30

20 CON 20

15 BODY 10

10 INT 0

14 EGO 8

15 PRE 5

14 COM 2

6 PD 2

6 ED 2

4 SPD 10

8 REC 0

40 END 0

35 STUN 0

6" RUN 0

2" SWIM 0

4" LEAP 0

Characteristics Cost: 99

 

3 Enhanced Perception (+1 to PER Rolls for All Sense Groups)

Powers Cost: 3

 

5 Analyze: Agility Skills 12-

4 Navigation (Land) 12-

5 Paramedics 12-

5 Tactics 12-

Skills Cost: 19

 

Total Character Cost: 121

 

Pts. Disadvantage

0 Normal Characteristic Maxima: No Age Restriction

15 Psychological Limitation: Code against Killing, Common, Strong

5 Hunted: Bad guy, Less Powerful, 8- (Occasionally), Harshly Punish

Disadvantage Points: 20

Base Points: 100

Experience Required: 1

Total Experience Available: 1

Experience Unspent: 0

 

vs

 

Frailman

 

10 STR 0

20 DEX 30

10 CON 0

15 BODY 10

13 INT 3

14 EGO 8

15 PRE 5

14 COM 2

6 PD 4

6 ED 4

4 SPD 10

8 REC 8

40 END 10

35 STUN 10

6" RUN 0

2" SWIM 0

4" LEAP 3

Characteristics Cost: 107

 

7 Hand-To-Hand Attack +2d6 (10 Active Points); Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/2)

Powers Cost: 7

 

3 Analyze: Agility Skills 12-

2 Navigation (Land) 12-

3 Paramedics 12-

3 Tactics 12-

Skills Cost: 11

 

Total Character Cost: 125

 

Pts. Disadvantage

5 Normal Characteristic Maxima: 40+ Years Old

15 Psychological Limitation: Code against killing, Common, Strong

5 Hunted: Bad guy, Less Powerful, 8- (Occasionally), Harshly Punish

Disadvantage Points: 25

Base Points: 100

Experience Required: 0

Total Experience Available: 0

Experience Unspent: 0

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Here's an idea: +3 INT, only to boost INT based skills(-1) (1 real point)

 

After all, if I have a character with 5 INT based skills, and an INT of 10 that I have to pay 25 pts. to have them each be 12 or less (5x3 for the intitial skills, 5*2 to increase them each by 1), but the other player who has the same five skills only had to pay 18 points (3 to increase his INT to 13, and the same 15 for the same initial skills.) Why should my unintelligent character have to spend 7 more points to be just as skilled the kind of smart character?

 

Not to do the thing that drives me nuts, but you can't do this. You need 5 points to apply a modifier, which turns into 3 points if I make you round up. That, and it's cheesy and I wouldn't allow it; that's what skill points are for.

[JmOz]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Not to do the thing that drives me nuts' date=' but you can't do this. You need 5 points to apply a modifier, which turns into 3 points if I make you round up. That, and it's cheesy and I wouldn't allow it; that's what skill points are for.[/quote']

 

Only time you need 5 to put a modifier on anything is with CSL, for normal SL's it's 3, for powers (Which the Int Characteristic is) there is no bottom

 

Saying that it is pure cheese, and I have a high tolorance for it, for one thing the main thing INT gives you is skills so a -1 is extremly excessive

[JmOz]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Here's an idea: +3 INT, only to boost INT based skills(-1) (1 real point)

 

After all, if I have a character with 5 INT based skills, and an INT of 10 that I have to pay 25 pts. to have them each be 12 or less (5x3 for the intitial skills, 5*2 to increase them each by 1), but the other player who has the same five skills only had to pay 18 points (3 to increase his INT to 13, and the same 15 for the same initial skills.) Why should my unintelligent character have to spend 7 more points to be just as skilled the kind of smart character?

 

In theroy you should not have to, but the -1 is excessive, -1/4 maybe, if you are giving up your PER

 

While I think you are being sarcastic the question of why should he is a good one, why should you be penalised for having a less intelegent character, it should be noted that a Physical Limitation: Limited Intelegence may be better for the character with a higher intelegence than the concept would at first seem to support (If he has a bunch of INT skills he has bought up he is smarter than he seems)

[Kenn]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Yes, I was being sarcastic.

 

It was meant to illustrate that there are various inequities in the system that tend to follow a certain amount of logic. If you're strong, physical stuff is easier for you. If you're smarter, mental stuff is easier.

 

And cheesy "solutions" like buying characteristics only for the figured characteristics, or my uber-cheesy only to buy up INT skill rolls would do more to damage the system then anything they are "correcting."

[JmOz]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Yes, I was being sarcastic.

 

It was meant to illustrate that there are various inequities in the system that tend to follow a certain amount of logic. If you're strong, physical stuff is easier for you. If you're smarter, mental stuff is easier.

 

And cheesy "solutions" like buying characteristics only for the figured characteristics, or my uber-cheesy only to buy up INT skill rolls would do more to damage the system then anything they are "correcting."

 

However, and this is the core of it, there is an argument to be made that everything is based on building blocks that we use advantages and limitations to shape, if this is true then no F/X should be involved and we should use the block that best fits, furthermore, saying you can only use set A of blocks, while this character can use set a and b of blocks you will create characters who do not perform the same in the same areas for points spent in the same area. For instance I see no problem with someone buying +INT "Good with skills" with a -1/4 No PER or INT rolls in a super hero game, now buying it as a -1 is to big a limitation as IMO Int is for 3 things, skills, INT rolls, and PER (Plus in my game it breaks INIT ties).

[Kdansky]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Jomz finally sees the point I'm trying to make. For some strange reason ("It's always been like this.") str, con (and to a lesser extent dex and body) are not uncoupled from SFX. I can buy an EC with EB/RKA/KA for attack, and Armor/FF/ForceWall/DR for defense without shedding a single drop of sweat, as long as the SFX works for both. Not so for STR. If you want PD and STUN, you *have* to take str (well, you don't have to, but it's free to the point of costing slightly negative).

 

The examples from before: Don't you find it striking that 40 STR 40 CON cost the same price as 10 STR 10 CON if defenses are above a certain threshhold? I don't even care that you get 4 points out of it, but that you get a free 30 STR and 30 CON. That's my point. Now "only to affect figured" does still make perfectly sense in my view. You don't get strike damage, you don't get breakout rolls, you don't get casual str, you don't get lift or carry capacity. Quite harsh for only -1/2.

[JmOz]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Jomz finally sees the point I'm trying to make. For some strange reason ("It's always been like this.") str, con (and to a lesser extent dex and body) are not uncoupled from SFX. I can buy an EC with EB/RKA/KA for attack, and Armor/FF/ForceWall/DR for defense without shedding a single drop of sweat, as long as the SFX works for both. Not so for STR. If you want PD and STUN, you *have* to take str (well, you don't have to, but it's free to the point of costing slightly negative).

 

The examples from before: Don't you find it striking that 40 STR 40 CON cost the same price as 10 STR 10 CON if defenses are above a certain threshhold? I don't even care that you get 4 points out of it, but that you get a free 30 STR and 30 CON. That's my point. Now "only to affect figured" does still make perfectly sense in my view. You don't get strike damage, you don't get breakout rolls, you don't get casual str, you don't get lift or carry capacity. Quite harsh for only -1/2.

 

And here is the difference, I can see CHAR's decoupled from certain F/X. I have long argued people lock themselves into one view. If I want Tactile Telekinesis, I'm using STR not No range TK. I tend to just think of "Only to affect Figured" as a -1/4 normaly, but then I tend to be more specific in my "Only to affect" means, for Str I can definatly see it goin up to as a -3/4 (if no damage, lifting, str rolls, leaping, etc...). But I think you have mistaken me for being against the idea when I have not been

[Trebuchet]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

The examples from before: Don't you find it striking that 40 STR 40 CON cost the same price as 10 STR 10 CON if defenses are above a certain threshhold? I don't even care that you get 4 points out of it' date=' but that you get a free 30 STR and 30 CON. That's my point. Now "only to affect figured" does still make perfectly sense in my view. You don't get strike damage, you don't get breakout rolls, you don't get casual str, you don't get lift or carry capacity. Quite harsh for only -1/2.[/quote']Do I find it striking? No. I do find it interesting, maybe even mildly amusing.

 

You're setting a very narrow scenario here. To qualify for that threshold you mentioned, a character would almost certainly have to be a brick in a Champions game. Hero isn't just about playing superheroes. In 25 years of playting Champions and Hero I've never seen a non-brick with a CON of 40+ even in a Champions campaign, although there are probably some out there. If the character concept doesn't include really high STR and defenses then it really doesn't work. While bricks are popular, they're by no means the most popular archetype in Hero.

 

In short what you've found is a minor bit of Hero trivia, not a major flaw or scandal. Every game system has them.

[Outsider]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

To me this argument isnt concept or special effects driven, its point shaving.

 

Here's some more examples that could be used :

 

Why should anyone every buy Telekenesis, when they get figureds by buying STR usable at range?

 

Or

 

Why should anyone buy Forcefield when they get IPE, 0 END, Persistent for free by buying armor?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

To me this argument isnt concept or special effects driven, its point shaving.

 

Here's some more examples that could be used :

 

Why should anyone every buy Telekenesis, when they get figureds by buying STR usable at range?

 

Or

 

Why should anyone buy Forcefield when they get IPE, 0 END, Persistent for free by buying armor?

 

And this is where I go back to my argument, "most expensive valid build." The book does expressly state that you should not purchase STR, Usable at Range, that's TK. Campaign limits and design play a lot into it as well. That's why I consider the whole argument circular, and suggested dismissing it. We'll just go in circles, none of the posts having much constructive benefit. Somewhere the GM has to say "That's the way the points parse out. Cope."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

To me this argument isnt concept or special effects driven, its point shaving.

 

Here's some more examples that could be used :

 

Why should anyone every buy Telekenesis, when they get figureds by buying STR usable at range?

 

Good question - why should they? Why shouldn't a character with really long maximum range Stretching have to buy Stretching per inch, instead of putting range on his STR? Isn't he really using his STR at range?

 

Why should anyone buy Forcefield when they get IPE' date=' 0 END, Persistent for free by buying armor?[/quote']

 

If their concept is a 0 END persistent defensive power which is not obvious to various sense groups, why should they not buy a force field? For that matter, why should we even have Force Field when it's just PD + ED + Damage Resistance, all of which cost END? Why should we have Armor, which is the same thing without Costs END?

 

If the purpose of point costing is to ensure characters with equal functionality pay equal points, why do abilities which are functionally identical have different costs depending on how they are constructed mechanically?

 

Why should +10 PD, +10 ED, Resistant, 0 END, Persistent, IPE have a different cost depending on whether it is purchased with a Force Field mechanic or an Armor mechanic? I submit that they should not - they are mechanically identical, so they should have identical costs.

[Outsider]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Well, to answer my own question on the armor/ff front anyway : FF can go in an elemental control, while armor cannot.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Well' date=' to answer my own question on the armor/ff front anyway : FF can go in an elemental control, while armor cannot. [/quote']

 

Armor can go in an EC - you just have to add "costs END". But only powers that cost END by default can ever be END-free in an EC, since you can't have Costs END and 0 END on the same power. So you can have a 0 END force field in an EC, but not 0 END armor.

 

[no, I don't think the "only powers that cost END can be in an EC" restriction is a good rule; why do you ask?]

[Kdansky]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

There's no such thing as "can't go into an EC". Give me suitable SFX, take the "costs END" limitation, and you get your EC. "If I will it to, my skin thickens and absorbs blows due to my mutagenic background. Also, my mutagenic background grants me these other powers." Mutagenic EC. No problem at all. FF is harder to justify with these SFX. EC is a cost saver (and nothing else) if your concept is well streamlined.

And I also agree with Hugh that "only powers that cost END can be in an EC" isn't that good of a rule. Why do you ask?

 

Armor vs FF

This is clearly a leftover from earlier. The visibility rules have been cleared up and that "made" Armor IPE. I just rule it's not. Armor *is* visible, I mean come on! You've got these metal plates! I can see that! Leaves the persistent. Armor just *is* better than FF. Well, impossible to change without messing with the system, so I just leave it as is, even if I dislike it a great deal. It's one of the things that should really change for 6th. Please make the system consistent with itself, not with old editions. I don't play second, I play the current one. If I want to play second, I'll play second. Thanks. endofrant

 

Telekinesis - Stretching - Ranged STR

Telekinesis is very powerful. Ranged str would just be insanely cheap for what you get (mostly due to str being "free"). That is a very obvious game balance thing. (To phrase it meanly: People realized str was too cheap, so everywhere str can be used to do something else, it's heavily penalized or disallowed. If str costed 5 points (I'm kidding), there would be no such problems.)

 

I'm currently building some UMA characters and I'm really impressed how easily you can break DC caps and not even spend half the points the "I buy my KA as a power" guy does. 3-4 DC KA maneuver (say 3 due to limitations, 5 points total), buy some raw martial DCs (6x4 = 24 points, makes the base DC 6/2 + 3 = 6), add 30 STR (free anyway), do 12 DC of killing damage for about 30 points, and only costs 3 END too. Niiice. Or use it with a OIF KA (2d6? makes 4d6 with maneuver + str?), I'll post another topic tomorrow on that subject, since these damage stacking rules are still rather unclear to me. Don't answer to this part please (derailing the thread), it's a tangent to explain why I even rant about str so much

 

And metarule 6 can bite my shiny metal ass! There's always a way that's more expensive and does not offer anything useful.

 

To me this argument isnt concept or special effects driven, its point shaving.

If it were, I'd take the free 2-3 points and the free 20 STR. I want to have *lower* strength, but I don't want to pay the same price (or evn more!) that the other guy pays for his 35 STR if I only have 10. I just feel cheated that way. That's like him getting an EC for fire powers and I don't get one for Ice powers.

[Kenn]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Fine. You've been cheated by that quirk in the system. Suck it up and exploit some other quirk to recoup your losses, or find another system.

 

In Champions (ie super heroes) there is a disadvantage that gives you points for keeping your characteristics low. It's called Normal Characteristic Maxima. I'd suggest looking into it.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Fine. You've been cheated by that quirk in the system. Suck it up and exploit some other quirk to recoup your losses, or find another system.

 

In Champions (ie super heroes) there is a disadvantage that gives you points for keeping your characteristics low. It's called Normal Characteristic Maxima. I'd suggest looking into it.

 

Hang on, hang on, before we say things we can't take back without editing our posts. He has a point; he's maintaining that costs should be the same across the board. This is the discussion board, where we'd air that sort of grievance. Hugh made a similar point; that it may call for a 'rebalance' of your purchase levels if you want it to work that way. For my part, I've always just given it a miss, and if it weren't for this thread, I doubt I would have noticed it. I already suggested that the whole thing be balanced via purchase of a 'power' or 'multiform' (i.e., Psychic Armor, OIHID or something similar) but the point stands.

 

He wants his points to balance regardless of how he gets there. The system isn't scaled that way at the moment, and if you're trying to fit a concept that you feel is a round hole into a square peg, you tend to get these circular "Yeah, but" arguments, frex, "yeah, but, it should do this and it don't." Some people just need to vent. Or house rule it. Not find a whole new system.

[caris]

Re: Only to affect secondary characteristics?

 

Hang on, hang on, before we say things we can't take back without editing our posts. He has a point; he's maintaining that costs should be the same across the board. This is the discussion board, where we'd air that sort of grievance. Hugh made a similar point; that it may call for a 'rebalance' of your purchase levels if you want it to work that way. For my part, I've always just given it a miss, and if it weren't for this thread, I doubt I would have noticed it. I already suggested that the whole thing be balanced via purchase of a 'power' or 'multiform' (i.e., Psychic Armor, OIHID or something similar) but the point stands.

 

He wants his points to balance regardless of how he gets there. The system isn't scaled that way at the moment, and if you're trying to fit a concept that you feel is a round hole into a square peg, you tend to get these circular "Yeah, but" arguments, frex, "yeah, but, it should do this and it don't." Some people just need to vent. Or house rule it. Not find a whole new system.

 

Wouldn't have just been simpler to have applied the cone to the noggin?