Discussion on costs of Characteristics

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Um' date=' can you name me a game system where you buy Strength but have to buy the ability to [b']use[/b] that Strength separately? Grabbing, lifting, and throwing should all be part of what you can do with the stat...because that's what Strength does.

 

Most systems make very explicit rules on how you can use that strength etc and they make little effort to indicate whether increased STR is 'balanced' or not. It is a Hero thing to build and decide on such things.

 

Much of what Hugh was talking about was not about not allowing strength to lift grab or throw but not allowing the application to be so easy that it makes STR more valuable.

 

Right now Hero is a system where you go in and decide on how your Fireball is constructed and, if you really want a fireball that has no range and a hole in the middle or no hole but you are simply immune to its effects then you can do that.

 

If you want a character who can lift megatonnes but is unable to apply that strength in punching or grabbing someone then you are looking at custom limitations etc and there is no indication of whether that limitation should affect figured characteristics by default or not.

 

Stats are a black box that we are not allowed to look inside whereas the principle elsewhere in the toolkit is that we are allowed.

 

I personally think characteristics are in there because that was part of the game design paradigm when it was first published. It was odd enough without having the extra oddity of not having STR, INT, DEX and the rest!

 

I dont think they are necessary in a modern system, especially as they lead people to expect certain things.

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Not really, you have basicaly given character A a extra Cost saver, that you have not given character B. OF COURSE Character A is more effective under those circumstances. Only a stone cold idiot would not say that Figured Characteristics make strength an attractive deal. In essence you gave one character 2 frameworks instead of 1

 

Put another way, which is a more effective character: The guy with an EC and the guy without an EC but otherwise identical builds?

 

You do realize you are now making his point for him?

 

Do I realise I am making there argument, no I'm not, I was trying (and obviously failing) to point out that if one character is saving points one way, and another is not they will not balance.

 

That IS their point. Since you’re in agreement on that, the dispute becomes – is unbalance a good thing or a bad thing? I think most Hero players agree it’s not a good thing.

 

However, Mr. Neilson gives us another angle to look at things…..

 

Or you could buy CON and also have a higher END, and ED instead of PD.

 

The answer here, in my view, is to lower the cost of STUN END and REC and rejig the Figured calcs so that STR gets a -1/2 for "no figured" because it grants about 1/3 of its cost in Figured's. I've posted the theory before.

 

Submission: If the problem is Figured's, it's a problem for more than STR. It is best fixed by adjusting the cost of the Figured characteristics. Then we might see characters lacking high STR/CON:

 

- buy up their STUN and REC instead of their defenses to last longer in combat.

 

- buy up END and REC instead of buying reduced END to last longer without becoming exhausted.

 

At this point, no one takes these approaches. That leads me to believe STUN, REC and END are overpriced.

 

When I tossed off my “Adjustment Powers” comment, I was not saying “this is not the way to go.” I was trying to say “if you want to go this way, you need to take Adjustment Powers into account.”

 

I am starting to think that this may, in fact, be the solution we need, although it seems counter-intuitive to me to make the cheapest thing in the system (END) even cheaper. Still, we have the precedent that END in an END Reserve is so cheap that 1 pt buys 10 pts of END. And it’s been pointed out that in some ways (such as not vanishing if you’re knocked out) that kind of END is even superior to the “regular brand.”

 

Of course, we already halve the effect of Adjustment powers on Defenses; but I think we need a heavier leash than that to rein in Adjustment powers on figured characteristics if we make them super-cheap.

 

If we made the figured characteristics cheaper, it would resolve the issue of CON netting you more points than you spend on it, and ameliorate the STR cost issue; and if we then extend the “Normal” limitation from Hand to Hand Attack to Energy Blast, and perhaps make it a larger limitation, STR at the current cost would start to look perfectly balanced.

 

Now the question is – what IS an appropriate cost for figured characteristics?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary agrees that "Normal" is a pretty big limitation...

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I personally think characteristics are in there because that was part of the game design paradigm when it was first published. It was odd enough without having the extra oddity of not having STR, INT, DEX and the rest!

 

I dont think they are necessary in a modern system, especially as they lead people to expect certain things.

 

The Paradigm seems to be that Characters Have 3 basic Components

1. Things that are present on/in all characters/genres (Stats/Movement)

2. Things that can by learned or aquired by any character but vary from genre to genre (Skills/Perks/Gear)

3. Things that are inherent or aquirable by some characters that vary from genre to genre (Talents/Powers)

 

Certainly a system can be made more customizable if you opt to vary item 1 from genre to genre (ala FUDGE) but something needs to exist that defines those things ubiquitously present in all characters in any system (Movement, Strength, Damage Capacity, etc)

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Certainly a system can be made more customizable if you opt to vary item 1 from genre to genre (ala FUDGE) but something needs to exist that defines those things ubiquitously present in all characters in any system (Movement' date=' Strength, Damage Capacity, etc)[/quote']

 

This comes back to the other thing we regularly chew over - the Base Template.

 

There is nothing in the rules about this but every base character has the 125 points obvious on the sheet as well as other stuff, like bipedal with grasping upper appendages, needs to breathe an earth like atmosphere, needs to eat, has a defined perfect pressure/temperature environment, can choke/suffocate etc and a bit more. We accept all this as it is the base human condition but it made the construction of things like vehicles more difficult and continues to make non-standard forms difficult as well.

 

We find nothing in the rules about the Base Template but it forms the foundation of virtually everything that we do in the game. It would be nice to be definitive about the template and whether there might be other templates that could be used.

 

Doc

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

You do realize you are now making his point for him?

 

 

 

That IS their point. Since you’re in agreement on that, the dispute becomes – is unbalance a good thing or a bad thing? I think most Hero players agree it’s not a good thing.

 

However, Mr. Neilson gives us another angle to look at things…..

 

 

 

When I tossed off my “Adjustment Powers” comment, I was not saying “this is not the way to go.” I was trying to say “if you want to go this way, you need to take Adjustment Powers into account.”

 

I am starting to think that this may, in fact, be the solution we need, although it seems counter-intuitive to me to make the cheapest thing in the system (END) even cheaper. Still, we have the precedent that END in an END Reserve is so cheap that 1 pt buys 10 pts of END. And it’s been pointed out that in some ways (such as not vanishing if you’re knocked out) that kind of END is even superior to the “regular brand.”

 

Of course, we already halve the effect of Adjustment powers on Defenses; but I think we need a heavier leash than that to rein in Adjustment powers on figured characteristics if we make them super-cheap.

 

If we made the figured characteristics cheaper, it would resolve the issue of CON netting you more points than you spend on it, and ameliorate the STR cost issue; and if we then extend the “Normal” limitation from Hand to Hand Attack to Energy Blast, and perhaps make it a larger limitation, STR at the current cost would start to look perfectly balanced.

 

Now the question is – what IS an appropriate cost for figured characteristics?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary agrees that "Normal" is a pretty big limitation...

 

MY POINT: As I can't seem to make sense to some people is this: The game has MANY different ways to save points, Part of the reason the relationship between prime characteristics and figured characteristics exist is to allow characters who are characteristic based (The strong guy, the fast guy, etc) to be able to compete with characters who have used another method (The Framework guy). So comparing the guy who has used one cost saver (Be it Characteristics, Frameworks, Martial Arts, etc...) to a guy who has not used any is going to favor the guy who used a cost saver.

[caris]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

You do realize you are now making his point for him?

 

The question is why is the cost savings of CON, STR, and ECs the only things discussed?

 

Why are other cost saving tools like Multipower, Martial Arts, Skill Enhancers, etc virtually ignored? Why is it wrong for STR to save points and not for Martial Arts?

[Kenn]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The question is why is the cost savings of CON, STR, and ECs the only things discussed?

 

Why are other cost saving tools like Multipower, Martial Arts, Skill Enhancers, etc virtually ignored? Why is it wrong for STR to save points and not for Martial Arts?

 

Or energy blasters?

 

How many people, if they're playing a telekinetic do something like this?

 

60 Multipower

6 u - "Mind over Matter" 40 STR Telekinisis (which gives an 8d6 Telekinetic punch automatically)

6 u - "Telekinetic Punch" 12d6 Enegy Blast (vs PD)

 

To put it another way +12 pts. provides 4d6 EB (3 pts. per die) above what one would get with just the

 

60 - "Mind over Matter" 40 STR Telekinisis

 

alone.

 

And yes, they can still buy up their STR and save points in their characteristics. So let's stop that abuse but doubling the cost of STR.

 

Although then we outght to double the cost of Telekinisis, because while it doesn't give characteristics, it still has that inherent "Lakes or oppotunity" ability.

 

60 Multipower

6 u - "Mind over Matter" 20 STR Telekinisis (which gives an 4d6 Telekinetic punch automatically)

6 u - "Telekinetic Punch" 12d6 Enegy Blast (vs PD)

 

Suddenly paying out 20% more points is providing 200% more effectiveness (then just the Telekinisis alone). +2d6 per three points. There's a new bargain.

[pawsplay]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

A point of REC is 40% of 5 points of STR alone. The answer to Bricks would be simple: a lot of STR, No Figured Characters, for those don't have all the side benefits. And for those who do, they should probably pay for them.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

1. This I think falls into a grey area' date=' does equiping an impromptu weapon require an attack roll, thus making it a terminal action. I'd tend to agree with you on this one.[/quote']

 

I think this one is in the FAQ, actually.

 

2. WFs are usually only used in Heroic level games [pg382]. Also I've seen no indication that WF Thrown Car either exists or would be required. It should recieve the penalty for being unbal/nonaero' date=' however.[/quote']

 

hmph. I prefer the old rule - if you pay points, you get familiarity. If you don't, you take the OCV penalty. This also means picking up someone else's Focus does not make you as effective at its use as he is.

 

3. Yes is the default. The GM can opt to use alternative methods of course.

 

I am definitely suggesting we change the default. Why don't characters with Growth get AoE move throughs? They have more right to AoE than a normal sized character hefting a Buick.

 

Sweep is a maneuver that has costs associated with it' date=' that they are different costs than spread doesn't remove the maneuver from play. Swinging a car or a telephone pole like a cllub will also allow the Brick to affect multiple targets. BTW if we're using Rapid Attack, you can half move and sweep.[/quote']

 

In my little world, these would be SFX for a Sweep. You pay points for Rapid Attack, so you buy added ability. Whether the points are appropriate remains open to debate. And I would make you spend an attack action to pick up the car/uproot the phone pole, as well as impose penalties for their bulk. You want an advantage for free, it generally comes with a built-in drawback.

 

I'm interested that suggestions to remove the freebies GM's grant for STR are considered "changing the rules to nerf STR" when changing the cost of STR is viewed as no change at all.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

However, Mr. Neilson gives us another angle to look at things…..

 

When I tossed off my “Adjustment Powers” comment, I was not saying “this is not the way to go.” I was trying to say “if you want to go this way, you need to take Adjustment Powers into account.”

 

I am starting to think that this may, in fact, be the solution we need, although it seems counter-intuitive to me to make the cheapest thing in the system (END) even cheaper. Still, we have the precedent that END in an END Reserve is so cheap that 1 pt buys 10 pts of END. And it’s been pointed out that in some ways (such as not vanishing if you’re knocked out) that kind of END is even superior to the “regular brand.”

 

Of course, we already halve the effect of Adjustment powers on Defenses; but I think we need a heavier leash than that to rein in Adjustment powers on figured characteristics if we make them super-cheap.

 

If we made the figured characteristics cheaper, it would resolve the issue of CON netting you more points than you spend on it, and ameliorate the STR cost issue; and if we then extend the “Normal” limitation from Hand to Hand Attack to Energy Blast, and perhaps make it a larger limitation, STR at the current cost would start to look perfectly balanced.

 

Now the question is – what IS an appropriate cost for figured characteristics?

 

I've previously noted that reducing the costs should be accompanied by declaring them defensive for purposes of adjustment powers. As to the costs, my first blush approach is as follows (and I've posted it before):

 

Rather than raise the cost of STR (and CON - both generate more figured char than they cost themselves), what about reducing the cost of END, STUN and REC so the benefits granted by STR and CON are less costly for a lower STR/CON character to purchase directly.

 

I'd like to see +15 STR grant +5 stats (and a -1/2 limit for "No Figured"), and +15 CON grant 22 points of figured (with "no figured" priced at -2 3/4). At this point, you could sever them without complications (leaving only BOD). No need to change DEX - it works already.

 

This would require lowering the price of REC, STUN and END. Changing PD and ED changes the dynamic between other defense powers, so it should be avoided. As a rough guideline, I would consider the following:

 

Reduce the price of STUN to 1/2 point, REC to 1 point and END to 1/3 point. Declare them "defensive powers" so that adjustment powers do not gain a huge advantage.

 

Grant figured as follows:

 

STR grants STR/5 in PD and STR/7.5 in REC.

10 STR grants 2 PD and 1 REC

 

15 STR grants 3 PD and 2 REC, which costs 5 points otherwise.

No Figured is a -1/2 limitation on STR.

 

CON grants CON/5 in ED, CON/3.75 in REC, 2/3 CON in STUN and 2x CON in END.

10 CON grants 2 ED, 3 REC, 7 STUN and 20 END.

 

15 CON grants 3 ED, 4 REC, 10 STUN and 30 END, which costs 22 points otherwise. 30/(30-22) = 3.75, so No Figured on CON is a -2 3/4 limitation (yes, I know, it's more than -2; utter blasphemy - break it down into separate limitations for each figured stat to get them each below -2 3/4 and stop whining).

 

BOD grants BOD x 1 1/3 STUN.

10 BOD grants 13 STUN

 

15 BOD grants 20 STUN, which is worth 10 points. No Figured is a -1/2 limitation on BOD.

 

RESULT: No Figured Char is now mathematically correct - someone might actually take CON - no figured! DEX and SPD are unchanged, so -1/2 works.

 

We can now eliminate the "can only sell back 1 figured" restriction, since there's no advantage to buying up a stat and selling the figured characteristics back.

 

A standard (10's across the board) guy has the same base figured's as before.

 

BOD and CON contribute more, and STR contributes less. Appropriate as STR gives considerably more other benefits.

 

Potentially, this will cause other changes to the dynamic. For example, since there is no longer a "figured' advantage to high STR and CON, do we need to allow EC's of characteristics for Bricks and other stat-based characters to stay balanced with, say, blasters and others more reliant on frameworks?

 

In my experience, the system works. If it ain't broke, why fix it? However, the above approach, to me, makes more sense than doubling the price of STR, then adjusting Hand Attacks and martial arts DC's, then moving on to DC's of other attack powers, ad infinitum.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I'm interested that suggestions to remove the freebies GM's grant for STR are considered "changing the rules to nerf STR" when changing the cost of STR is viewed as no change at all.

 

 

I find this statement confusing in that nothing I've mentioned are GM freebies but rather abilities that all characters have access to.

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I find this statement confusing in that nothing I've mentioned are GM freebies but rather abilities that all characters have access to.

 

And I find this statement confusing

In my experience, the system works. If it ain't broke, why fix it? However, the above approach, to me, makes more sense than doubling the price of STR, then adjusting Hand Attacks and martial arts DC's, then moving on to DC's of other attack powers, ad infinitum. .

 

In that it assumes that doubling the price of STR will then for some reason inevitably be followed by "adjusting Hand Attacks and martial arts DC's, then moving on to DC's of other attack powers, ad infinitum."

 

I've brought up the fact that the Normal Limitation should be extended to ranged as well as hand to hand Normal attacks, and in my opinion should be greater, but that has as much to do with balancing them against Killing Attacks as against STR.

And in fact, it was specifically in the context of implementing HIS proposed solution that I mentioned that. Balancing those two categories of attack powers is something that needs to be done regardless of what is done (or not done) to STR.

 

I would like to know on what basis he thinks recosting STR would lead to an "ad infinitum" series of adjustments. I don't think that's been Markdoc's experience for example.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary suggests going back to rolling 3d6 instead of counting points, but what would a palindromedary know about it?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

.....................

So my character can lift sevral hundred tons, but can't do damage with that STR. What happens when he throws that several hundred tons at you, or drops it on you from a height?

 

Can't do strength damage directly. The original idea (way back near the start of the thread) was to divide STR into two, with 'slow strength' (SS) allowing the application of force (crush, escape, lift, manipulate) which cuold cause damage, but was always somewhat limtied in doing so (requires a grab or object of opportunity) and 'fast strength' (FS)used for punches and kicks and such. Just because you can lift a battleship doesn't mean you can necessarily throw a truck very far, or punch very hard, as that is about how fast you can move your limbs.

 

I would espect most brick types to have a similar fast and slow strength, but not necessarily. A high SS/low FS character woud be a lumbering type who could tip a building on you or crush your head, but is not that effective with punches: think of a walking car crusher. A high FS/low SS type would be someone who relies on speed as much or more than strength - martial artists and speedsters, for example.

 

High SS/high FS is a classic brick.

 

If you retained figured characteristics, they would be attached to SS. Then all you've really done is tried to adjust the cost balance by putting mandatory limtis on how strength canbe used. of course this is easily abuseable as all you need to do is buy enough levels to ignore the penalties on grab, and you are hot to trot.

 

I'm happy to have an abuseable system as I'm perfectly capable of saying 'no' to abusive builds when I'm running a game, or slipping them in unnoticed, until it is too late when I'm playing.

 

What?

 

Although it is more complex, it allows greater effective customisation (whilst including a higher STR cost) and doesn't come with the problem that a simple 'higher cost' has of exceeding AP limits and costing a lot for advantages.

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

On the topic of anecdotal evidence: I've now changed all my character/creature/weapon/power/item designs for my next campaign from str :1 to str: 2. Either it's more or less the same or it has gotten way better. Suddenly, "not so strong" main villains which just *had* to take high con and secondaries (or else they'd fall over segment 12 due to being outnumbered) lost some very high strength which was causing problems. For example, one of the BBEGs would instagib my PCs for free due to str adding to his HKA (big fat claws), but as he has now to pay for strength (and does not want to, because it's not *cheaper* anymore to have 50 str than it is to have 25), he will now only do Serious Wounding instead of Instakilling. Also, the mentalist now has 10 str as opposed to 20+ before (hey, 20+ was cheaper?! I can't blame a player for "but if I add 15 str, my character costs 1 point less, so my concept now includes "mental powers make him stronger too" in my description. I'm not taking 15 str less if I have to pay more for it. Na-ah.") and some more examples which I'm not giving due to possibly my players reading this

 

There you go: Str costing 2 does not kill balance, all brick type characters I built are still highly effective, it's just that the non-bricks don't have high strength anymore. Oh, and I put HA at 5 points (technically: str: no figured, only to cause damage) and Martial DC at 6. Should that be 7?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

There you go: Str costing 2 does not kill balance' date=' all brick type characters I built are still highly effective, it's just that the non-bricks don't have high strength anymore. [/quote']

 

So, your STR 60 brick now pays 100 points for his STR rather than 50.

 

What has the brick dropped to retain the 60 STR - he must have dropped 50 points worth of stuff to accommodate the new cost?

 

 

Doc

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Most bricks have replaced some of their ludicrous strength with HA, and yes, they have dropped some things, for example, one can exchange armor for FF. Yes, that costs END.

And since all non-bricks have lost 20-40 strength in the process, that's more than fair.

 

YGWYPF - You get what you pay for.

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Oh, and I put HA at 5 points (technically: str: no figured, only to cause damage) and Martial DC at 6. Should that be 7?

 

Hand to Hand Normal attacks - and Energy Blast - should cost less than that, unless you're going to make Killing Attack an Adder, an Advantage, or an Addervantage (i.e. make it work the same way as making Defenses Resistant, which is a kind of hybrid of an Adder and an Advantage.)

 

I am also dubious that Martial Damage Classes need to have their cost increased; I think they are more limited than they are percieved to be, or at least SHOULD be more limited than they are percieved to be. Martial Arts incorporates a kind of "Real Weapon without the Weapon" limitation by default - or that is my interpretation of what I've read in the rules.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Unreal Palindromedary

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Well, KAs were fixed by changing stun multi to fixed 2. That is very low and makes the KA do quite a bit less stun on average, and outright kills the stun lotto. You'll nearly never see more than 40 stun with 4d6 (avg 28), but 12d6 averages at 42. I assumed Martial DC should be more expensive than HA, since that is the case in the original rules too, but convince me otherwise

 

I consider HA and EB equal. Range vs "can add str". True, str is not as abundant as it was at cost:1, but no melee figher has less than 10 (or 15) str. That's 3 "free" dice, which you cannot add to EB. My 12d6 vs your 9d6 ranged. I think its's fair based on the "more or less" principle. It's not blatantly wrong anymore.

 

And that is all my house rules. STR changed, HA and Martial DC changed to make it fit, KA fixed stun multiplier.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I find this statement confusing in that nothing I've mentioned are GM freebies but rather abilities that all characters have access to.

 

STR at 1 point cost is also "abilities that all characters have access to". And the rules do not state you can just toss things at no penalty to OCV. In fact, the FAQ notes that you must spend a phase to Grab the object, throwing it at a target on your next phase, a rule those posing their views that STR is underpriced seem not to incorporate in their examples.

 

I would also note

Alternative' date=' the GM can determine the OCV bonus for the object being thrown (see [i']target Size, above) and apply that bonus to the attacker's OCV when he throws the object. This reduces the chance that characters with high STR can repeatedly use large misiles to hit other characters effortlessly.

 

Given the belief STR is overpowered, using the tools provided in the book to rein it in seems a reasonable approach.

 

Hand to Hand Normal attacks - and Energy Blast - should cost less than that, unless you're going to make Killing Attack an Adder, an Advantage, or an Addervantage (i.e. make it work the same way as making Defenses Resistant, which is a kind of hybrid of an Adder and an Advantage.)

 

I am also dubious that Martial Damage Classes need to have their cost increased; I think they are more limited than they are percieved to be, or at least SHOULD be more limited than they are percieved to be. Martial Arts incorporates a kind of "Real Weapon without the Weapon" limitation by default - or that is my interpretation of what I've read in the rules.

 

I think they should cost more than a Hand Attack as they allow access to more, and more useful, maneuvers for most characters (and for those where they do not, they likely are not buying martial DC's).

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Most bricks have replaced some of their ludicrous strength with HA, and yes, they have dropped some things, for example, one can exchange armor for FF. Yes, that costs END.

And since all non-bricks have lost 20-40 strength in the process, that's more than fair.

 

YGWYPF - You get what you pay for.

 

 

So, you are talking effective as in combat. One of the things I love when playing a brick is the ability to throw things around and lift things up (effortlessly). In your world bricks are 16x less able to do stuff (assuming the loss if about 20 STR with the added cost made up for by losing other stuff).

 

Have you thought of giving the bricks the option of buying non-combat strength multipliers whereby they can access all that lifting goodness without adding to their combat effectiveness?

 

Given the fact that they might buy up defences and HA in some other kind of brick styled framework you might find they have a low base STR and lots of ncm STR with an EC or multipower.

 

Sounds like they'd be taking things along the lines being proposed by GamePhil in another thread!

 

 

Doc

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Well, I have not had anyone ask for it, but I would certainly allow such a powerconstruct. STR, only to lift and throwing range (no entangle breaking etc -1/2), no damage (-1), no figured characteristics (-1). So you can pay 5 points and be even "stronger" than before

 

Also, since I allow bricks to have Framworks (that seems to be unusual), getting something minor is usually along the lines of: 50 STR, only noncombat -2 (or only for lifting: -3?), in an ultraslot: 1 or 2 points, depending on rounding. If you really want it. While you are lifting a Carrier, you will probably not need any of your other attack slots anyway

You can also put your Strength in an EC, if you want (although that costs you in figureds, I'm not sure where the soft spots are, probably depends a lot on details).

 

And I have not looked at the detailed "how much is this worth" of limitations yet. I'll do that when it comes up :=D

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

STR at 1 point cost is also "abilities that all characters have access to". And the rules do not state you can just toss things at no penalty to OCV. In fact, the FAQ notes that you must spend a phase to Grab the object, throwing it at a target on your next phase, a rule those posing their views that STR is underpriced seem not to incorporate in their examples.

 

I would also note

Alternative, the GM can determine the OCV bonus for the object being thrown (see target Size, above) and apply that bonus to the attacker's OCV when he throws the object. This reduces the chance that characters with high STR can repeatedly use large misiles to hit other characters effortlessly.

 

Given the belief STR is overpowered, using the tools provided in the book to rein it in seems a reasonable approach.

 

1. The Throw Objects effect on OCV is clearly discussed in the book.

 

2. Has anyone said it doesn't take a phase to grab an object to throw or weild? I recall saying I thought it was a grey area but I would tend to agree it required an action (Hadn't Read/Recall the FAQ entry)

 

3. The reason we were even talking about the AOE aspects of held or thrown objects was in comparison to spreading ranged attacks ability to improve OCV vs high DCV targets. Large objects increasing OCV has the same effect.

 

4. You seem to want to alter how STR is written and say look when we use it this way it's appropriately priced, others seem to be saying here's how STR is written and it's underpriced. How many alternate, optional or house rules do you use to make STR appropriately priced? I use 2; Str 2:1, HtH Attack 5pts no forced limitation.

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Well' date=' KAs were fixed by changing stun multi to fixed 2.[/quote']

 

Errr....not quite.

 

While that does eliminate the Stun Lotto - and apparently you're not using Hit Locations - it fails to address the two more basic inequities.

 

First (and perhaps this is more of an issue at high power levels) there is the fact that a Killing Attack rolls fewer dice, and is thus more random. Rolling a single extra die for a STUN multiplier exacerbates this effect, but the effect exists even with a flat STUN multiplier. This point has already been discussed exhaustively on other threads.

 

Second there is the fact that Killing Attacks are against a Defense that costs 50% more base points than the defense of Normal Attacks, a flagrant violation of the metarule about Defenses being cheaper than Attacks.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a metapalindromedary

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Show me two comparable characters' date=' one reliant on STR and the other on something else, when STR costs 2:1.[/quote']

 

Easy-peasy. Strip Energyman of his framework and make both Powergirl and him buy their attack powers, flight and defence straight. Result, Powergirl crushes him. Or - as I suggested in my earlier b uild: give them identical frameworks with Powergirl using a higher base STR and HA or STR No figured as her attack - and again she creams him.

 

Those are both builds which absolutely are comparable.

 

Essentially what you seem to be asking for is "Give me a character which is every bit as efficient when STR costs 2:1 as a character where STR costs 1:1". It can't be done, of course - and that's the point of making the change.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Why are other cost saving tools like Multipower' date=' Martial Arts, Skill Enhancers, etc virtually ignored? Why is it wrong for STR to save points and not for Martial Arts?[/quote']

 

Because all of things are available to everyone and "cross-balanced". Martial arts is good - but so is a multipower: and I've even done the analysis - it's on my homepage - of comparing buy martial arts by the standard rules or buying the same attacks as a multipower. (the short answer is that they both have advantages and disadvantages, but overall the standard system is better if you want a basic martial artist, but a multipower better at higher power levels).

 

I've done similar analyses with STR, and there's no contest: STR at 1:1 is better. If you want a combat-capable character, the guy with high STR can also buy martial arts - and he'll normally be tougher than the specialist martial artist, simply because he's getting a free extra d6 attack on top on his improved stat.s The same applies to multipowers, or (as we have seen) ECs. The high STR guy with a "force powers" framework will normally outclass the low STR Energy blaster with a "force powers" framework, and so on.

 

Hugh was kind of making that point earlier when he complained that I was taking advantage of limitations or frameworks to improve the efficacy of characters built at a cost of STR at 2:1. He's right of course: what I was doing was treating a character whose main attack was STR exactly like I'd treat a character whose main attack was EB.

 

And that is, of course, the point.

 

cheers, Mark