Discussion on costs of Characteristics

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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

 

actually he's asking to build them with the 2;1 and then see if they're even or Powergirl gets consistently crushed. Anyway energyguy seems a very poor antibrick build and powergirl a pretty good anti energy projector build. It seems to me its relatively easy to build a character who can take down another specific type of character anyway.

[Guest steamteck]

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.

 

But some of use like the in genre ridiculous STR. Seriously you had non bricks with 20-40 extra STR. I have to admit then for your group it seems definitely something should have been done. In our group most of the energy projectors have 10-16 ST, martial artists mostly around 14-16. There are a couple of captain America/ Super soldier types with 20s. Our Spiderman/Batman combo clone has a 29.I guess I'm really lucky to have a group that builds to concept. Maybe that I've never experienced any inequities has to do with my great group. Although I would think we've have noticed if builds were way more efficient but maybe its our play style.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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.

 

I use none. It balances. But I don't:

 

- allow that there are always huge objects Bricks can use to turn their STR into a ranged attack at the same damage levels

 

- ignore the requirement to effectively spend 2 phases to grab a large object and throw it at someone (note that this is a longer delay than a haymaker, and thus easier to avoid by using similar tactics to those used to avoid a haymaker)

 

- consider most huge objects "balanced and/or aerodynamic", so you need a minimum +4 OCV from size just to break even in most cases

 

- allow a large object to convert targets to DCV 3 (any more than I deem a large character to fall to DCV 3)

 

- look kindly on tactics inconsistent with the genre (and Bricks drowning their foes in a bathtub are not consistent with the genre)

 

- allow Bricks to conveniently, at no point cost, simulate entangles by wrapping a lamppost or iron girder around someone (they aren't that easily manipulated - they tend to break, not bend in the precise desired configurations)

 

or otherwise ignore existing rules that rein in much of the excesses people ascribe to STR.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Easy-peasy. Strip Energyman of his framework and make both Powergirl and him buy their attack powers' date=' flight and defence straight. Result, Powergirl crushes him. Or - as I suggested in my earlier build: 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.[/quote']

 

Still waiting to see the actual characters...

 

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' date=' of course - [b']and that's the point of making the change[/b].

 

No, I'm asking you to show me the two characters - at the same point levels, constructed with an eye to point efficiency. Even then, of course, we lack perfect comparability because different types of characters focus on different areas, so asking EB Guy to buy extra leaping, say, is inefficient. But we would then have a basis for comparison.

 

Frankly, I think "high STR to framework" is a reasonable analysis because PowerGirl cannot put her STR or extra PD/ED or Armor in a framework, while EB Guy is easily able to put his EB, flight and force field in a framework. Sure, I can make a given construct unbalancing if I take away anything else another character might normally have access to, and use, to mitigate the advantages offered to the character I want to conclude is unbalancing.

 

Because all of things are available to everyone and "cross-balanced". Martial arts is good - but so is a multipower:

 

By the same token, STR is good - but so is an Elemental Control. Why do we assume there are no frameworks when that assumption supports your case, but remove the assumption when it becomes inconvenient to your arguments in another area?

 

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.

 

To clarify, I want to see a classic Brick under your model. Not martial artist. Not a guy with Fists of Fury hand attacks. A character who can lift trucks, hold up the collapsing building and attack hand to hand. Build the Thing or the She-Hulk with 2:1 STR and show me that this character is comparable in abilities to an energy projector built on the same points, and who both have access to their powers on the same basis (ie if one has OIHID, the other should have a similarly limiting limitation like Not in Intense Magnetic Fields).

 

Don't TELL me your views are correct and irrefutable. SHOW me.

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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.

 

Most certainly not. One of the attractions of this approach is that it involves far less alteration than alternatives such as altering the relationship of primaries and secondaries.*

 

HA does need to be adjusted, because it functions as a limited form of STR - it's the damage part of STR with the leaping, lifted and figured CHA cut out. The fact that HA's costed at 5 AP with a "limitation that isn't a limitation but is worth points anyway" tacked on is simply a tacit admission that the pricing regimen is wrong.

 

You thus end up with:

 

STR (full bennies) = 10 per 1d6 attack

STR (no figured CHA) = 7.5 points per DC

STR (no figured CHA, no leaping) = 6.5 points per DC (you get this cost just by selling back 1" of leaping)

STR (no figured CHA, no leaping, no lift) = 5 points (this is HA)

 

At this level, nothing else needs re-balancing. The +1/2 advantage for "adds STR" or "range" now falls into balance alongside HA/EB and HKA/RKA. STR keeps its special END cost because you only pay END on the attack part - the HA: it doesn't cost you end to have more STUN, for example. TK's pricing also makes sense: it's STR without figured CHA or leaping that doesn't add to STR, but is usuable at range and does include lifting capacity.

 

Compare that to the current cost structure where you can buy:

1d6 HA for 5 active 3 real

or

5 STR for 5 active and - selling off 1 REC - for 3 real (no figured CHA is a really bad deal for STR at a cost of 1:1, tho' it makes sense at 2:1). If leaping isn't a figured characteristic (and I assume it's not, since it is not listed as such) then you can sell back an inch there to reduce STR to an real cost of 2 points per d6 - and you get free STUN and PD! So for every 2 points you spend on STR, using that construct, you get a free (improved) HA, plus 3.5 points of figured CHA

 

cheers, Mark

 

*one thing that does need to be taken into account is that a change potentially affects every existing character, since as noted very few have an STR of exactly 10. Fortunately, however the change is extremely easy to implement. Most NPCs I simply gave extra points to, to cover the new cost, or reduced the total cost of those with reduced STR. For NPCs I had always designed more to concept than points efficiency, so they already ranged more in STR than PCs. A few I simply reduced STR on, since the definition of what was "strong" in game terms had decreased.

 

Players were offered three choices for existing PCs.

1. Scrap the character and start again with the same number of points. None took this option

2. Alter the character slightly (reduce STR, shift some STR to HA, etc). Several took this option, since their concept didn't emphasize STR and they no longer got a significant benefit from being really strong.

3. I grandfathered the remaining characters by awarding them extra points to cover their extra cost, but then penalized them, by awarding half XP, until those extra costs had been "repaid" - at which point everyone was on an equal footing again.

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

actually he's asking to build them with the 2;1 and then see if they're even or Powergirl gets consistently crushed. Anyway energyguy seems a very poor antibrick build and powergirl a pretty good anti energy projector build. It seems to me its relatively easy to build a character who can take down another specific type of character anyway.

 

I agree: it's why I stuck with the original two character builds. At 2:1 OR 1:1, you could build an energy protector to take down a specific STR build - you could then (at either cost) make a STR-based build to take down the original Energy projector, and so on, ad infinitum. That's a pointless exercise.

 

The only reason I played around with build at all is because we were presented with two builds where some care had been taken to make them as equivalent as possible. It was trivial to show that the STR build was the stronger of the two. I also tackled the specific suggestion that it would impossible to build an effective competitor at a STR cost of 2:1 to show that in fact, that too could be done.

 

However, no-one here is suggesting that a character based around STR is always undefeatable: that's simply not the case. All that was being pointed out is that characters built around a cost of 1:1 have some formidable advantages - and that there's an easy, and very playable - fix.

 

cheers, Mark

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I agree: it's why I stuck with the original two character builds. At 2:1 OR 1:1, you could build an energy protector to take down a specific STR build - you could then (at either cost) make a STR-based build to take down the original Energy projector, and so on, ad infinitum. That's a pointless exercise.

 

The only reason I played around with build at all is because we were presented with two builds where some care had been taken to make them as equivalent as possible. It was trivial to show that the STR build was the stronger of the two. I also tackled the specific suggestion that it would impossible to build an effective competitor at a STR cost of 2:1 to show that in fact, that too could be done.

 

However, no-one here is suggesting that a character based around STR is always undefeatable: that's simply not the case. All that was being pointed out is that characters built around a cost of 1:1 have some formidable advantages - and that there's an easy, and very playable - fix.

 

cheers, Mark

 

 

Fair enough. I suppose but the characters construction seems too pat to make the point. They are just not equivalent characters to me. arguments based around them seem vastly less valid than other arguments.Your points are well made but some of Hugh's are also Its just that using those builds as a centerpiece doesn't prove anything to me.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

HA does need to be adjusted' date=' because it functions as a limited form of STR - it's the damage part of STR with the leaping, lifted and figured CHA cut out. The fact that HA's costed at 5 AP with a "[i']limitation that isn't a limitation but is worth points anyway[/i]" tacked on is simply a tacit admission that the pricing regimen is wrong.

 

You thus end up with:

 

STR (full bennies) = 10 per 1d6 attack

STR (no figured CHA) = 7.5 points per DC

 

Why does giving up 11 points of Figured on +10 STR save only 5 points? This is an issue under the existing model as well, but I thought the whole point of your model was to make price and functionality match. Of course, if we make the "No Figured" limit -1 (so we save 10 points for giving up 11 points - still a slight deficit) all of your other computations fall apart.

 

STR (no figured CHA, no leaping) = 6.5 points per DC (you get this cost just by selling back 1" of leaping)

STR (no figured CHA, no leaping, no lift) = 5 points (this is HA)

 

That's not HA. HA does not add to Grabs, Pushes, Escapes or Throws (off the top of my head), or to HKA's. This is not so limited.

 

Where is that extra MA DC? That's STR that adds to damage, Grabs, Pushes, Escapes or Throws and adds half to base damage of HKA's, but only for Martial Arts maneuvers. Most martial artists use those maneuvers pretty much exclusively, so they get a lot more than "just damage" for a very marginal limitation.

 

At this level' date=' nothing else needs re-balancing.[/quote']

 

As you can see, we don't necessarily agree in this regard.

 

The +1/2 advantage for "adds STR" or "range" now falls into balance alongside HA/EB and HKA/RKA. STR keeps its special END cost because you only pay END on the attack part - the HA: it doesn't cost you end to have more STUN' date=' for example. TK's pricing also makes sense: it's STR without figured CHA or leaping that doesn't add to STR, but [b']is[/b] usuable at range and does include lifting capacity.

 

You're not paying extra END for the ability to Grab, Push, lift, etc. "Having Figured's", in your analysis, has a value of 2.5 points, and he's paying END on 5 points. What happened to the extra 2.5 points?

 

Compare that to the current cost structure where you can buy:

1d6 HA for 5 active 3 real

or

5 STR for 5 active and - selling off 1 REC - for 3 real (no figured CHA is a really bad deal for STR at a cost of 1:1, tho' it makes sense at 2:1). If leaping isn't a figured characteristic (and I assume it's not, since it is not listed as such) then you can sell back an inch there to reduce STR to an real cost of 2 points per d6 - and you get free STUN and PD! So for every 2 points you spend on STR, using that construct, you get a free (improved) HA, plus 3.5 points of figured CHA

 

Compare to your costs, above, where you can buy +10 STR, no figured, for 15 points, or buy +10 STR and sell back the 5 STUN for 5 points, paying the same 15 points buy getting +2 REC and +2 PD. He can also sell back his leaping, based on your model.

 

*one thing that does need to be taken into account is that a change potentially affects every existing character' date=' since as noted very few have an STR of exactly 10. Fortunately, however the change is extremely easy to implement. Most NPCs I simply gave extra points to, to cover the new cost, or reduced the total cost of those with reduced STR. For NPCs I had always designed more to concept than points efficiency, so they already ranged more in STR than PCs. A few I simply reduced STR on, since the definition of what was "strong" in game terms had decreased.[/quote']

 

Any change of significance will impact a lot of characters. C'est la vie. Changing the cost, changing the figured formuli - there's no superior choice from the perspective of "keep the published characters unchanged".

 

So, since your high STR characters were now higher point characters, did the PC's get extra xp for defeating these "more powerful foes"?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Fair enough. I suppose but the characters construction seems too pat to make the point. They are just not equivalent characters to me. arguments based around them seem vastly less valid than other arguments.

 

I think they serve a limited illustrative purpose. However, I also think the EB buying +8" of leaping is not functional, and making them able to do "exactly the same things" (which they don't do perfectly) discounts the fact that characters are generally designed to do different things, not be functionally equivalent in al respects. EB Guy isn't "as powerful" as Brick because they can do the exact same things, but because their respective strengths and weaknesses more or less offset to the same extent.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I think they serve a limited illustrative purpose. However' date=' I also think the EB buying +8" of leaping is not functional, and making them able to do "exactly the same things" (which they don't do perfectly) discounts the fact that characters are generally designed to do different things, not be functionally equivalent in al respects. EB Guy isn't "as powerful" as Brick because they can do the exact same things, but because their respective strengths and weaknesses more or less offset to the same extent.[/quote']

 

So well said I would love to rep you, but unfortunatly I must spread the love

[Kenn]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

So well said I would love to rep you' date=' but unfortunatly I must spread the love[/quote']

 

I don't have to spread the love. I repped Hugh.

[caris]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I think they serve a limited illustrative purpose. However' date=' I also think the EB buying +8" of leaping is not functional, and making them able to do "exactly the same things" (which they don't do perfectly) discounts the fact that characters are generally designed to do different things, not be functionally equivalent in al respects. EB Guy isn't "as powerful" as Brick because they can do the exact same things, but because their respective strengths and weaknesses more or less offset to the same extent.[/quote']

 

Unfortunately, Power Woman doesn't need those extra 8" of Leaping either, which means that she gets to sell them back, if he doesn't have to buy them.

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I am starting to wish there were more discussion of Hugh Neilson's proposal to change the cost of the figured characteristics. The more I think about it, the more viable it seems.

 

I'm even thinking that perhaps END should cost 1:10 like END in an END Reserve.

 

But in that case, I still think Adjustment Powers on such Figured Characteristics need more than the "Half effect for Defensive Powers" adjustment.

 

The thing is, other than that, I am not seeing a downside. Is there some argument AGAINST the proposal that I'm not seeing?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Even the palindromedary isn't finding the other side of the argument yet.....

[Nekkidcarpenter]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Once upon a time early in Chumps Lore, Growth bricks were ubiquitous. The benefits far outweighed the penalties, and it's just cool being Giant sized.

 

Now they're rare at best, the occasional villain or character who doesn't need to worry about efficiency and has enough points to spend so he doesn't care that the Martial Artist is going to Sweep him 4 times, or the Weapon master is unloading an autofire attack into his ass.

 

Sure, buying Growth gives you plenty of justification for buying AoE attacks and increased Pre, etc. but you can also buy those things without reducing your DCV prohibitively and having a power that makes it difficult for your character to be effective indoors.

 

I miss the days when Growth was really good.

 

I'm firmly of the opinion that those people who are arguing how Str is too efficient are the same bastards that nerfed Growth.

 

I hate you guys.

[Fedifensor]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Going off on a slight tangent, my thought about the "No Figured Characteristics" limitation is that it should be worth -1/4, with an additional -1/4 per figured characteristic for the primary one. So Dexterity and Body would still be worth -1/2, but Strength would be worth -1 and Constitution would be worth -1 1/4.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Going off on a slight tangent' date=' my thought about the "No Figured Characteristics" limitation is that it should be worth -1/4, with an additional -1/4 per figured characteristic for the primary one. So Dexterity and Body would still be worth -1/2, but Strength would be worth -1 and Constitution would be worth -1 1/4.[/quote']

 

Or maybe just a -1/4 per does not include (So Does not include Stun, Does not include...) I think there might be even more balance issues with hte idea, but interexting

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I wasn't even around when growth was nerfed

 

I lost a long post on the topic of figureds (why can't webbrowsers save things you type when they quit/crash?). Aaaanyway.

 

I think the problem with changing figureds is the one that gets quoted for strength, but it's way clearer. I can easily argue that after changing STR I have to look at HA and possibly MDC, but after that, we can come by with some limitations and changing values for them, see the couple posts above this one.

 

But if you change PD/ED, that's not the case. Since Armor (or just "Resistant"), Force Field, Mental Defense (and to a tiny extent Power Defense and Flash Defense) are all working exactly on the same principle, we would have to look at these. If PD was only 1/2 of a point, why would you ever bother to buy Force Field for twice as much and in addition you pay END for it. Just make the PD resistant, it's cheaper AND better. And then you get to armor (though it's not so clear cut, as armor is also mispriced by being IPE and persistent for free, but we usually don't bother with these, and if you changed the cost to reflect that, people would probably take "visible" and "nonpersistent", to make it affordable, but that's another discussion), and after you're through Armor, you might want to look at Mental Defense, since that is suddenly way more expensive than PD, and it is also more limited. And if you change defenses, suddenly some other powers might get involved (Desolid? DR?).

 

Next ist Stun: If you make stun cheaper, people will just have more. That changes average combat length and the "how good are 10d6 EB"-feel. But I don't think that's much of a problem.

 

END: End is ugly. Really ugly. If you let my buy END at 1/10, then I'll spend 10 points. That gives me about 140 End total. If we fight for 2 full turns, I have zero REC and a speed of 6, I can burn through more than 11 END per phase, that's 12d6 EB (6) + 20/20 FF (4) + moving (1) without breaking a sweat. And since rec is also cheap, you can easily ignore END altogether. END Reserve *is* way too cheap and highly abusable, and for that reason we don't allow it in the general case, or charge advantages on powers using it, or have highly limited REC ("only while doing x").

 

Also, it just strikes me as wrong if you have the problem that str is too useful and then you change everything str affects instead of str. Make str in combat less good, change figureds, change prices of half a dozen figureds, change *how* str interacts. Or just fix the price of str. It's a complicated, powerful construct, so make it cost something. TK is also very expensive, but nobody ever complains that they don't get their value for it. In fact, TK characters are really, really good. See Killer Shrikes comments on the character "Rook" somewhere where he states that even though the character was not unbalancing, he was extremly powerful.

 

No, I'm pretty sure if you change the prices of figureds, you would need to work over the system.

 

Now why is that? Simple: Figureds have more relevance than primaries. Primaries are used to roll dice, and that's about it. Figureds tell you how long you live (stun), how much you can do (end), how fast you can do it again (rec) and how fast you can do it (speed), and to boot, how much you can take (pd/ed). All figureds are useful to all characters (with rare exceptions). EGO, PRE, INT, BODY, CON, COM have low relevance a lot of the time, STR is underpriced and only DEX is really important. You can easily play a character with 10 in all stats if you buy enough defenses and an EB, only ocv is a poblem. But even if you have a 100 in all primaries, if you run around with 5 PD/ED and 5 stun, you'll not going to be doing much.

Controversially, many pimaries are strangely priced:

- EGO comes to mind. EGO does nearly nothing for non-mentalists and doesn't have many skills coming from it. Ok, you can do EGO-rolls against your psychlims, but how often does that happen? And if you buy it against your own psychlims, that's stupid! And then the Mentalist will have an ECV of 8+, so even if you have 20 EGO, he'll crush your puny defenses anyway.

- PRE: If you don't plan on using PRE Attacks, leave it at 10. On the other hand, if you want to use social skills, buy PRE. It's cheaper than any social skill levels you could get and has quite big advantages over levels.

- CON: Secondaries Package Deal + "Harder to stun". That's like "PD/ED, only against getting stunned -1.5". Still strange price. If you decouple CON from secondaries, you end up with a cost of 1/2 to 1.

- COM: has no RAW use at all. Buy PRE with SFX of goodlooking?

 

But that was a rant.

 

How to price No Figureds: it's ok if you get less than what you actually pay for. (Str for 2:1, NF: -1/2). If you take limitations inside frameworks, the cost break is also heavily limited. Ultraslots in MPs go from 5 to 2 points, ECs are only half calculated, VPPs only get "more powers", not "stronger powers", etc. You just should not get more than what you pay for.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

How to price No Figureds: it's ok if you get less than what you actually pay for. (Str for 2:1' date=' NF: -1/2). If you take limitations inside frameworks, the cost break is also heavily limited. Ultraslots in MPs go from 5 to 2 points, ECs are only half calculated, VPPs only get "more powers", not "stronger powers", etc. [b']You just should not get more than what you pay for.[/b]

 

I find these statements contradictory. Either it is important you get what you pay for - no more and no less - or it isn't. The only way to value any one abilityis to measure it against other abilities. If some abilities are systemically overpriced, the system is skewed.

 

I agree that ou can't change the price of PD or ED. Those link to other abilities. I don't agree that lower priced STUN, REC or END would mean everyone buys it up. Right now, very few buy them up. Buying more defenses or Damage Reduction is virtually always selected over more STUN and REC. Buying reduced END is similarly common as compared to buying more END and more REC. Why?

 

Because one is more efficient for the points. So let's lower the cost of the weaker choice to bring it back in line - and fix the "STR and CON grant more than their cost" conundrum at the same time.

 

That doesn't mean END drops to 1/10 of a point. If you'll read my post on the matter, I psopose a much lesser drop. But a drop nevertheless - perhaps then we'll see some characters buy up STUN/END/REC rather than Defenses/Damage Reduction/Reduced END. But then, I prefer to encourage variety over homogoneity.

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Oh, ok, I was going for the 1:10 which I think does not work, and I though one would also go for something like that for stun. I can absolutely agree with changing costs of stun and end slightly, since I also think they are a tiny bit too expensive (or rather: other things are cheaper). Everytime I buy END/STUN on a first sketch of a character, later on these are converted to other things (Con and defenses mostly).

 

And my contradiction makes sense:

- Never give out things for free.

- If someone wants to have something unusual, it's ok to charge them extra.

 

Look at it like this: If someone wants to take STR, no figureds, he will have a reason, either he's getting above campaign standards, or has some neat tricks planned or whatever. And he needs these cost-savings because else it would not be affordable or break the game (eg. DC cap). On the other hand, if you give out free stuff for certain things, be prepared that everyone wants it. (EGO/5 Mental Defense for free if I have 1 point? Oh, I'm so going to take 1 point if I have 20 EGO!). But I've seen pretty "bad" or overpriced power constructs work very well.

[JmOz]

Oh, ok, I was going for the 1:10 which I think does not work, and I though one would also go for something like that for stun. I can absolutely agree with changing costs of stun and end slightly, since I also think they are a tiny bit too expensive (or rather: other things are cheaper). Everytime I buy END/STUN on a first sketch of a character, later on these are converted to other things (Con and defenses mostly).

 

And my contradiction makes sense:

- Never give out things for free.

- If someone wants to have something unusual, it's ok to charge them extra.

 

Look at it like this: If someone wants to take STR, no figureds, he will have a reason, either he's getting above campaign standards, or has some neat tricks planned or whatever. And he needs these cost-savings because else it would not be affordable or break the game (eg. DC cap). On the other hand, if you give out free stuff for certain things, be prepared that everyone wants it. (EGO/5 Mental Defense for free if I have 1 point? Oh, I'm so going to take 1 point if I have 20 EGO!). But I've seen pretty "bad" or overpriced power constructs work very well.

 

 

So by your logic, EC have to go as well

 

John has

 

60 30" Flight

60 12/12 FW

60 12d6 EB

60 30/30 FF

60 40 STR TK

 

For 300 points

 

Hal has

30 EC

30 30" Flight

30 12/12 FW

30 12d6 EB

30 30/30 FF

30 40 STR TK

 

For 180 points, Hal has obviously got something (Actualy 2 powers) for free

 

AS for the want something unusual it is okay to charge extra...No

 

Point totals should be based on how USEFUL a power is, not on how unusual it is. and this is a core element to the str or other characteristics discusion, in most games (other than champions) Str is not the be all some here are making it out to be, it is useful, it has value, but it is not a game breaking ability, for one reason because it takes high levels (Like you would find in a champions game) to get very useful. In a champions game, as I admit that str is more useful there, it should be noted how many otherways there are to save points

 

Now in my experience, in Heroic scale games, the 3 most overpowering things have been

1) Wealth, and the free equipment it brings with it

2) Marital arts (especialy packages of 12-15 points worth)

3) CSL's (normaly the 2-3 point variety)

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

You are misunderstanding my point here. The whole idea of an EC is point-savings. Compare this:

 

MP 60 points

EB 12d6, extra time 24hours: 1cp

RKA 4d6, end cost x10: 1cp

 

EB 12d6, extra time 24hours: about 10cp?

RKA 4d6, end cost x10 (-4): 12cp

 

The second example is better (arguably still pointless) and at the same time a lot cheaper. If you get a good deal (Framework), you don't get even more for minor changes.

 

And if you make no figureds calculated off real costs, you basically split figureds off completely. I can agree with that

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

You are misunderstanding my point here. The whole idea of an EC is point-savings. Compare this:

 

MP 60 points

EB 12d6, extra time 24hours: 1cp

RKA 4d6, end cost x10: 1cp

 

EB 12d6, extra time 24hours: about 10cp?

RKA 4d6, end cost x10 (-4): 12cp

 

The second example is better (arguably still pointless) and at the same time a lot cheaper. If you get a good deal (Framework), you don't get even more for minor changes.

 

And if you make no figureds calculated off real costs, you basically split figureds off completely. I can agree with that

 

 

AND the whole point of Primary Characteristics is they save you points, they save you more points than things like EC's as you have no/little choice in what is there...the black box framework as others have said.

 

 

 

* Except COM...WHich I would love droped and incorporated into Rep

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Well, there is one difference. I can define my Multipower with any SFX I want. I cannot do so with strength. And for that reason, strength should not be a framework in itself, but be a power, which can be put into frameworks if deemed worthy.

 

In my oppinion, ECs are meant to save you points, nothing else. But Characterstics are not designed for that purpose, as you can see with EGO, INT or PRE. They are useful, most characters dip into some and have high ones, but they can choose. You are not a stronger or weaker character if you put 20 points into EGO or 20 points into PRE. It more or less works out (as good as balancing can be). But the guy who puts 20 points into strength is unrivaled by anyone else (in fact, there is no other choice less than buying the same power as he has to be equivalent in powerlevel for the same price), see examples beforehand. Therefore str is mispriced. I thought that was obvious by now, after looking at my two example characters.

And I thought you liked diversity? In reality, str:1 makes anyone have the same strength: "A lot". You are not required to buy it, and many don't do, because they stick with the concept, but if you do that, you don't need pointcosts anyway.

 

So I stick to my guns: If a player takes a weird powerconstruct and that does not perfectly work out pointwise for him to be cheap, that's ok. Never build a system around the idea that everything should cost at most what it's worth, because that system will have thousands of loopholes. Build the system so that you pay what you get, and possibly you pay too much if you try to be tricky. That still leaves you with the choice of doing something else or cutting a deal with the GM. But if something is way too cheap, that's harder to stop. Assume there was a printed limitation "Free points: -2" (without any effect) and an advantage "Rules Free +1" (with the rule set: "Allows you to break AP limits set by the GM" Obviously abusive. Obviously the GM can stop it. But it's a hassle to step in at every single powerconstruct, if that could have been prevented with solid rules from the beginning.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Why can't you define a f/x for strength?

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Why can't you define a f/x for strength?

 

Because it's already there. "Being strong for some reason". It's not "being able to lift stuff for some reason, because that is TK or (str: no figured), both don't give secondaries."

And that also does not solve the balance problem.

 

We've also been through that, read the thread.