Discussion on costs of Characteristics

[Kenn]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

No no... not "anyone that likes the system as-is"' date=' but "anyone that hasn't tried the alternate method". Of course they're less informed; they haven't had both experiences. Someone who's tried chocolate both with and without peanut butter is more informed (and can make a more informed decision) than one who hasn't tried it with peanut butter.[/quote']

 

No not less informed. Differently informed.

 

Person 1 has tried chocolate without peanut butter and chocolate with peanut butter.

 

Person 2 has tried chocolate without peanut butter, and knows he has a peanut allergy.

 

Person 1 may think chocolate with peanut butter tastes better. Person 2 can explain why peanut butter shouldn't be added to ALL chocolate products.

[Tonio]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Tonio: YOu are under the false assumption that those of us who argue against 2:1 have never experienced it

 

Although I can certainly appreciate how you'd come to that conclusion, I'm not assuming that. I was supporting the validity of Markdoc's argument, not the truthfulness of his statements:

 

Not deterministic' date=' and I won't comment on the veracity of the statements (because I honestly don't know), but certainly a valid one.[/quote']

 

See?

 

Except we aren't saying the picture is no good. All of us have admitted that the picture quality is better. What we are saying is' date=' that yes, while the picture quality is better, we need to balance the cost of a $2000 television versus a $400 television and six months of car payments.[/quote']

 

Well, not all of you have admitted that. With respects to the rest of your argument... I agree! My solution, though, is even pricier than simply raising the price of STR to 2:1. I'd split STR into two (like someone mentioned... um, Sean, was it? Not sure, my apologies!), and get rid of Figureds (which also fixes another problem). I feel it's worth it, though. I don't think the trouble is too high a price to pay.

[Tonio]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

No not less informed. Differently informed.

 

Person 1 has tried chocolate without peanut butter and chocolate with peanut butter.

 

Person 2 has tried chocolate without peanut butter, and knows he has a peanut allergy.

 

Person 1 may think chocolate with peanut butter tastes better. Person 2 can explain why peanut butter shouldn't be added to ALL chocolate products.

 

I see your point, and it's a good one. Two comments, though:

 

Person 1 really is more informed, unless he doesn't know people can be allergic to peanuts.

 

Also, the analogous argument to his, regarding the STR issue, would be "because there exist people who would stop playing HERO altogether if the ruels regarding STR were changed to 'fix' the underpriced STR issue, the rules should not be changed in such a way that there is no option to play with STR as it exists currently". That is actually pretty unrealistic, since I believe very few people would actually quit HERO if the price of STR were changed, or it were split, or whatever, mostly because it's not such a cataclismic change, and because there is always the option to use STR as it is currently. The equivalent chocolate situation would exist if people who were allergic to peanuts could remove the peanut butter from chocolate products that included it without suffering any adverse effects. If so, and everybody agreed chocolate tasted better with peanut butter, and if it were NOT an option to have some products with, some without, then I'd think the best solution would be to include peanut butter with all chocolate products, no?

[Tonio]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I'm obviously going to have to watch how I frame my arguments around you.

 

I'd like to think you (or anybody else) wouldn't have to do that... I think I can pretty much "see around" badly expressed arguments. I only nitpick when it's of no consequence. I'm not gonna go "aha! you forgot to properly categorize the subjects of your statements! I win!". (In fact, I'm not even sure what I just said there makes any sense... but it sounds vaguely "logic-y".)

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I see your point, and it's a good one. Two comments, though:

 

Person 1 really is more informed, unless he doesn't know people can be allergic to peanuts.

 

Also, the analogous argument to his, regarding the STR issue, would be "because there exist people who would stop playing HERO altogether if the ruels regarding STR were changed to 'fix' the underpriced STR issue, the rules should not be changed in such a way that there is no option to play with STR as it exists currently". That is actually pretty unrealistic, since I believe very few people would actually quit HERO if the price of STR were changed, or it were split, or whatever, mostly because it's not such a cataclismic change, and because there is always the option to use STR as it is currently. The equivalent chocolate situation would exist if people who were allergic to peanuts could remove the peanut butter from chocolate products that included it without suffering any adverse effects. If so, and everybody agreed chocolate tasted better with peanut butter, and if it were NOT an option to have some products with, some without, then I'd think the best solution would be to include peanut butter with all chocolate products, no?

 

I think you underestimate how many people feel that you should not mess with characteristics. I do feel that the option for increasing the cost should be talked about more in the main rule book, and not be dismissed as I feel it is to some extent. I would like to see at least a few pages dedicated to the pro's and con's, the cascading effect, etc of changing costs, espesialy on characteristics, and not with the semi-dismisivness I get when I read the section in the rule book now.

 

Having said that, i would say 1:1 as the standard,

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Can we imagine a character with a 60 STR but the Stun and REC of a normal human?

 

If so, shouldn't we be able to build it without giving away character points (you can't buy down more than one figured characteristic, at least not to get points back). Why should figured characteristics be figured at all? If we are going to all this trouble to balance them, why not disconnect from primaries, and recost THEM as necessary? CON would definitely be cheaper. STR not so much.

 

Oh, and just as a note: page 20.

 

 

I can but it should NOT be any sort of default condition and I would say just buy if the no figured characteristics limitation. if it isn't perfectly efficient too bad. You don't throw out a decent system for a frankly bizarre exception that should take lower priority than the more common build.

disconnecting figures still seems to me a mechanics over ease of construction, logic and genre simulation but I guess its just me.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

No not less informed. Differently informed.

 

Person 1 has tried chocolate without peanut butter and chocolate with peanut butter.

 

Person 2 has tried chocolate without peanut butter, and knows he has a peanut allergy.

 

Person 1 may think chocolate with peanut butter tastes better. Person 2 can explain why peanut butter shouldn't be added to ALL chocolate products.

 

The analogy is fundementally flawed, there's no allergy component to Hero rules. So it goes

 

Person 1 has tried chocolate without peanut butter and chocolate with peanut butter.

 

Person 2 has tried chocolate without peanut butter, and has not tried chocolate with peanut butter.

 

Person 1 may think chocolate with peanut butter tastes better. Person 2 may suspect that chocolate with peanut butter does not taste better.

 

Somewhat less compelling when you take out the 'Someone will get sick and die' element.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The analogy is fundementally flawed, there's no allergy component to Hero rules. So it goes

 

Person 1 has tried chocolate without peanut butter and chocolate with peanut butter.

 

Person 2 has tried chocolate without peanut butter, and has not tried chocolate with peanut butter.

 

Person 1 may think chocolate with peanut butter tastes better. Person 2 may suspect that chocolate with peanut butter does not taste better.

 

Somewhat less compelling when you take out the 'Someone will get sick and die' element.

 

but that is faulty as well, because there are alot more sides to this than 2

 

Person 1 has tried both, likes it with peanut butter

 

Person 2 has tried both and dislikes it with peanut butter

 

Person 3 has tried both and thinks that it's better to have choclate that you can dip into peanut butter when you want it

 

Person 4 has eaten it with peanut butter for so long h e has forgoten that plain is fine as well

 

Person 5 has never had it with peanut butter

 

I can go on and on and on, to bring it down to two sides is not the truth of the matter

 

By the way, while I argue for person 2, I am firmly a person 3

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

but that is faulty as well, because there are alot more sides to this than 2

 

Person 1 has tried both, likes it with peanut butter

 

Person 2 has tried both and dislikes it with peanut butter

 

Person 3 has tried both and thinks that it's better to have choclate that you can dip into peanut butter when you want it

 

Person 4 has eaten it with peanut butter for so long h e has forgoten that plain is fine as well

 

Person 5 has never had it with peanut butter

 

I can go on and on and on, to bring it down to two sides is not the truth of the matter

 

By the way, while I argue for person 2, I am firmly a person 3

 

Actually I covered most of those by using the fuzzy 'MAY' in the result.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Never was good with fuzzy logic, but the point, while quoting you, was to stop for everyone looking at it as such armed camps and realise that the issue is greater than anyone's pet fix, opposed to chalanging what you were saying

[Kenn]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I wasn't trying to imply that the situations were fully comparable. Only that it's possible to forsee consequences without actually trying something.

 

I do not need to try playing with a reconfigured characteristics system to recognise that to reconfiguring the characteristics system would be disasterous to my campaign; that the benefits would be negligible, and the complications high.

[Kenn]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I can but it should NOT be any sort of default condition and I would say just buy if the no figured characteristics limitation. if it isn't perfectly efficient too bad. You don't throw out a decent system for a frankly bizarre exception that should take lower priority than the more common build.

disconnecting figures still seems to me a mechanics over ease of construction, logic and genre simulation but I guess its just me.

 

No. It's not just you.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

No. It's not just you.

 

 

It usually is! I'm so happy! Nuts, I must spread rep around before I can give you any.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Okay, this is starting to bug me –

 

Unless I missed it, NO ONE is proposing the change the price of PD and ED.

I never said otherwise. As I understood it (and it seems to be confirmed by Hugh in the post immediately following yours), Hugh's re-figuring of figureds changes the amount of PD and ED granted by STR and CON. They would no longer grant the same amount, under his version, as they do in the standard rules. This *seems* a little bit odd to me. It isn't necessarily a problem, it just seems "better" if they each grant the same amount of their respective defenses. I never said anything about changing the prices of PD and ED, not did I say or imply that he did, either.

 

Thank you. I would disagree with some of this proposal…but then, maybe I just need to think about it more and suppress my “knee-jerk” reactions.

I don't necessarily agree with it either. I was just putting out my own ideas (which I haven't actually tried out in play), after thinking and figuring a bit. I think they might be workable, or at least worth trying, but I still think I prefer the simpler solution of making STR cost 2.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

And I don't think CON is providing enough Figured under this model - being resistant to being Stunned should not be well over half the cost of CON.

It isn't. It's only 27.5% of the cost. 10 points would get you 5 points of CON, which gives you 2.5 STUN (worth 1.25), 10 points of END (worth 5), and 1 REC (worth 1). 1.25+5+1=7.25. 10-7.25 = 2.75.

 

When I looked at my model, I ended up moving more points into CON. We've always gotten equal REC and STUN from STR and CON, so we're used to that concept. But should it be that way? Is being muscular equally important in granting REC and STUN to being healthy and having good stamina? I'd rather make REC and STUN more a function of CON and less of STR. Plus, I'd rather have CON grant more Figured and STR grant less. Maybe CON could also grant 1/5 PD and ED - that would make 11.25 points of Figured for +10 CON - a bit closer to reasonable.

That is a possibility. It just seems to me like STR and CON ought to be "parallel" in the granting of PD/ED, REC, and STUN. I don't really have an argument as to why, other than that that's the way it always has been (which seems to be a standard argument against *any* changes).

 

In any event, I certainly don't see a need to make CON grant *more* points in figured than it already does!

 

There are game/genre/setting considerations in the formulas/pricing of secondary stats as well. If END becomes too cheap, fatigue never becomes an issue, and that is a common source of drama in source material of various kinds. In many modern/realistic/low-tech settings, physical damage is much more commong than energy damage, so ED becomes much less important than PD. In quasi-historical/fantasy settings, Killing attacks are the norm, making STUN and normal defenses relatively less important when compared to BODY and Resistant defenses. After all, you don't capture orcs and notice the proper authorities - you kill them. And vice-versa: they don't simply try to defeat and humiliate you, and put you into the cliff-hanger death trap - they just try to kill you.

 

In my own games, I want characters to get tired once in a while, so I don't want to lower the cost of END.

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I want to come back to the “free equipment” issue. The fact that most equipment, especially in fantasy games, enhances STR and is carried by STR enhances the value of STR in such games. Assessing a point cost (equipment VPP; resource points) eliminates this disparity.

 

The general counterargument is that there is a logical disconnect when Brian the Barbarian cannot pick up a suit of armor without divesting of other gear. I agree that’s a logical disconnect. But we ignore a lot of logical disconnects caused by the requirement that points be spent to acquire new abilities. How is the need to divest of other equipment to retain new equipment on a long-term basis any less logical than:

 

Long-term adventuring companions and friends Leopold the Learned and Trigar the Traveler have a problem. They are trapped by a cave-in. They have plenty of air, and there’s a small underground lake with potable water and fish. They even have fishing gear. They can survive indefinitely, but can’t get out.

 

To pass the time, Leopold (who speaks 27 languages and has PS: Language Teaching at 17-) will teach Trigar (who speaks 19 languages) to speak Auld Wyrmish. Once he learns that, they’ll move on to some other language they don’t share. Eighteen months later, they are rescued by a group that speaks only Auld Wyrmish. They travel with these people for another year, peacefully, acquiring no XP. In that 30 months, since Trigar has no points to spend, he has not learned a single word of Auld Wyrmish. Yet he clearly has linguistic skills, has been trained by an expert for 18 months and has been immersed in the language for another 12. How logical is that?

 

Not only is it illogical: it is not according to the Rules as Written. Check Page 555 in FRED Jr. Assigned Experience Points. In previous editions, it was even more explicit that in situations like you describe, Trigar would be able to gain experience to learn a language.

 

Wulfgar the Wondrous Wizard has found a scroll. It is of a fairly simple spell, and was created by his old mentor, now deceased, who taught him the Arts Arcane. Wulfgar can cast much more complex spells, and he now has a detailed roadmap on how to cast this one, crafted in the style in which he learned magic from the outset. Yet he cannot learn to cast this spell without investing points.

 

In Hero, we accept that characters spend points to acquire new abilities. In both cases above, we would say “Circumstances justify Trigar/Wulfgar purchasing a language/spell with XP, but he must spend the points to acquire the ability.” How is that any more logical, or less justifiable, than saying that circumstances justify Brian buying a higher equipment pool, or new equipment, but that he must spend the points to acquire the ability? They all stick to the model that there must be both an in-game explanation and a spending of character points to acquire new abilities. They all seem illogical if the character points are not spent. But, for some reason, we readily accept two and vehemently decry the third.

 

There’s another major difference between the situations; In the case of learning a language or spell, it is the CHARACTER ITSELF that is gaining something that is presumably permanent; in the case of equipment, we are talking about not abilities, per se, but possessions. They can be more easily gained and more easily lost.

 

So, let me make sure: Anyone that likes the system as-is is, by definition, less informed about the decision making process than people that aren't satisfied.

.

 

No: The argument is that anyone who has experienced both of two alternatives has a more credible opinion that someone who has experienced only one of two alternatives.

See this comment from JimOZ for example:

 

The first post is to bring up my true thuoghts on this once again. As a GM I have ran Str at 1.5, 2, 3. I have ran Ego at 1, 1.5, 2, 3. Dex as gone as high as 5 (But I was a player not a GM). I have no problems changing characteristics to get the feel I want in the game, but a conversation like this has to be about the default, not the "In my fantasy game I only want dedicated warriors to be STR 15 so I will raise str to help steer players in that direction

 

Tonio: YOu are under the false assumption that those of us who argue against 2:1 have never experienced it, for some of us we have, and we might even see some advantages to it, but those advantages have a cost, and when, at least for me, those advantages are less than the cost, well you get me arguing the point

 

No one can accuse JimOz of “not having tried it.”

 

As I still have never seen a problem with strength (other than mathamatical, which means NOTHING once the game has started), please tell me what problems you have seen.

 

Please note the following I do not consider a problem

1) Characters tended to have higher STR's than a normal person

2) Anything to do with character generation, I want in game problems

 

I will note that when I asked for problems 1:1 generated that did not fall into one of two camps no one responded, makes you think doesn't it.

 

Well, the first thing I think is: “He made a post, and then in three and a quarter hours he says ‘no one responded….’” – not allowing a lot of time for responses, are you?

 

The second thing I think is: “He’s already heard from people talking about problems that don’t fit into those categories. To wit, I don’t think anyone at all has complained specifically about 'characters tended to have higher STR than a normal person.' People have complained that ‘characters tend to have higher STR than is needed for their concept’ and ‘characters who have low STR are penalized even if that is in concept for them’ and ‘players tend to avoid concepts that are low STR due to being penalized for it.’”

 

I never said otherwise. As I understood it (and it seems to be confirmed by Hugh in the post immediately following yours), Hugh's re-figuring of figureds changes the amount of PD and ED granted by STR and CON. They would no longer grant the same amount, under his version, as they do in the standard rules. This *seems* a little bit odd to me. It isn't necessarily a problem, it just seems "better" if they each grant the same amount of their respective defenses. I never said anything about changing the prices of PD and ED, not did I say or imply that he did, either.

 

Then I must have misunderstood you, and perhaps did not look closely enough at Mr. Neilson’s suggestion. I’m not sure how I feel about changing the relationship of STR and CON to PD and ED.

 

My immediate (there I go, kneejerking again…) reaction is that it may be workable and worthwhile.

 

In my own games, I want characters to get tired once in a while, so I don't want to lower the cost of END.

 

The rules already allow for STR in Heroic games to cost more END. If we reduce the cost of END – say, to 1:4, half the current cost – and then double the END cost of Powers, we have not changed that part of the dynamic, but we HAVE changed the value of CON in terms of granting END.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary still thinks the positions of the last two figured characteristics should be changed.....

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

As I still have never seen a problem with strength (other than mathamatical, which means NOTHING once the game has started), please tell me what problems you have seen.

 

Please note the following I do not consider a problem

1) Characters tended to have higher STR's than a normal person

2) Anything to do with character generation, I want in game problems

 

The issue(s) that I've seen generally stem around Bricks completely dominating combats in Supers games. So for me increasing the cost of STR makes both mathmatical and practicle sense. The Supers games I've run with STR costing 2 still had bricks, they were still effective, they just weren't the bright and shining center of all things combat.

 

Now, my experience may be different than most as the groups I've played with have had Bricks using power frameworks since the late 80s.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The issue(s) that I've seen generally stem around Bricks completely dominating combats in Supers games. So for me increasing the cost of STR makes both mathmatical and practicle sense. The Supers games I've run with STR costing 2 still had bricks, they were still effective, they just weren't the bright and shining center of all things combat.

 

Now, my experience may be different than most as the groups I've played with have had Bricks using power frameworks since the late 80s.

 

Bricks have dominated your games? WOW, that is a 180 to my experience, literaly. Mentalists have been bad for me, as have been swiss army knives of special attacks, but the single worse has always been the martial artist/weapon master...Bricks have tended to be effective but not shine

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I never said otherwise. As I understood it (and it seems to be confirmed by Hugh in the post immediately following yours)' date=' Hugh's re-figuring of figureds changes the amount of PD and ED granted by STR and CON. They would no longer grant the same amount, under his version, as they do in the standard rules. This *seems* a little bit odd to me. It isn't necessarily a problem, it just seems "better" if they each grant the same amount of their respective defenses. I never said anything about changing the prices of PD and ED, not did I say or imply that he did, either.[/quote']

 

Actually, my restructuring (as opposed to my revisitation of your restructuring) kept PD at STR/5 and ED at CON/5. Does CON need to grant a bunch more? no, not really. But since I both lowered the value of much of what CON grants and shift the focus away from SR, I shifted some value towards CON to compensate, ensuring Joe Normal keeps the same figured stats he has now.

 

I don't necessarily agree with it either. I was just putting out my own ideas (which I haven't actually tried out in play)' date=' after thinking and figuring a bit. I think they might be workable, or at least worth trying, but I still think I prefer the simpler solution of making STR cost 2.[/quote']

 

As soon as someone shows me a comic book acrhetype Brick (not a guy with hand attacks, martial arts or what have you) which can work competetively with 2:1 STR, I will consider it a potentially valid solution. Until I see that, nope.

 

That is a possibility. It just seems to me like STR and CON ought to be "parallel" in the granting of PD/ED' date=' REC, and STUN. I don't really have an argument as to why, other than that that's the way it always has been (which seems to be a standard argument against *any* changes).[/quote']

 

Yup. If we can't change the mix from "how it has always been", we can't change the cost of STR from "how it has always been" either.

 

The issue(s) that I've seen generally stem around Bricks completely dominating combats in Supers games. So for me increasing the cost of STR makes both mathmatical and practicle sense. The Supers games I've run with STR costing 2 still had bricks, they were still effective, they just weren't the bright and shining center of all things combat.

 

Now, my experience may be different than most as the groups I've played with have had Bricks using power frameworks since the late 80s.

 

Bricks have dominated your games? WOW' date=' that is a 180 to my experience, literaly. Mentalists have been bad for me, as have been swiss army knives of special attacks, but the single worse has always been the martial artist/weapon master...Bricks have tended to be effective but not shine[/quote']

 

My experience parallels JmOz. I suspect, however, that in Jtelson's game, Bricks are regularly able to convert their STR into ranged AoE attacks using convenient objects of opportunity, and that this is not such a common occurence in JmOz' games. To really understand the varied effectiveness, one needs a lot more details of the campaign specifics than can practically be covered in posts.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

 

My experience parallels JmOz. I suspect, however, that in Jtelson's game, Bricks are regularly able to convert their STR into ranged AoE attacks using convenient objects of opportunity, and that this is not such a common occurence in JmOz' games. To really understand the varied effectiveness, one needs a lot more details of the campaign specifics than can practically be covered in posts.

 

conveinent yes, but I enforce the Def+ Body, making most such attacks around 8-9d6, where most of the bricks do 10-15d6, so great against grunts, not so much on real threats

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

conveinent yes' date=' but I enforce the Def+ Body, making most such attacks around 8-9d6, where most of the bricks do 10-15d6, so great against grunts, not so much on real threats[/quote']

 

That, to me, means STR is not easily converted to a ranged AoE attack. It is converted into a low powered ranged AoE attack, which creates considerably less of an issue.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Out of curiosity Hugh, do you sometimes feel the Bricks in your Champions games are not strong enough, not in damage, but in the throwing/Lifting area? Or is it just me...

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

My experience parallels JmOz. I suspect' date=' however, that in Jtelson's game, Bricks are regularly able to convert their STR into ranged AoE attacks using convenient objects of opportunity, and that this is not such a common occurence in JmOz' games. To really understand the varied effectiveness, one needs a lot more details of the campaign specifics than can practically be covered in posts.[/quote']

 

Oddly, because of the traditions of all archetypes using power frameworks and frankly a minimal and universal level of tactical consideration in character design, Bricks rarely needed to fallback their ability to convert STR into Ranged attacks or objects into ranged/HtH AOE attacks.

 

So, no it has nothing to do with such things happening frequently since they happened pretty rarely. In fact I've been assuming that their rarity in my campaigns has been why I can't comprehend your desire to fallback on alternate, optional, and house rules about them.

[casualplayer]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The current pricing of STR is not a flaw; it's a feature! A feature that encourages the rippling thews of bodice-ripper cover models or massively muscled supers, a genre bias that betrays its Champions origins. Whether that feature is desirable or perhaps even resented as extraneous and an imposition will color your opinion.

 

There are lots of ways to patch or workaround this "feature." Primarily people run with the current pricing and either subconsciously hamper bricks and/or favor non-bricks, or they are comfortable with the predominance of burliness that is completely genre appropriate. Markdoc and others have adjusted the cost to 2:1 with favorable results, although it sounds like the games may have emulated Low Fantasy and Wild Cards-level Supers. Personally I adjusted NCM for STR to 15 years ago and mandate that characters either take NCM or a comparable Phys Lim to represent their race/species/whatever.

 

Some thoughts that have occured while I was reading this thread but that haven't been playtested follow. No one has argued for a minute that 1 pt of STR doesn't give you more than its cost in corrolary benefits and it's been argued that there is an implicit power framework in STR; what if Adjustment Powers affected STR and all its figured characteristics as if it were an EC? Bookkeeping PITA but appropriate if we reason from effect. People have argued that STR acts far more like a Power than a Characteristic; what if we treat it like a Power with all the drawbacks of such like visible sfx? Maybe characters that don't look any more muscled than a 13 STR Normal should have to buy IPE on their STR? It's been discussed how much of a benefit that the Damage Adds to STR advantage is and how it is essentially "free" for HA; maybe we need to start charging points for that advantage along with the "free" Velocity Adds to Damage advantage that highly favors Bricks?

 

For aesthetics sake, I would love for all primary characteristics to have the same cost per additional point however I don't much care what that arbitrary cost is. I would also like the utility of each primary characteristic to be equal to its cost, and STR is not by a long shot as it's currently priced.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I personaly like the idea of adjustment powers affecting all figured characteristics, it makes very little sense to me to say you have extra stun because of your CON, but if your con is drained you don't have it. Actualy I would go one step higher

 

If you get hit with a drain on a characteristic, all figured characteristics are hit with the same drain (So if you drain 4 str you drain 4 Stun, 2 PD, 2 Rec). Well that might be to sever, say 1/2 the drain effect, so 2 stun, 1 PD (Remember you 1/2 defences) and 1 REC