Discussion on costs of Characteristics

[casualplayer]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Also, decoupling damage and lift has been suggested and could work. THE brick, The Thing, started out with a lift of only (only!) 5 tons but he was able to tear through battleship plating and rip his way out of a Dr. Doom deathtrap, suggesting a heck of a lot more damage dealing capacity than ~40 STR would provide.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I have always been in favor of decoupling Primary Characteristics from Figured Characteristics and recosting them appropriately. Note that these are just thoughts and have not been tested nor are they likely to be since I normally only run convention games these days and stick very close to the published rules.

 

        BASE    COST
STR       10       1
DEX       10       3
CON       10       1
BODY      10       2
INT       10       1
EGO       10       2
PRE       10       1
COM       10       1
PD         2       1
ED         2       1
SPD        2      10
REC        5       1
END       30       1
STUN      25       1

 

Notes:

 

STR stays at 1/1 to keep the balance of 5pts./1d6

 

DEX stays at 3/1 despite losing its SPD contribution because it still offers a lot in terms of what it gives you.

 

CON stays at 2/1 because I think lowering it to 1/1 would result in really high scores and make characters even harder to stun. Perhaps we need to give CON more game effects.

 

BODY stays at 2/1 because of its usefulness.

 

COM goes to 1/1 because I hate 1/2 point costs. I would also want added rules giving COM more real game effects.

 

PD stays at 1/1.

 

ED stays at 1/1.

 

REC goes to 1/1 but I could also see leaving at 2/1 because of its usefulness.

 

SPD stays at 10/1.

 

STUN stays at 1/1.

 

END goes to 1/1 because of the goal of getting rid of 1/2 point costs but I think this is offset by starting at a base of 30.

 

Since these values would drive up the cost of characteristics, I would adjust the starting point values accordingly, probably by about 25 points. That is, a standard superhero would become 375 points (with 225 point base).

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Also' date=' decoupling damage and lift has been suggested and could work. THE brick, The Thing, started out with a lift of only (only!) 5 tons but he was able to tear through battleship plating and rip his way out of a Dr. Doom deathtrap, suggesting a heck of a lot more damage dealing capacity than ~40 STR would provide.[/quote']

 

And here is actualy the biggest difference I can think of, when I think of bricks, I think Superman...

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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.

 

On what basis do you say that a comic book archetype brick does not have, in game terms, hand attacks or martial arts? See casualplayer’s comment:

 

Also' date=' decoupling damage and lift has been suggested and could work. THE brick, The Thing, started out with a lift of only (only!) 5 tons but he was able to tear through battleship plating and rip his way out of a Dr. Doom deathtrap, suggesting a heck of a lot more damage dealing capacity than ~40 STR would provide.[/quote']

 

Also, I think it’s widely understood that, at least as a beginning character, Hero superheroes are not necessarily going to be as powerful as classic, popular, long running comic book characters. Why should that not be as true for “bricks” as it is for everyone else?

 

And here is actualy the biggest difference I can think of' date=' when I think of bricks, I think Superman...[/quote']

 

Superman as he originally appeared – or Superman as what he quickly became, invincible avatar of Incredible Cosmic Power ™ ?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And the Invincible Incredible Cosmic Palindromedary

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

 

Superman as he originally appeared – or Superman as what he quickly became, invincible avatar of Incredible Cosmic Power ™ ?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And the Invincible Incredible Cosmic Palindromedary

 

late silver, early bronze, his powers were cut down, but still very high. I want to emphasise that this is what I think of when people talk about bricks, not that I think they are the way to play most games (The character is WAY WAY to powerful for most games), but it is my first thought.

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Also' date=' decoupling damage and lift has been suggested and could work. THE brick, The Thing, started out with a lift of only (only!) 5 tons but he was able to tear through battleship plating and rip his way out of a Dr. Doom deathtrap, suggesting a heck of a lot more damage dealing capacity than ~40 STR would provide.[/quote']

 

Sure - this sound like STR+HA: quite a common build for Bricks in a game where STR costs 2 points per.

 

cheers, Mark

[casualplayer]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

And here is actualy the biggest difference I can think of' date=' when I think of bricks, I think Superman...[/quote']

 

Superman is almost useless as a point of contention because his powers have never been well defined or gauged. But he actually does bolter the lift/damage decoupling argument because if his damage dealing was commensurate to his planet-pushing strength then all the times he's cut loose he would have turned his target into a pink mist. He recently whaled on Batman, thinking Bats was Darkseid who had just killed Lois, and even with the best Roll with Punch of his life and 30 pts of Combat Luck you don't survive multiple shots of 40+d6.

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

late silver' date=' early bronze, his powers were cut down, but still very high. I want to emphasise that this is what I think of when people talk about bricks, not that I think they are the way to play most games (The character is WAY WAY to powerful for most games), but it is my first thought.[/quote']

 

That does explain a lot. Now if you just try to think "if bricks should be Superman, everyone else should be something equivalent to Superman" (although I'm not sure what THAT would be....)

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary stops to count the proposals so far...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Out of curiosity Hugh' date=' 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...[/quote']

 

I haven't seen this as a problem, but there's no question a 60 SR character doesn't have the same power lift as we see in the comics.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Also' date=' decoupling damage and lift has been suggested and could work. THE brick, The Thing, started out with a lift of only (only!) 5 tons but he was able to tear through battleship plating and rip his way out of a Dr. Doom deathtrap, suggesting a heck of a lot more damage dealing capacity than ~40 STR would provide.[/quote']

 

Marvel's lifts as stated have always directly contradicted their published work. Those objects we often saw Ben Grimm holding up for Reed in early FF issues must have been hollow if they only weighed 5 tons or less.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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' date=' it was even more explicit that in situations like you describe, Trigar would be able to gain experience to learn a language.[/quote']

 

Why can't Brian the Barbarian "gain assigned experience" to pick up that suit of armor he just found? This would at least cause the value of that free equipment to be considered in the point totals and power levels Brian is reaching. If I'm giving it away with no challenges faced for Trigar so he can logically learn languages, why not to Brian so he can logically collect gear?

 

We could even discount the cost of equipment, if desired - Turakian Age cuts the cost of spells to 1/3; we could cut the cost of equipment to 1/3 if we wanted to make it easier to buy for a specific game.

 

It's funny how one of the main criticisms I hear Hero gamers levy against D&D is how too much focus is on "your stuff", but when we suggest Hero be structured so you have to pay for "your stuff", there's a significant negative backlash.

 

There’s another major difference between the situations; In the case of learning a language or spell' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

Those sound like limitations. Note also that I'm not suggesting Brian pay for the armour itself, but for an equipment pool (much like a VPP) large enough to hold the armour, as well as his other gear. The limitations should be taken into account, reducing the cost. But there is still value there. Just like Wulfgar's spells which can be cast only under a full moon with a week's preparation are very limited, but he still has to pay for them.

 

It's a good point' date=' but it's also telling that you needed a fairly contrived example to make the point, whereas problems with with equipment pools arise regularly and routinely. [/quote']

 

A fairly contrived example is good at making the point, but we can downgrade it quite a bit. Why can't two characters with different language skills teach one another these languages while they walk? You can buy gear with money - why can't you pay a swordsmanship instructor with money so he will train you and you can become more skilled with your sword - even if you don't face any real challenges during the period of training, so you don't gain any xp?

 

To a large extent, the reason is "because RPG's in general don't give you free abilities from training - you have to earn xp to improve. But many RPG's allow that gear can normally be bought with money, so that's how we expect it to be." The need to gain xp for character improvement, but not for access to equipment, stems from the fact that this is how we did it in D&D.

 

So yes' date=' I agree that there is a logical disconnect in both cases but the fact that players acquire - and equally importantly, lose - equipment on a regular basis (often multiple times within an evening's play) means that the problem with equipment is a far, far worse problem. [/quote']

 

Short-term in game equipment gains are well within the rules of point-purchased equipment. You can pick it up and use it for a scene, or even a scenario. But, if you want to keep it, you have to pay for it.

 

To your character who finds a suit of armor, he can try it on, wear it for the scenario, but if he wants to keep it in the long term, he has to make room for it within his resource pool, whether by leaving something else at home next scenario, by the GM granting "dedicated xp" for his resource pool, or by him spending xp to increase his resource pool, instead of enhancing his stats, skills or other abilities.

 

I'm a fairly practical chap: I prefer to only make changes that are needed. The question of cost is often an indicator of a potential problem. But - as I noted' date=' in the Ego Attack thread, that's not always the case. Ego Attack seems to be grossly underpriced, but for various reasons, it doesn't seem to be an issue in-game. STR also seems to be grossly underpriced, and it very often IS a problem in-game. Hence, I altered one and not the other.[/quote']

 

Yet we commonly see mentalist sniper issues arise from other posters. Meanwhile, many posters tell us the cost of STR has NOT been an issue in their games. I would suggest that your use of the term "in-game", above, would more appropriately be "in my games", since your experience clearly does not match the experience of everyone else.

 

My suggestion would simply be to try running several games with the altered cost and see how it flies. If it doesn't work for you' date=' you have your answer. But it does seem to me that the people arguing against the change have never tried it - and the people who [i']have[/i] tried it are largely in favor of it. Even allowing for selection bias, that suggest strongly to me that it's a good idea.

 

A lot of posters have indicated they use resource pools or other means of purchasing equipment access, rather than allowing it to be purchased for money. Of those who say they have tried this approach, only you seem to have found it a negative in game play. Does that mean they are right, and you are wrong? Or does it mean that their experiences differ from yours, and both their decision, your decision and the decision of those who have never charged points for equipment (or changed the cost of STR) are reasonable?

[Nekkidcarpenter]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

I can't believe that never occurred to me, even when I was griping about having to buy resistant defenses.

 

So while the whole 'is Str costed correctly' rages on and nobody changes their opinions, I'm going to state arbitrarily from now on that I'm going to increase the cost of KA, and lobby heavily for others to do the same.

 

NOW I really feel like I didn't waste my time reading this thread.

[Nekkidcarpenter]

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.

 

 

 

Well, SOMEONE is the bright and shining center.

 

What do all these things have in common?

 

The Bricks are always the center of combat.

 

The Bricks are never the center of combat.

 

Strength seems undercosted and too useful.

 

ANYTHING seems undercosted and too useful

 

Answer; Poor GM'ing.

 

If any one style or power is dominating to the detriment of the enjoyment of some of the players, you don't have to look in Fred to find whats wrong.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Well, SOMEONE is the bright and shining center.

 

What do all these things have in common?

 

The Bricks are always the center of combat.

 

The Bricks are never the center of combat.

 

Strength seems undercosted and too useful.

 

ANYTHING seems undercosted and too useful

 

Answer; Poor GM'ing.

 

If any one style or power is dominating to the detriment of the enjoyment of some of the players, you don't have to look in Fred to find whats wrong.

 

Hmmm, So you believe a good GM would tailor every situation to place a systemically overpowered ability at a disadvantage rather than address the root cause?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Hmmm' date=' So you believe a good GM would tailor every situation to place a systemically overpowered ability at a disadvantage rather than address the root cause?[/quote']

 

No, a good GM will ignore the bits that don't work well in game, no matter what the rules are. If Mongo The Brick is taking centre stage every time and everyone else goes and makes coffee when combat starts, something is wrong UNLESS everyone is happy with that. But I'd be surprised if they were.

 

A good GM will provide a variety of challenges and, yes, change and adapt on the fly. If an ability is overpowered, you don;t need to place it at a disadvantage, but you do need to provide those challenges/opportunities for all characters.

 

Strength simply is not costed right, but it has always been that way and we work with it, so the effect is mitigated by experience and practice. Changing it now will cause immense disruption, and that probably is not worth it.

 

Page 23. I'm just saying.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

No, a good GM will ignore the bits that don't work well in game, no matter what the rules are. If Mongo The Brick is taking centre stage every time and everyone else goes and makes coffee when combat starts, something is wrong UNLESS everyone is happy with that. But I'd be surprised if they were.

 

A good GM will provide a variety of challenges and, yes, change and adapt on the fly. If an ability is overpowered, you don;t need to place it at a disadvantage, but you do need to provide those challenges/opportunities for all characters.

 

Strength simply is not costed right, but it has always been that way and we work with it, so the effect is mitigated by experience and practice. Changing it now will cause immense disruption, and that probably is not worth it.

 

Page 23. I'm just saying.

 

The more x's I can fix on the front end the fewer y's I need to juggle on the back end, which means I can focus more on other things related to the game.

 

Change always creates disruption and that's probably the worst reason not to fix something.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Then I must have misunderstood you' date=' 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.[/quote']

That's OK. It looks like I made the opposite mistake in reading Hugh's post. As he says in his post following yours, he didn't change the proportions in which STR and CON grant PD and ED. Oh, well.

 

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.

If all you do is halve the cost of END and double the END cost of powers, you haven't changed anything at all. It's like halving the cost of gasoline, and at the same time doubling the amount of gasoline your car needs. If CON then provides half the "effective" END - in terms of actual value, that's the equivalent of simply halving the absolute amount of END granted by CON, while keeping everything else the same.

 

That may have been unclear. What I am saying is that changing CON/END to:

You get a base of 2xCON in END (10 CON gives you a base of 20 END), as standard, and

END costs 1/4 per point, and

Powers cost 1 END per 5 Active Points

 

is no different, functionally, than changing CON/END to

You get a base of 1xCON in END (10 CON gives you a base of 10 END), and

END costs 1/2 per point, as standard, and

Powers cost 1 END per 10 Active Points, as standard.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Actually' date=' my restructuring (as opposed to my revisitation of your restructuring) kept PD at STR/5 and ED at CON/5.[/quote']

Whoops! I see that I read it wrong. My version also keeps Jow Normal the same, by simply giving a flat base of 2 PD and 2 ED.

 

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.

I build bricks at STR 2:1 regularly. They work just fine in my games. Do yuo need a whole character write-up? Here's a possible stat-block:

 

60 STR (100)

23 DEX (39)

28 CON (36)

10 BODY (0)

13 INT (3)

11 EGO (2)

25 PRE (15)

10 COM (0)

25 PD (13) base=12

20 ED (14) base=6

5 SPD (17) base=3.3

18 REC (0) base=18

56 END (0) base=56

54 STUN (0) base=54

Characteristic total: 239 points

 

8 20" Leaping (base=12")

15 Damage Resistance - makes 18 PD and 12 ED resistant

Powers cost (so far): 23 points

 

We've spent 262 points so far. That leaves us with 88 more points to spend on Skills, Enhanced Senses, Brick Tricks, more DEF/BODY/Other Chars, Damage Reduction, or other brickly goodness.

 

Is this not a viable, competitive brick to you?

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

If all you do is halve the cost of END and double the END cost of powers, you haven't changed anything at all.

 

Yes, you have. You have changed the value of the END you get from CON, even if you don't change the number. Thus, 10 CON still gets you 20 END, but instead of that 20 END being valued at 10 character points, it is only valued at 5 character points. If you cost REC at 1:1, then again you cut the value of what CON and STR give you in REC. If you halve the cost of STUN, not only do you make buying up STUN rather than buying Defenses a more viable option, you, once again, cut the value of what CON and STR grant you.

 

As it stands for 20 pts invested in 10 pts of CON, you get

 

20 END. Value: 10 pts

2 ED. Value: 2 pts

5 STUN. Value: 5 pts

2 REC. Value:4 pts

 

21 pts worth of figureds for 20 pts in CON. With the changes I enumerated, the same 20 pts gets you

 

20 END. Value: 5 pts

2 ED. Value: 2 pts

5 STUN. Value: 2.5 pts

2 REC. Value: 2 pts

 

That's only 11.5 pts for your 20 pt investment. And in the process, we've also made buying up END and REC an option instead of buying Reduced Endurance Advantage on powers, or buying Charges, and made buying STUN and REC an option as opposed to buying up defenses. Also, it becomes possible to eliminate the "only sell back one figured characteristic" rule because CON and STR are no longer generating "free points."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is chewing on some other ideas as well.

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I can't believe that never occurred to me, even when I was griping about having to buy resistant defenses.

 

So while the whole 'is Str costed correctly' rages on and nobody changes their opinions, I'm going to state arbitrarily from now on that I'm going to increase the cost of KA, and lobby heavily for others to do the same.

 

NOW I really feel like I didn't waste my time reading this thread.

 

While that is an understandable reaction, I am not sure it's the best solution.

 

I suggest instead that you treat Normal Attacks as limited versions of Killing Attacks, which is already done with the Hand to Hand Normal Attack - it has an "inherent limitation" which ought to have also been applied to Energy Blast. This is a fix that's already part of the Rules as Written, just not applied evenly. I also think the limitation should be greater; the Martial Arts rules (with their implied equivalence of 1 damage class of Killing to 2 damage classes of Normal) suggest that it should be -1.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary directs the carpenter's attention to any of numerous threads that have already treated the topic.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The more x's I can fix on the front end the fewer y's I need to juggle on the back end, which means I can focus more on other things related to the game.

 

Change always creates disruption and that's probably the worst reason not to fix something.

 

But the evidence is still out on wether it is broke or not. Fixing something that does not need to be fixed is the worst reason to change something

[Kenn]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I think we can all agree that with the idea that, mathematically, in the Hero System, the cost of physical characteristics is such that it takes fewer points to build a high strength character with high secondary physical characteristics then it does to build a low strength character with high secondary physical characteristics.

 

Whether this is broken or not, I think depends on how much import an individual puts on mathematical point balance and how much import an individual puts on how one kind of expects something to be and whether or not the people an individual plays with exploit this mathematical quirk to turn it into a lower quality gaming experience.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

But the evidence is still out on wether it is broke or not. Fixing something that does not need to be fixed is the worst reason to change something

 

Sorry context is king, this comment stemmed from Nekkidcarpenter's comment about how if any aspect of a system is out of balance it should be handled in play rather than by adjusting the system, otherwise you're a bad GM.

 

Which led to Sean Waters saying that STR isn't costed right but it shouldn't be changed because of the disruption.

 

Which brings us back around to my comment which is essentially 'If something is broken in a system then fix it rather than work around it in play just because a change might be disruptive.' It's not about is STR broken or not, it's more general than that.

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I think we can all agree that with the idea that, mathematically, in the Hero System, the cost of physical characteristics is such that it takes fewer points to build a high strength character with high secondary physical characteristics then it does to build a low strength character with high secondary physical characteristics.

 

Whether this is broken or not, I think depends on how much import an individual puts on mathematical point balance and how much import an individual puts on how one kind of expects something to be and whether or not the people an individual plays with exploit this mathematical quirk to turn it into a lower quality gaming experience.

 

1. The figured characteristic issue is not the only issue people have with the cost of STR.

 

2. I can't imagine why someone who does not put much import on "mathematical point balance" would be playing Hero.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a pointles palindromedary

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Whoops! I see that I read it wrong. My version also keeps Jow Normal the same, by simply giving a flat base of 2 PD and 2 ED.

 

 

I build bricks at STR 2:1 regularly. They work just fine in my games. Do yuo need a whole character write-up? Here's a possible stat-block:

 

60 STR (100)

23 DEX (39)

28 CON (36)

10 BODY (0)

13 INT (3)

11 EGO (2)

25 PRE (15)

10 COM (0)

25 PD (13) base=12

20 ED (14) base=6

5 SPD (17) base=3.3

18 REC (0) base=18

56 END (0) base=56

54 STUN (0) base=54

Characteristic total: 239 points

 

8 20" Leaping (base=12")

15 Damage Resistance - makes 18 PD and 12 ED resistant

Powers cost (so far): 23 points

 

We've spent 262 points so far. That leaves us with 88 more points to spend on Skills, Enhanced Senses, Brick Tricks, more DEF/BODY/Other Chars, Damage Reduction, or other brickly goodness.

 

Is this not a viable, competitive brick to you?

 

Depends. I'd have to compare him with other characters pulled from the same campaign who are not STR reliant, and see how they stack up. However, given I find Bricks are not overpowered now, draining 50 points from that 60 STR character seems likely to reduce his comparative effectiveness. And if we spend the extra 88 points on other brickly goodness, then the other characters get to spend all their points on combat abilities as well.

 

But the evidence is still out on wether it is broke or not. Fixing something that does not need to be fixed is the worst reason to change something

 

Changing the rules so the same number of people house rule STR down to 1 point seems like it's not really a solution, doesn't it?