Discussion on costs of Characteristics

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Changing the rules so the same number of people house rule STR down to 1 point seems like it's not really a solution' date=' doesn't it?[/quote']

 

I think that might be the most sensible observation anyone on either side of this has made.

[Sean Waters]

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.

 

Hmm...operation a success, patient died.

 

Change the cost of strength/association with figured and every character example ever is wrong. So all the existing players have to convert their stuff or not bother with the new products. That could work nicely for Hero games if the majority adopt the new standard and pony up to replace their existing product. OTOH it could be disastrous if the existing fan base is alienated.

 

Given that it IS working, I don't think we can discount the 'disruption' argument.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Hmm...operation a success, patient died.

 

Change the cost of strength/association with figured and every character example ever is wrong. So all the existing players have to convert their stuff or not bother with the new products. That could work nicely for Hero games if the majority adopt the new standard and pony up to replace their existing product. OTOH it could be disastrous if the existing fan base is alienated.

 

Given that it IS working, I don't think we can discount the 'disruption' argument.

 

So only those rules changes that will be supported by the majority of players should be considered viable?

 

And once again bringing up context, the disruption argument is a general one. If you feel something is working then it shouldn't be changed, if you feel it isn't working then disruption is a poor argument against change.

 

Either way that STR cost works is NOT a given.

[Sean Waters]

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.

 

This is a good point. What Hero has done is build a template for a certain type of character, and given Hero's superheroic origins, it is not surprising that strength is something that the points system encourages players to take, by placing a premium on its utility for the cost.

 

It would be nice, if we were designing from the ground up right now, to alter the balance, so that no one approach is favoured by the character creation rules over another.

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

So let me ask a simple question to the "Str is priced fine" crowd":

 

What is good about str at 1:1 except "it's by the book"?

 

We've had dozens of counterarguments (my powergirl build which is a blaster with free 60 str, or the multiple free AE/free Lift/free NND examples), but none in favour. And I don't count vague "it's better that way" things. Be precise. 5ER was mainly streamlining, and no reworking of erhm... let's call it "things that were like this since first, but probably should be changed". So if it's by the book, that does not mean anything to me. Steve wrote himself that backwards compatibility trumped balance for fifth edition. So, do you worst: What is good about str at 1:1 except "it's by the book"? What makes free NNDs (lakes of opportunity) grab immunity and AE (throw Cruiser of Opportunity) balanced against spending 5 more points to have 50 less strength?

[caris]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

So only those rules changes that will be supported by the majority of players should be considered viable?

 

 

Hmmmmm... generally speaking, for a business, probably. Thogh the better way to put is only those changes that will bring in more sales than they loose should be considered viable. Like it or not this is still a product that is for sale. DOJ would like to at least break even on those sales. What else would you expect?

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Hmmmmm... generally speaking' date=' for a business, probably. Thogh the better way to put is only those changes that will bring in more sales than they loose should be considered viable. Like it or not this is still a product that is for sale. DOJ would like to at least break even on those sales. What else would you expect?[/quote']

 

The problem becomes identifing 'Acceptable' changes. If you're not cautious you get squeeky wheel syndrome. You see it most often in games where adjustments can take place with reasonble alacrity; So your MMOs get it a lot in reaction to posts on message boards, followed by Collectible Card Games.

 

If 20 frequent posters on the boards scream about something would you want Steve to change it? 30? 40? 50?

 

As a player, a GM and a consumer I want to see changes to a game that make sense from the view of design inprovement, internal consistancy and general playability which includes balance. Backwards compatability doesn't even rank a tertiary nod from me and I'm one of the company's target consumers.

[caris]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The problem becomes identifing 'Acceptable' changes. If you're not cautious you get squeeky wheel syndrome. You see it most often in games where adjustments can take place with reasonble alacrity; So your MMOs get it a lot in reaction to posts on message boards, followed by Collectible Card Games.

 

If 20 frequent posters on the boards scream about something would you want Steve to change it? 30? 40? 50?

 

As a player, a GM and a consumer I want to see changes to a game that make sense from the view of design inprovement, internal consistancy and general playability which includes balance. Backwards compatability doesn't even rank a tertiary nod from me and I'm one of the company's target consumers.

 

I would say that Steve and Darren should not base their decisions on what frequent posters to this board say at all. We are the ones least likely to change our purchasing habits at all. Particularly, on an issue that is as relatively minor to the overall game as this.

 

If a 6th edition were to change the price of Strength to 2:1, it would most likely not impact my decision to buy 6th edition. I can just as easily do what MarkDoc is doing now, and house rule it back to 1:1. Are you saying that you absolutely would not buy a 6th edition if they left Strength at 1:1? That the cost of Strength in the core rules is a deal breaker for you?

 

Now, to be honest, I will admit that by itself the Strength issue is not a big deal to me and wouldn't affect buying decisions by itself, but as a contributing factor combined with enough other changes that I dislike, than I may decide that Hero 6th isn't to my tastes. Just as we have some regular posters here who have no interest in Hero 5 and last I heard were still playing 4th.

 

Personally, what I want are changes that fix problems that I am actually having in my games. So I sympathize with those of you who are having problems with Strength in your games, but Strength isn't a problem for me in my games. Every character being submitted to me having 10+pts of Martial Arts Manuevers is a problem I'm having. The Swiss Army Knife Multipower is a problem that I'm having.

 

The changes that I expect Steve and Darren to make are ones that will enhance the gaming experience for Steve and Darren in their games. Mainly, because I honestly don't think there are that much they can do in terms of system tweaks that are going to lead them to have any significant change in sales. At least not without so completely changing Hero that it might as well not have been the property that they bought in the first place.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I would say that Steve and Darren should base their decisions on what frequent posters to this board say at all. We are the ones least likely to change our purchasing habits at all. Particularly, on an issue that is as relatively minor to the overall game as this.

 

If a 6th edition were to change the price of Strength to 2:1, it would most likely not impact my decision to buy 6th edition. I can just as easily do what MarkDoc is doing now, and house rule it back to 1:1. Are you saying that you absolutely would not buy a 6th edition if they left Strength at 1:1? That the cost of Strength in the core rules is a deal breaker for you?

 

There are no specific deal breakers for me. If STR's cost and utility remain the same in 6th, I'll continue to correct it for my games. It's an easy fix. {Frankly the loss of Regen and Instant Change but the retention of Gliding and Swinging is, to me, a much more fundenmental issue from a design standpoint. It represents a stellar lack of internal consistency during design}

 

The direction the Ultimate books seem to be taking is actual of more concern for me when it comes to the decision to purche a latter editions. If I wanted to have a shelf full of books in order to have access to all of the rules I would still be buying DnD.

[Comic]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

...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?

It seems a brick seduced to the quick side of the game. That efficient Dex 23/SPD 5 combination has at least as much to do with how viable and competitive the character is as the 88 points left to spend on Brick abilities.

 

Without the CV of the higher Dex, that 25/18 PD and 20/12 ED is extraordinarily low for a Brick, and neither competitive nor viable for the team damage-soaker. 18 REC for a Brick is pretty low-end, and 28 CON is pitiable.

 

What I see in this build is a tough Martial Artist, or a no-range Energy Projector -- and a weak-willed one at that -- not a Brick.

 

There is no viable reason to build a Brick on this model, other than pure love of the character class, and that only if you're also willing to spend most of the campaign unconscious or bandaged.

 

A powersuit character (OIF, No Figures) with these stats is so much less expensive to build as to enable the powersuit character to build a whole viable other powerset, and suffer no inconvenient drawbacks like the powersuit breaking.

 

Should Iron Man really be as strong as the Hulk, able to leap as far, as durable, and also be repulsor-firing/jetboot-flying Iron Man besides, and only have to worry about his suit breaking in combat in situations that would leave the Hulk hospitalized for a month?

[caris]

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

I don't mean to sound awful' date=' but I have been wondering all afternoon: do you play or GM Hero very often?[/quote']

 

Sorry, I work in the accounting department, and I’ve been dealing with audit stuff for two weeks, so it has taken me this long to get this together.

 

Are you coming across as awful? No. Arrogant, smug and a little condescending? Yes.

 

Yes, your 20+ years of experience with the game is nice, but it still has some significant limitations. The same is true with my 15+ years of experience with the game. In the case of the Power Woman vs. Energy Man example, the fact that you don’t play a lot of Super Heroes (by your own admission) and that apparently your group tends to go for a decisive win in a single attack shows.

 

The simple truth is that Ken’s sample characters are pretty much irrelevant to the whole argument. Since Ken either deliberately or by happenstance picked a sweet spot for the builds. Changing any number of variables could significantly change the pricing, and as such this exercise really doesn’t mean much for the argument.

 

Unfortunately, that is not the argument you chose to pursue. You instead wanted to go into how this build actually supports your position, because you know of a successful way that PW can win the fight.

 

I have no real interest in change your mind Markdoc. I am pointing out where you are making a set of assumptions based on your experiences that do not hold true. Particularly, since I suspect, that those assumptions were formed on experienced prior to 5th ED, and that don’t properly account for 5th ED.

 

I was actually being generous when I said that the grab and smash maneuver had a 1 in 3 chance of succeeding. Yes, if EM does nothing, than she has a 37.5% chance of succeeding, but do you really expect that EM would just sit and let her try? The truth of the matter is that PW grabbing EM only has something mildly better than a 6% chance of being successful.

 

Optimal conditions for PW to succeed with a grab are if they are within a half move and PW wins the DEX roll. She closes and attempts to grab him with the -2 OCV penalty she has a 37.5% chance to succeed, if EM does not abort. EM knows that he only has 10 STR and can reasonably assume that PW effectively has significantly more than 10 STR to use when grabbing. He will abort to Dodge, which will drop PW’s chance of success this Phase to slightly less than 9.26%. If they tie, a lot of what happens depends on what the GM rules relating to actions and movement, still assuming a worst case set of rulings EM still Dodges and PW still only has slightly less than 9.26% chance of success. If EM wins the Dex roll, his best option depends on if PW is on the ground or in the air. If she is on the ground, than he half moves away (gaining altitude) and Dodging (though it depends on if the GM allows a character to use a Held Action to Abort or not (While every GM I have ever played with has always Ruled that a Held Action could be used to Abort, I could see where the RAW could be interpreted to mean that to use a Held Action to do a Defensive Action that you have to DEX off, where as if you sacrifice both the Held Action and the next Phase’s Action you get to go first automatically.)). Once PW is in the air the situation changes, and PW will most likely end up in the air (her only effective options are to Grab EM or perform a Move Through nothing else can really give her any advantage over his EB in terms of damage).

 

Alternatively, rather than Dodging, when PW has initiative and is adjacent to him EM could choose to Block, after all the rules do not account for STR differences for Block. Lets see, PW has a -2 OCV modifier for Grabbing, and Block has no modifiers, so using this PW should succeed in Grabbing EM around 6.08% of the time, and 83.8% of the time, EM not only won’t be grabbed, but will have initiative on the next Phase.

 

Can we assume EM will get initiative twice before PW hits once with a grab or a full move maneuver, if she does not have access to an impromptu weapon (I promise that I will get to impromptu weapons)?

 

Once again, the actual distance apart at this point will influence the decision. If she is adjacent, half move back, this will put EM at -4 OCV for range, which as you noted means that EM would only have slightly less than 7% chance of hitting. Except that EM can Spread. Spreading for 4 dice increases Ems chances of hitting to 62.5%, while still all but guaranteeing that if he hits he will at least Knock Down PW. On average EM will do 6 BODY with his attack (and given the nature of Damage only a small chance of anything less or more), and the most that PW can roll is a 6 on her one die she rolls for Knockback.

 

PW does have options, since EM has initiative, anything she does other than taking the hit will sacrifice her action this Phase, since there is no way the attack can stun her, she may deem it worth the risk. If she Dodges, he will probably miss, but she can not move forward, meaning that EM has opened the range. Dive for Cover would be able to move her closer, but would leave her “prone” and unable to act again until there next Phase which means if she does not have initiative next Phase that EM’s shot would be easier. Taking the shot means, that she would be “prone,” but able to reorient herself and still half move. Resisting the Knock Back would still be an abort preventing her from doing anything else this Phase, but probably worth doing on the hope that she will either go first or tie eventually.

 

If they are 1 to 10 inches apart, EM (if he wins the initiative) half moves away, this means that they are from 11 to 20 inches apart, making the range penalty -4 or -6. Using the reasoning above EM has 4D6 with which to spread, or +4 OCV, which means that his chance of hitting is either 62.5% or 37.5%.

 

The risks at these ranges are Grab, Move Through and Grab By. Grab is only a concern if EM misses or gets a negative Knock Back result when she started out adjacent to him (otherwise he is at least 1 inch over her half move away), a small but not insignificant risk. PW still has only a 37.5% chance of succeeding with a Grab. At 1 to 10 inches, Move Through and Grab By are still a risk even if he succeed if EM does not win initiative the next Phase, but their odds of success are even worse 16.0% for MT and 26% for GB. The biggest realm of risk, of course exist when they start at 7 to 10 inches apart, the -6 OCV range penalty after the half move. At this range there is the greatest chance of a complete miss. Bracing can improve the chances of hitting, but at the cost of pretty much guaranteeing the Grab By will succeed if EM misses or gets a negative Knock Back result. Additional Spreading will improve the odds of hitting, but will significantly increase the odds getting negative Knock Back, leaving PW with a full move. Alternatively, EM could choose to only move back until he was only 16 inches away before firing, but that pretty much eliminates gaining any range on her.

 

At 11 to 20 inches apart, EM (if he wins the initiative) should drop the Force Field if no impromptu weapons are available, and half move. Since this means that he is now more than a full move from PW, there is no reason not to Brace (0 Phase and lowers the OCV penalty to -4). Once again Spreading for a +4 OCV puts him at a 62.5% chance of hitting.

 

At 21 and 22 inches, EM (if he wins the initiative) is at optimum situation. He can drop the Force Field, half move back, Brace, Spread his attack for the 62.5% chance of success. At longer ranges, EM might want to actually let PW get her movement in before he acts, since if she uses her full move, and he succeeds with his attack she will be “prone” at the start of the next Phase.

 

Yeah, but PW isn’t limited to just her combat movement, you say? Well sure, but she would only want to bother at well over 40 inches (remember you can only accelerate by your combat move per phase, so it would take her 8 Phases to reach top velocity), and it will still take at least two Phases to get to EM, and EM will get a chance to hit her at some point in that first Phase.

 

What about Hip Shot and Hurry? Since all these scenarios assume that at some point EM goes first, couldn’t PW simply use them to go before him? She could, but they make what are already bad odds for her to hit even worse, since they come with OCV penalties. If EM decides to Block these degraded attacks, than he gets initiative automatically the next Phase, or he may decide that the penalties have reduced PW chances enough to let her make the attempt (a Grab By that was Hurried has the same chance of success as a Grab that is being Dodged), and than just take appropriate action that Phase.

 

Alright, time to talk about impromptu weapons as promised. For most attacks all the impromptu weapon is going to do is give PW range and/or a bonus for Size. She will not be able to do any more actual damage that EM can do. It won’t give her the ability to Stun EM, unless she Haymakers or Move Through with it. With PW’s STR and velocity that means said object needs to have a DEF+BODY=17 or better. Now, that DEF had also be on the high side, since on a hit with a Move Through that weapon is going to be taking at least half the damage. Also, since to get a size bonus, it has to be large enough to have a DCV penalty, means that if EM is given a chance to take a shot at it his OCV penalties will be at least partially offset, so it is better if the DEF is at least 10. So an automobile with a DEF 3 and a Body of 15 mighty be good for one shot at full damage.

 

The question becomes a matter of the size bonus, and how the GM applies it. First, my read of the rules are not that AoE is the default the phrasing makes it sound like either option equally as valid, but I’m going to discuss both.

 

The Area of Effect option really is not as good for PW as you would think. Rules say that “targets can often Dodge this sort of attack” note the use of a capital “D” representing a game mechanic, which makes this more like an “Accurate” attack. Even so, this doesn’t actually improve PW’s OCV with the maneuver. While having EM Block the Chevvy Chevette strains even my Common Sense, having him Roll with Punch against it seems perfectly reasonable, and with a 62.50% chance of succeeding. If EM is flying, it will send him farther away than is half move, leave him “prone,” and greatly reduce his chances of being Stunned. Plus, the weapon will be taking about 8 Body before defenses. An armor car has a DEF of 8, and I’d allow some construction equipment (like the shovel of a bulldozer) to have an 8 DEF, but I’d be looking askance if every game session there was always a 1 hex or better sized object with a DEF of 8 or better.

 

Bonus to OCV is what PW really wants in this situation. It improves her chances to hit while at the same time decreasing EM’s ability to Roll with the Punch, a win-win for PW, since it will leave EM with only Dive for Cover as his best option, and Hurry is much less likely to hurt her now.

[caris]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The direction the Ultimate books seem to be taking is actual of more concern for me when it comes to the decision to purche a latter editions. If I wanted to have a shelf full of books in order to have access to all of the rules I would still be buying DnD.

 

I understand your feeling, but I really can not begrudge DoJ for taking the approach of putting out books like the Ultimate line. They need to get sales on a regular basis. They really can not sell enough copies of just the core book to carry them through financially until they can put out the next edition. I believe that the Ultimate line has proven to be a better seller than the genre books or the setting books. I don't really feel obligated to own any of the other Ultimate books other than UMA (see comment above about Martial Artists being a problem for me), so I don't buy anything that doesn't interest me.

[Lucius]

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

Since this means that he is now more than a full move from PW, there is no reason not to Brace

 

Against what?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

With his back against a palindromedary

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

There are two issues I can see here:

 

1. Is strength costed correctly in relation to the rest of the system?

 

2. What, if anything, should we do about it?

 

Now 1. Is PURELY a point balance issue, and the answer is HELL, NO!

 

Consider:

 

30 STR No figured: 20 points

 

30 STR (+6 PD, +6 REC, +15 STUN) sell back the stun: 15 points

 

Consider also that the system itself acknowledges that it simply isn't balanced. If it was, why would we need the ridiculous generosity of the HtH Attack, or martial arts and DCs? It isn't balanced, it never was, and we've all known it for a long time.

 

You can ask question one and mean something different, of course - is it balanced in game. I've defined my terms though, and that comes under question 2.

 

Should we change it (and if so, how)? Should we leave it alone?

 

Personally I doubt I'll change until the system changes it, which I predict will be never. I say this because I'm lazy and, despite everything I ever write on these boards, the Hero I play is 99% canon.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Personally I doubt I'll change until the system changes it' date=' which I predict will be never. I say this because I'm lazy and, despite everything I ever write on these boards, the Hero I play is 99% canon.[/quote']

 

365 posts before Sean admits he is all talk!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

365 posts before Sean admits he is all talk!

 

Oi! 7493 posts

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Consider also that the system itself acknowledges that it simply isn't balanced. If it was' date=' why would we need the ridiculous generosity of the HtH Attack, or martial arts and DCs? [/quote']

 

All of which a strong character can take ON TOP of STR anyway.

 

I remember when Martial Arts was an Advantage on STR - so the more STR you had, the more Martial Arts cost. Maybe that wasn't such a bad idea....

 

Personally I doubt I'll change until the system changes it' date=' which I predict will be never. I say this because I'm lazy and, despite everything I ever write on these boards, the Hero I play is 99% canon.[/quote']

 

I think that's true of most people. Mind you I'm not advocating a change to the cost of STR, but if such were made, some people would house rule it back to the old cost, and most people would probably just go along with the system.

 

Personally, the more I think about the issue, the more convinced I am that the problem is less that STR (and CON) are "undercosted" as that the abilities they grant (A Normal Hand to Hand Attack and various "figureds") are "overvalued."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary can be very helpful sometimes

[Blue Jogger]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Should we change it (and if so, how)? Should we leave it alone?

 

Personally I doubt I'll change until the system changes it, which I predict will be never. I say this because I'm lazy and, despite everything I ever write on these boards, the Hero I play is 99% canon.

 

(Rep to you.)

 

Despite having prove a fairly strong argument that STR is too cheap at 1 to 1, I've never gotten the players to agree to 2pts for +1 STR. And, in fact, in heroic, they will never buy STR above 20 except with a limitation (to avoid 2 for 1 cost, as stated in the books and Hero Designer). Usually that limitation is either IIF (Magic Item) or No Figured Characteristics (Large Size).

 

In the end, I don't change it (why fight city hall?) even though it means most characters can one-punch a normal straight into the ER without even trying.

[caris]

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

Against what?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

With his back against a palindromedary

 

Where in the rules does it require you to Brace against anything? The write up of the manuever has the characrer "take a Zero-Phase action to steady himself," and part of the result is "the character's DCV is halved because he is standing still to Brace." The only catch is the reduction of the STR min on weapons, which really doesn't apply to this example, but could be defined as supporting it on parts of the body one wouldn't normally be using in situations where one expects to have their full DCV.

[caris]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Well, I'm not sure what you mean exactly by that. We're talking about a wide range of games at both heroic and superheroic levels: Cyberpunk, cthuloid pulp, 4 colour supers, Iron Age supers, 2000 AD-inspired science fiction, Martial arts (low powered) Martial arts (High powered), High fantasy, low fantasy, fantasy where the players were demigods: in all cases STR was a characteristic which was bought up by everybody.

 

INT, BOD, PRE on the other hand, not so much (Meaning some chracters had lots and many left it where it was or occasionally sold it back).

 

All of the things I quoted were you specifically using the frequency that STR is bought up, sold back or played at 10 were indicative of the problem with the cost of STR. I was curious how STR compared in those areas with other Primary Characteristics as I attempted to imply with the questions I asked.

 

Nor am I only looking at my own experience. Lifting books off my desk at random, lemmeesee:

Dark Champions - virtually every character has elevated STR, though most of them are human. Many of the human characters have 20 and even the Master of crime, a behind the scenes noncombat style villain has 15. In contrast, the majority have 2 or more stats at 10.

Tuala Morn. One character (the witch, who also has the age disadvantage) does not have elevated STR. In contrast every character has one or more primary stat at 10.

Monsters minions and maruaders - well the merchant has STR 10 - but then almost all of his stats are 10. The Priest has 10, everybody else has elevated STR

 

Three books seem like a rather limited sample to me, but I will accept that you were random in your choices. I own Monsters, Minions and Marauders, so I assume that you were just limiting yourself to the Human Adversaries section, since the Dark Elf only has a STR of 10, and we won’t get into the other write ups that have STR 10 or less in the book.

 

In general I don’t usually go looking at NPC for this kind of argument, published or otherwise. NPC particularly published ones are built more to concept than to something like a point budget. I doubt that for most NPCs that the GMs are thinking about making sure the character comes in under point value X, so cost savers like ECs, Skill Modifiers, or Strength are less of a concern. Normally, I prefer to only use sample characters that are obviously meant to be used as examples of a PC build.

 

I went through the twenty one books that I could find easily for 5th Ed. Of those 21 I’m not counting Fred (unrevised), Ultimate Vehicle, or Ultimate Martial Artist, because I can not find any significant character write ups in them. I’m also discounting Monsters, Minions and Marauders, because it specifically meant to include generic thug types who are assumed to be less competent than PCs. I’m not counting Sidekick because, all of the characters in it are in other books in my group, and would be counting them twice (particularly since one of them has a STR of 10).

 

Six books where I could not easily find a character with a STR of 10 or below:

Ultimate Brick (I really should discount, because it is the book about high STR characters)

The Mystic World (Surprising, but it only has the Mystic Master Villains)

Sharper Than a Serpent’s Tooth

Champions Battlegrounds (note two of the major characters do have a STR of 10, but I can’t bring myself to count Foxbat Girl or Foxbat Boy in this discussion)

Viper, Coils of the Serpent

 

Thirteen books had significant character write ups where the STR was 10 or below most more than one:

Ninja Hero

Star Hero

Demon: Servants of Darkness

Champions Universe: News of the World (not counting updated versions of pre-existing write ups like Witchfire or Talisman, but both the Sentinels and the Justice Squadrons with characters of STR 10 or less)

Conquers, Killers and Crooks (kind of surprised me how many I did find in this book)

Champions (did count Witchfire here)

Fantasy Hero

Galactic Champions

Teen Champions (deliberate point inefficiency is encouraged here as part of the genre)

Vibora Bay

Arcane Adversaries

Millennium City

Until: Defenders of Freedom

 

Of particular note I find that the samples that are obviously meant to be used as examples of PC builds in Fantasy Hero, Star Hero, Champions, Teen Champions, and Galactic Champions all include characters of STR 10. Only Teen Champions had a sample PC with a STR under 10.

 

Yeah, definite bias toward Champions, all my friends that run other genre’s prefer to use their own settings over the published ones, and I prefer Champions and wild Martial Arts.

 

Personally, I’m willing to not count the published examples as meaningful one way or the other if you are.

 

You could argue that DEX and CON don't, since these are almost always also elevated. CON doesn't bother me too much, since while many people buy some extra CON, it's rare to see it elevated to the extent that STR is. Dex is also pretty much always elevated, and Dex inflation has been the subject of much debate. Again, though DEX can be countered by levels, so it's not a dealbreaker (though I admit, I did consider increasing the price, the payback for doing so is smaller than that to be gained by repricing STR, so I haven't done it)

 

I have very, very rarely seen DEX sold back (only once IIRC). Likewise, I have rarely (if ever) seen it left at 10. That's understandable, given that it's the primary combat Stat.

CON is likewise rarely sold back or left alone - although it's also not that common for anyone excet brick to have more than 20 in my experience.

BOD, INT, EGO, PRE and COM I have all seen left at 10 on multiple occassions or sold back - and that's reflected in published characters as well.

And as for supers with any primary under 20, I'd say that's most of them.

 

I don't have lot of supers books (not my favourite genre to GM) but rolling over to Surbrooks stuff, in the comic characters section, again we find almost no STR10 or less characters - but virtually every character has one or more primary stat.s at 10. Even Energy blasters have elevated STR.

 

Of course, whether you see that as problem, I guess depends on your perspective: as a GM, I found it a bit tiring to have everyone in a heroic game in the upper reaches of human capacity for STR: but given the rules, it was hard to fault the player's decisions. I am I must say, much happier with STR at 2:1. It's given a bigger range, without negatively impacting the game.

 

First, Surbooks stuff, I’m not sure which pages you are looking at for sure. I noticed that his super hero conversions tended to focus heavily on characters that are presumed to have high Strengths even Green Arrow is some one that works out daily. Mind you a lot of the Manga ones are for characters that I’m not familiar with so I wouldn’t even beginning to guess what an appropriate STR for their concepts are, but I’d point out that conversions have much the same problems for this discussion as NPCs. I’m pretty sure that Susano is a lot more concerned about getting the feel of the character correct than point efficiency. The original characters are certainly appropriate, but we are back to this is still what one player designed, and it could be because he likes characters with higher Strength.

 

The rest of what you say seems to just be a personal preference on your part. You have a problem with everyone being in the upper reaches of STR, but DEX and CON don’t bother you…. Why? Because DEX can be countered with Skill Levels? I don’t know: 9 CP of DEX gets you +1 to all OCV (5 CP), +1 to all DCV (5 CP) (have to treat them separately since you get them both all the time), and +0.3 SPD (3 CP) that is 13 CP worth of bonuses and we haven’t even gotten into bonus to initiative, and how generally useful DEX skills are in combat.

 

Honestly, I can understand why you feel tired of the STR issue. I’m tired of every PC I see being a Martial Artist (OK, so there are a disperportionate number of Black Belts in my gaming circle, but does that mean that every PC in a Call of Cthulu game needs 10+ points of Martial Art Manuevers?) It does not mean that because you have seen a lot of problems with redundancy in high Strength (particularly, when you accept that same kind of redundancy in other Characteristics) as a universal problem to be dealt with in the core rules.

[caris]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And that is, of course, the point.

 

cheers, Mark

 

 

You see, I'm still not getting this line of reasoning.

 

Martial Arts save you points. Skill Enhancers save you points. Multipowers save you points. All of these things are good.

 

Strength saves you points. Strength is bad.

 

You can not look at Strength being balanced with Martial Arts or Multipowers, because high Strength can be used with either. (Of course, a lot of the points saved on Strength are lossed when Strength is put in a Multipower, and can only be used in any other framework with special permission.)

 

Martial Arts can look as being balanced with each other, even though nothing prevents the same character from buying both or defining them so that they can be used together.

 

What I am not devining from what you are saying?

[caris]

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

 

OK, I'm still not seeing your point. All you've proven to me is that if you are going to put -4 worth of Limitations on two powers and not on the Multipower Pool they are in that it is more efficient to not use a Multipower. Even then, I notice that the more Powers involved the higher the amount of limitations you have to put on the individual powers have to be for the Multipower not to save more points.

[caris]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Not really flawed reasoning. Markdoc's argument doesn't work both ways. Those who've tried increasing the cost of STR have ALSO played the game with the original cost. So they've tried both, and in all (most?) cases, they've decided to go with the increased cost. Those who haven't gone with the increased cost are only (mostly?) those that haven't tried it, so their decision is not as informed, being based only on theory, not on practice.

 

Markdoc's argument boils down to that: regardless of what theory says, practice argues for increasing the cost of STR. And it's an entirely valid argument, too. Not deterministic, and I won't comment on the veracity of the statements (because I honestly don't know), but certainly a valid one.

 

Edit:

 

An analogous argument would be: "People who've watched High Definition videos say it's the best thing since sliced bread. People who say it's no good haven't ever watched any." Sure, you can argue 'till your face is blue about how HD video is flawed and looks like crap, but if everybody who's actually watched it endorses it, that's a strong indication it's a good thing. You can't argue the same for people who haven't watched it, because they lack experience: they haven't made a decision as informed as those who've watched it.

 

Ah, but you see, the key is that Markdoc is discounting for selection bias. The arguement is that people who have had a problem with Strength's current cost have found going to a different cost structure a good thing, because it fixed their problem. That is the qualitive difference between the two things. (Unlike, an HD televison, where you can say that it has a clearer sharper picture. In which case each individual decides if a clearer sharper picture is important to them. They do not need to see the HD television to know if they are satisfied with their current picture.)

 

The fact that changing the cost fixed a problem for them is irrelevant until you can establish that there is sufficiently large enough problem with Strength in the first place. Changing the cost of Strength is not going to fix any problem in any game I am in. We do not have the problems other people are having with Strength. So I need to be convinced that it is sufficiently universal to warrant the change.

 

 

Edit to add: OK, I'm as caught up as I'm going to get. Audit heck starts back up for me tomorrow, so start hating me now for what I may do next weekend.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Ah, but you see, the key is that Markdoc is discounting for selection bias. The arguement is that people who have had a problem with Strength's current cost have found going to a different cost structure a good thing, because it fixed their problem. That is the qualitive difference between the two things. (Unlike, an HD televison, where you can say that it has a clearer sharper picture. In which case each individual decides if a clearer sharper picture is important to them. They do not need to see the HD television to know if they are satisfied with their current picture.)

 

The fact that changing the cost fixed a problem for them is irrelevant until you can establish that there is sufficiently large enough problem with Strength in the first place. Changing the cost of Strength is not going to fix any problem in any game I am in. We do not have the problems other people are having with Strength. So I need to be convinced that it is sufficiently universal to warrant the change.

 

 

Edit to add: OK, I'm as caught up as I'm going to get. Audit heck starts back up for me tomorrow, so start hating me now for what I may do next weekend.

 

It's not so much selection bias as it is properly defining a population. The question is what population do you use to determine the validity of the statement "Str in campaigns where STR is priced at 2:1, is better balanced and provides a better experience overall than in campaigns where it is priced at 1:1." For that statement you'd want a random selection of players and GM's who have experienced both situations.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Originally Posted by PhilFleischmann

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

Did you only read that one line and ignore the rest of my post?

 

END costs 1/2 and starts at CONx1 and powers take 1/10 AP in END is functionally exactly the same as END costs 1/4 and starts at CONx2 and powers take 1/5 AP in END.