Discussion on costs of Characteristics

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

You said before:

As soon as someone shows me a comic book acrhetype Brick (not a guy with hand attacks' date=' 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.[/quote']

I gave you a partial write-up of such a character (which I just created off the top of my head, bricks being fairly straight-forward to create, especially since you had specified no HA or MA). Now you say:

Depends. I'd have to compare him with other characters pulled from the same campaign who are not STR reliant' date=' 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.[/quote']

So now you need all the details of the campaign the character plays in? This is an impossible task. This is why I left 88 points unassigned so the generic brick I submitted can be tailored to whatever type of game is under consideration. The only assumptions I made was a standard superheroic game at 200+150, and that 12DC attacks are fairly standard. If you think this brick, in order to "work competitively" needs more normal or resistant defenses, or needs even more STR, or needs some "brick tricks" like Entangling targets or making AOE attacks using objects of opportunity, you've got 88 more points with which to buy such powers/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, doesn't it?

I beleive the only reason anyone would want to house rule it back to 1:1 is because of the tradition from first edition. If STR had been 2 points all the way back to 1st (or even 2nd or 3rd), I don't think anyone would be complaining about it being too expensive now. They'd look at it and see that 20 points spent on +10 STR gives +2 DC to HtH attacks (including Grabs, Move-thru's and HKAs), +2" Leaping, and +11 points in Figured characteristics. They'd say, "Wow! That's a pretty good deal!"

[caris]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Nice try, but that isn't the question, particularly when "a better experience" is a subjective description. Since you can't even begin to factor in all of the qualities.

 

You still have to deal with the whole issue of does Strength at 1:1 cause balance issues? If strength at 1:1 does not cause me balance issues, than Strength at 2:1 can not provide "better" balance, because I'm at perfect balance as far as that area of the game is concerned.

 

What most of the Strength at 2:1 crowd doesn't get is that for me to endorse at you have to prove to me there is a benefit to this change. So you have to convince me that this problem is sufficiently universal. Cause right now I'm hearing: "Hershey's special dark is so bitter that it made me sick. Hershey's Milk Chocolate isn't so bitter to make me sick, so Heshey should only sell Milk Chocolate." Unfortunately, Hershey's Special Dark has never made me sick, or any of my close associates all of whom have eaten Hershey's Special Dark.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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.

Strength is not in the same category as those other point-saving things. None of the others gives you back more points than you spent. As I mentioned in a previous post, Multipowers save you 80-90% off of powers in additional slots, with two very important restrictions: You have to spend the full real cost of the powers in the MP at least once; and you can only use up to the full AP of the reserve at any one time, and often only one power at a time, regardless of how many points of it you use. STR on the other hand grants you at least 220% of the purchase price in all the abilities it gives you, with no other restrictions.

 

Saving a few points is fine. Saving more points than you paid is not.

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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.

 

Well, I WAS wrong, but not wrong in the way you describe. I think.

 

Incidentally, I am not quite sure what situations you are describing here. The current Rules as Written are

 

END costs 1/2 and starts at CONX2 and powers take 1/10 AP in END

 

The changes I was proposing were

 

END costs 1/4 and starts at CONX2 and powers take 1/5 AP in END.

 

So one of the cases you describe matches the proposal I threw out, but the other doesn't match anything else I've seen yet.

 

But to address the error I know I did make:

 

A difference I did not account for is that "joe normal" or anyone else who did not buy extra END (or Reduced END Cost or Charges etc.) will get tired faster. Still, for "normals" in heroic games, even that is not the case, as they were already paying END on STR at 1/5 and what else would they be spending END on? Just means they'd be less able to Run a marathon. Given how little impact END often seems to have at that level of play, changing the rules so it DOES count for something doesn't strike me as a drawback - but it's a difference that should be acknowledged.

 

I have the haunting feeling there is some other factor I have overlooked, too....perhaps someone else will point it out, or if it comes to me I'll post again.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

A Zero END Persistant Always On Palindromedary

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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.

 

 

Oh. OK, I think I see what you're getting at now.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is trying to look at it from both sides.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Nice try, but that isn't the question, particularly when "a better experience" is a subjective description. Since you can't even begin to factor in all of the qualities.

 

You still have to deal with the whole issue of does Strength at 1:1 cause balance issues? If strength at 1:1 does not cause me balance issues, than Strength at 2:1 can not provide "better" balance, because I'm at perfect balance as far as that area of the game is concerned.

 

What most of the Strength at 2:1 crowd doesn't get is that for me to endorse at you have to prove to me there is a benefit to this change. So you have to convince me that this problem is sufficiently universal. Cause right now I'm hearing: "Hershey's special dark is so bitter that it made me sick. Hershey's Milk Chocolate isn't so bitter to make me sick, so Heshey should only sell Milk Chocolate." Unfortunately, Hershey's Special Dark has never made me sick, or any of my close associates all of whom have eaten Hershey's Special Dark.

 

I can't help what you're hearing; What's been said is that people who have experienced both states are better informed as to which is subjectively superior than people who haven't.

 

What you seem to be saying is: I've only tried Hershey's Milk Chocolate so they should only make Hershey's Milk Chocolate.

 

As to your balance issues, well I only have Math and Experience and both say 1:1 is to cheap.

[caris]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I can't help what you're hearing; What's been said is that people who have experienced both states are better informed as to which is subjectively superior than people who haven't.

 

What you seem to be saying is: I've only tried Hershey's Milk Chocolate so they should only make Hershey's Milk Chocolate.

 

As to your balance issues, well I only have Math and Experience and both say 1:1 is to cheap.

 

 

Nope, not saying that at all. I'm saying that I've tried Hershey's Special Dark and it didn't make me sick, so they shouldn't stop making Hershey's Special Dark.

 

Where as you are saying Hershey Special Dark made me sick, and therefore it must be making everyone sick, so they should stop making Hershey's Special Dark.

 

Yeah, and I have math and experience saying the Martial Arts Manuevers and Multipowers are cheap. Is that enough to remove them from the core rules?

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

 

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."

 

 

I agree with you. It makes sense then why the STR is so expensive isn't a slam dunk and why so many of us have experienced no problem despite all the mathematical "proof". I have more feelings about lots of other stuff way before STR but to me everything works pretty well as a whole.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Nope, not saying that at all. I'm saying that I've tried Hershey's Special Dark and it didn't make me sick, so they shouldn't stop making Hershey's Special Dark.

 

Where as you are saying Hershey Special Dark made me sick, and therefore it must be making everyone sick, so they should stop making Hershey's Special Dark.

 

Yeah, and I have math and experience saying the Martial Arts Manuevers and Multipowers are cheap. Is that enough to remove them from the core rules?

 

STR cost is Digital, it has to be one or the other. I'm saying I've tried both and you're saying you don't need to.

 

Martial Arts and Multipowers aren't the topic at hand, they're non-sequitors in the discussion of STR cost. Present options for them if you feel they are under priced or throw off balance.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

STR cost is Digital, it has to be one or the other. I'm saying I've tried both and you're saying you don't need to.

 

Martial Arts and Multipowers aren't the topic at hand, they're non-sequitors in the discussion of STR cost. Present options for them if you feel they are under priced or throw off balance.

 

You are wrong. The fact that you do not see why other things that save points would be a issue when discussing a Primary characteristic that saves you points amazes me.

[caris]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

STR cost is Digital' date=' it has to be one or the other. I'm saying I've tried both and you're saying you don't need to.[/quote']

 

No, I'm saying that the only "improvement" that this change has is to fix a problem that I don't have. Quite frankly, you, Markdoc and Kandsky have gone to great pains to explain how you now have players that buy a wide variety of Strengths (which I already do), that high Strength characters no longet dominate your games (they don't dominate my games), and the savings no longer offend your sensibilities (they never offended mine). How is fixing problems I don't have going to improve my game experience?

 

You seem to think that I'm arguing that 2:1 is worse. I'm not. I'm arguing that it isn't offering me anything, that from my perspective it is change for changes sake.

 

Martial Arts and Multipowers aren't the topic at hand' date=' they're non-sequitors in the discussion of STR cost. Present options for them if you feel they are under priced or throw off balance.[/quote']

 

Ah, but my dealings with the other posters here have lead to beleive that the problems that I am having with Martial Arts Manuevers and Multipowers are not wide spread enough to warrant a change to the core rules. If other posters come here, I'd be certainly happy to discuss with them how I dealt with my problems with those items.

 

My dog in this hunt is that their is an implication that because certain poster are having a problem with Strength that this problem must be universal, and that people who say they don't have it are a. Lying, b. "nerfing" strength, or c. too stupid to see it.

 

Mathematical "proofs" about how cheap something is are nice, but honestly all the math in the world is meaningless if my players are obviously doing differently than what your "proof" says they should. I'm sorry, but until something changes the perception of strength, I'm not going to have these issues. Matter of fact when a mathematical "proof" does not jibe with my experiences, I have to assume that there are variables in the equation that the proof is not accounting for.

[caris]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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

 

I can't imagine why anyone who does put a lot of import on "mathematical point balance" would play Hero. The core rules pretty much admit that the points by themselves do not produce balance, hence why you have the suggestion of effectiveness caps. Even discounting Strength there are plenty of other things that give you more than if you bought it other ways. If the points were able to provide the balance about half the thread in "Hero System Discussion" forum would disappear. Heck, Steve wouldn't have "game balance" as part of his mantra in question answering.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

You are wrong. The fact that you do not see why other things that save points would be a issue when discussing a Primary characteristic that saves you points amazes me.

 

Well I am a pretty amazing guy.

 

My comments to Caris a lot more about how he's arguing than about what he's arguing.

 

But just for you;

Martial arts a really a footnote, I am myself leary of damage classes and carefully scrutinize their use. If you feel they are over powered the game looses very little by their removal. Worth considering in its own right but not that important when talking about STR cost.

 

Multi-Powers are nearly universally useful to all characters types, including Bricks. High Strength is useful to a small cluster of character types, primarily bricks. It's not terribley difficult to figure out that a universally useful cost reduction is less destabilizing than a local effect.

[caris]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Well I am a pretty amazing guy.

 

My comments to Caris a lot more about how he's arguing than about what he's arguing.

 

Well, the last time I used it, I felt that it was pretty obvious that I was comparing two situations. Your problems with Strength and my problems with those two things.

 

I have a problem, I can use the proof that they save points (their whole purpose for existing is to save points) mathematically. Are those two facts enough of a reason to change the core rules?

 

But just for you;

Martial arts a really a footnote, I am myself leary of damage classes and carefully scrutinize their use. If you feel they are over powered the game looses very little by their removal. Worth considering in its own right but not that important when talking about STR cost.

 

Multi-Powers are nearly universally useful to all characters types, including Bricks. High Strength is useful to a small cluster of character types, primarily bricks. It's not terribley difficult to figure out that a universally useful cost reduction is less destabilizing than a local effect.

 

Well, the inference I am drawing here is that no, you do not think that the fact that I am having a problem with a mechanic and can prove that it is based on the cost savings is enough of a reason to change the core rules.

 

So what would be enough to convince you that the core rules need to be changed about something that isn't giving you a problem?

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I gave you a partial write-up of such a character (which I just created off the top of my head' date=' bricks being fairly straight-forward to create, especially since you had specified no HA or MA) [...'] This is why I left 88 points unassigned so the generic brick I submitted can be tailored to whatever type of game is under consideration. The only assumptions I made was a standard superheroic game at 200+150, and that 12DC attacks are fairly standard. If you think this brick, in order to "work competitively" needs more normal or resistant defenses, or needs even more STR, or needs some "brick tricks" like Entangling targets or making AOE attacks using objects of opportunity, you've got 88 more points with which to buy such powers/characteristics.

 

I beleive the only reason anyone would want to house rule it back to 1:1 is because of the tradition from first edition. If STR had been 2 points all the way back to 1st (or even 2nd or 3rd), I don't think anyone would be complaining about it being too expensive now. They'd look at it and see that 20 points spent on +10 STR gives +2 DC to HtH attacks (including Grabs, Move-thru's and HKAs), +2" Leaping, and +11 points in Figured characteristics. They'd say, "Wow! That's a pretty good deal!"

 

This post takes the cake (which is, of course, a lie). If str was 2:1, we would probaby not see dozens of "OMG, STR IS TOO EXPENSIVE!!111one" theads, because even at 2:1, you get great value out of your points, better than any EC and possibly even better than most MPs.

 

And for the "build a character" challenge: The built brick is a viable base, you've still got a huge 88 points left to spend, that's more than 20% of base 350 cost. Also, restricting "no HA" and "no MA" is really cheap, as these two things let high STR shine even more.

 

And this question was not answered: What is good about str at 1:1? If that's the perfect pricing, why should str not be even cheaper at 0.5:1? If you name anything mathematical which was called for 2:1 vs 1:1, you basically agree that 2:1 would be superior to 1:1.

 

Yeah, you can now make the 3:1 argument, I've not thought that through yet.

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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?

 

In my earlier post, I pointed out of the multiple GMs in our game, one DID find equipment pools suited his style of play and retained them. The majority did not. On the Fantasy hero board this topic comes up at least once a year and plenty of players and GMs weigh in. The conclusion is always that the majority of the GMs find it intolerably restricting and a giant PITA - but there are also always those who find it suits their style of play.

 

Thus, I conclude not that I am inevitably right - merely that my experience mirrors that of the majority of GMs - which is exactly what I wrote.

 

And my initial point regarding STR applies to equipment pools. If you think the idea has merit, try it. If it works for you, cool. If it doesn't - dump it. I've tried equipment pools - extensively - in multiple genres, both myself as GM and as a player with multiple other GMs. Though the idea sounded reasonable, in practice, I don't like the way they function. I've tried STR at 2:1 - extensively - in multiple genres, both myself as GM and as a player with multiple other GMs. I like the way it functions very much indeed.

 

For me, the choice of which to use really isn't a hard one.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

And for the "build a character" challenge: The built brick is a viable base' date=' you've still got a huge 88 points left to spend, that's more than 20% of base 350 cost. Also, restricting "no HA" and "no MA" is really cheap, as these two things let high STR shine even more.[/quote']

 

The big issue as far as that brick is concerned would be the AP of the STR - if the GM is using an AP cap for his campaign a STR 60 brick becomes too expensive (and STR 60 bricks are not too uncommon with 12DC campaigns). It isn't even as if the AP are close.

 

So, there is an issue about using AP caps as a GM tool if we are talking about increasing the cost of STR.

 

[i can't believe I have followed this thread through almost 400 posts and posted again - nor that I did that to defend AP limits which I hate! I think I am suffering from Sean-itis - a nervous disposition that necessitates typing stuff]

 

Doc

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

This post takes the cake (which is, of course, a lie). If str was 2:1, we would probaby not see dozens of "OMG, STR IS TOO EXPENSIVE!!111one" theads, because even at 2:1, you get great value out of your points, better than any EC and possibly even better than most MPs.

 

And for the "build a character" challenge: The built brick is a viable base, you've still got a huge 88 points left to spend, that's more than 20% of base 350 cost. Also, restricting "no HA" and "no MA" is really cheap, as these two things let high STR shine even more.

 

And this question was not answered: What is good about str at 1:1? If that's the perfect pricing, why should str not be even cheaper at 0.5:1? If you name anything mathematical which was called for 2:1 vs 1:1, you basically agree that 2:1 would be superior to 1:1.

 

Yeah, you can now make the 3:1 argument, I've not thought that through yet.

 

False asumption: Someone who buys there strength up wants everything (or near) it provides

 

Saying restricting from taking HA or MA is really cheap is not actualy fair, the point alot of us have been trying to get across is yes Str saves points just like other things do (like MA or MP), to then use those other things on top of the savings from Str is a way to double dip advantages, so when you stack the character up against who has only used one of them OF COURSE it is going to look better. That is common sense. The question is "Can you make a brick without resorting to these other cost savers that can compete with those who do"

 

Saying it is better than EC is correct, it is also more restrictive (I want to be like superman not the hulk, why can't I trade in my leaping for flight), simple equation there, more restrictive, worth more savings. Also MP's are only great in limited circumstances (But oh how they shine in those cases)

 

To answer your question on why is 1:1 good, simple, it encourages higher strength characters, as has been said this is a feature, not a weakness. In Most heroic storytelling characters tend to be strong, this makes it more common. This is a good thing called Genre emulation.

 

HOWEVER, and I have said this over and over again, more material should be presented in the main book on how to change the cost of things and the ramifications of doing so, instead of the little bit in the back of 5th edition that basicaly reads to me as "I know you think it would be a good idea but don't do it" I want to see a serious discusion on the effects of lowering and increasing various characteristics have on a game. Obviously you raise costs, less people take it, you lower and more take it, but the question on what this does to the game can be really interesting. In a fantasy game setting the Str at 10 points per 1 Str would seriously reduce the number of conan like barbarians, lowering it to .5 per point of Str you will see ALOT more of them. So you need to get back to what is the genre like. As a default 1:1 works well, better IME than 2:1 does.

 

I do think that for SOME games 1:1 is to low, my ESPianage game I wanted to deempasise Str so Str was 3:1, it worked well for the feel I want, but it would have sucked for a James Bond style game (2 would be about right for the most recent bond movie, 1:1 for the vast majority of the franchise).

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Because of the issue of sameness. In heroic games with STR at 1:1, we repeatedly saw that pretty much every PC ended up at 18 STR within a few months of play, if they didn't start there.

 

That's not the case with DEX or CON - although most PCs tended to spend ponts there, even after a couple of years of play, not everyone ended up at 18 CON or 20 DEX. Skill levels contribute to that because a player can increase OCV or DCV either via DEX or via CSL. DEX is most cost efficient, but it's not necessarily cheaper - a character with a passel of 2 point CSLs can easily have a higher OCV than DEX20 guy, even though he'll suffer in other ways. In fact that's the case in my current game: I have a PC with DEX 20, but the highest OCV belongs to the guy specialised in a single weapon, who's DEX 14.

 

So the reason I am concerned about STR and not DEX and CON is because in-game one tends to crystallise at a single breakpoint and the others don't. It's kind of dull if every character is the same STR - especially as it eliminates many common archetypes. However with STR at 2.1, in the current game, after 2+ years of play, we have PC STR ranging from 10 to 23. From my point of view, it's clear that:

a) STR at a cost of 2:1 is not unattractive to players, nor is it ineffective

STR at a cost of 2.1 now acts much more like other CHA - PCs usually buy some extra but not "as much as I can get, regardless"

 

cheers, Mark

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Well I am a pretty amazing guy.

 

My comments to Caris a lot more about how he's arguing than about what he's arguing.

 

But just for you;

Martial arts a really a footnote, I am myself leary of damage classes and carefully scrutinize their use. If you feel they are over powered the game looses very little by their removal. Worth considering in its own right but not that important when talking about STR cost.

 

Multi-Powers are nearly universally useful to all characters types, including Bricks. High Strength is useful to a small cluster of character types, primarily bricks. It's not terribley difficult to figure out that a universally useful cost reduction is less destabilizing than a local effect.

 

Regarding MA: I do think that it is a piece of the puzzle, not the center mass, but a piece that needs to be recognised. I would also sugest that MA are a more serious piece of the puzzle in a Heroic scale than a super heroic

 

Regarding MP: That implies that most bricks should take a MP, the whole thing about the STR argument is that because of the cost savings they don't need to resort to a MP. I personaly want as many different cost savers available, for character variety if nothing else. I have never found Strength to be that destabilizing, useful yes, but I have yet to hear of any horror story that does not dip into the NCM debate (To many characters have to high of strength)

 

As for the MP, I think that there is at least an implied "Bricks should have to take a MP" in that argument, one I disagree with, some should have one, but others should be just as competitive without it

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Because of the issue of sameness. In heroic games with STR at 1:1, we repeatedly saw that pretty much every PC ended up at 18 STR within a few months of play, if they didn't start there.

 

That's not the case with DEX or CON - although most PCs tended to spend ponts there, even after a couple of years of play, not everyone ended up at 18 CON or 20 DEX. Skill levels contribute to that because a player can increase OCV or DCV either via DEX or via CSL. DEX is most cost efficient, but it's not necessarily cheaper - a character with a passel of 2 point CSLs can easily have a higher OCV than DEX20 guy, even though he'll suffer in other ways. In fact that's the case in my current game: I have a PC with DEX 20, but the highest OCV belongs to the guy specialised in a single weapon, who's DEX 14.

 

So the reason I am concerned about STR and not DEX and CON is because in-game one tends to crystallise at a single breakpoint and the others don't. It's kind of dull if every character is the same STR - especially as it eliminates many common archetypes. However with STR at 2.1, in the current game, after 2+ years of play, we have PC STR ranging from 10 to 23. From my point of view, it's clear that:

a) STR at a cost of 2:1 is not unattractive to players, nor is it ineffective

STR at a cost of 2.1 now acts much more like other CHA - PCs usually buy some extra but not "as much as I can get, regardless"

 

cheers, Mark

 

Str 18...Really weird, most people I have played buy Str at variables of 5 (15, 20, 25, 30, etc...)

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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.

 

Two reasons for the distinction.

 

First: Ubiquity. While many characters will have either martial arts, a powerframework or a skill enhancer, everybody has STR. That means it's an issue with every type of character.

 

Secondly, STR not only gets you a much bigger price break than any of the above, as Sean pointed out it's the only one of thse 4 which actually has a negative point cost: in other words, it gets you more than you paid for.

 

Those two points are substantial differences.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The big issue as far as that brick is concerned would be the AP of the STR - if the GM is using an AP cap for his campaign a STR 60 brick becomes too expensive (and STR 60 bricks are not too uncommon with 12DC campaigns). It isn't even as if the AP are close.

 

So, there is an issue about using AP caps as a GM tool if we are talking about increasing the cost of STR.

 

[i can't believe I have followed this thread through almost 400 posts and posted again - nor that I did that to defend AP limits which I hate! I think I am suffering from Sean-itis - a nervous disposition that necessitates typing stuff]

 

Doc

 

I'm watching you, Democracy That was why I suggested splitting strength into 'slow' and 'fast' versions, each costed at 1/1 - it gets round the AP problem, which I also see as an issue, if not from a 'limitation' point of view then because it also ames advanatges ludicrously expensive. 0 END on your 60 STR? That'll be another 60 points, sir. Do you dress to the left?

 

Now could someone just run through the whole chocolate/peanut butter thing for me again, and perhaps stage a small war? I'd also appreciate it if many of the posts could be about 2 sides of foolscap long. That would really help.

 

What?

 

PS P-p-p-page 27!

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Two reasons for the distinction.

 

First: Ubiquity. While many characters will have either martial arts, a powerframework or a skill enhancer, everybody has STR. That means it's an issue with every type of character.

 

Secondly, STR not only gets you a much bigger price break than any of the above, as Sean pointed out it's the only one of thse 4 which actually has a negative point cost: in other words, it gets you more than you paid for.

 

Those two points are substantial differences.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I think that the perception that Str is a negative point cost is not completly true. In a way Strength mandates that you buy X, Y, Z, etc...It then provides you with a huge discount on those things, but you really are not getting points back from buying Str, just an insanly deep discount on the figured characteristics (Broader than the actual def of term, as it includes the damage, leaping, etc...)

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

18 makes sense from a figured/heroic point of view. You get the PD and the REC, and quite a few heroic PCs don't care about that fourth d6 (since their weapon restricts them in how much str they can add). Also, the +1 on STR skills is largely meaningless, as well, how many str skills are there?

 

If you think that "everyone has lots of str" is a good thing, then certainly, str at 1:1 is great. But for everything except champions that is not very fitting (mages with 18 str? kinda weird). So the default should not be Champions, but Generic. That's one of the most cited problems of HERO, btw: It's roots in champions, which are (sadly) still very strong. HERO is not really generic, but it can be used as such.

 

And yes: STR is negative points. You would have bought defenses (PD/ED) in some form anyway, so that's worth it. REC you also need, stun is never useless and at that point, you're already at negatives. Leaping is a bonus, so is the strength itself. Show me a champions character with less than 15 strength which would absolutely not gain points by "buying" str for free (and possibly selling some defenses in the process to stay at the same level).