Discussion on costs of Characteristics

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Str 18...Really weird' date=' most people I have played buy Str at variables of 5 (15, 20, 25, 30, etc...)[/quote']

 

18's good for the secondary breakpoints: it's probably more accurate to say that everyone ended up with at least 18, because you're right, we also had some STR 20 guys.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

f you think that "everyone has lots of str" is a good thing' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I don't even have problems with mages at 18 STR: I'm perfectly happy with a robust, muscular mage, especially as an adventurer. It does however, get pretty old when almost every PC is STR 18 or 20, regardless of their actual focus.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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' date=' 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...)[/quote']

 

...unless you actually do sell back your extra STUN, in which case you've paid 1/2 point per point of strength net, have more strength AND higher figured characteristics.

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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' date=' 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...)[/quote']

 

But you can sell secondaries back, actually generating points. You can't do that with any other cost-saving device in the rules. So there is, in fact, a papable difference. As has been pointed out, if you sell back STUN, you effectively decrease the price of STR by 50% at 1:1. That means you're essentially getting an improved HA for 2.5 points per DC - plus extra REC and PD.

 

To put it in perspective: 10 points gets you:

3d6HA

2d6 EB

or

15 STR, 3 PD, 1.5 REC

Now STUN is so useful that players rarely do this - but it shows you the value of STR even more starkly.

 

cheers, Mark

 

EDIT:Scooped!

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

To me STR is the epitome of the black box syndrome. It is a way in which the game designer is telling you that any character who has high strength will also have higher PD, REC and STUN whether you like it or not. Limiting the number of figured stats you can sell back simply emphasises that design stricture.

 

By increasing the cost of STR you do not remove the design imposition - you simply ensure that fewer people buy high STR.

 

I think that this probably moves me closer to scrapping characteristics than playing about with the costs of them....there will never be a point where people are happy with the distribution of costs etc.

 

 

Doc

[JmOz]

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).

 

Mages Str 18...Let's see Gandolf...yup I could see Str 18 with how he went to town on those orks

 

Merlin, some versions, yup I can see it

 

Circe...maybe a 15 on her

 

Personaly I find the idea that the wizard as a weakling more weird than the idea of him being fit

 

The game is trying to emulate HEROIC FICTION, it is not a genre thing to me

 

I think some of the issue is a misconception on how lifting works in the system (Remember 1" off the ground for a couple seconds, not oh this is easy) and the idea that NCM is a end limit. I think most Heroic strong guys should be around 23-25, not 20. This is based on ALOT of fantasy reading, and alot of movie watching. Note not realistic, but it is what is in the movies. It is not a champions thing, it's a heroic fiction thing

[caris]

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

 

If that is the issue, than why did you bring up that "no one ever sells back Strength" and why did you bring up that "[everyone] never sees someone play strength at 10"? Why did you focus in the examples you gave from published characters not having a 10 Strength? Why did you not talk about the ranges of Strength those published characters have?

 

Wouldn't you be having the same issue if everyone bought there Strength to any single number: 5, 8, 10, 13, 15 or 18?

 

Of course, my biggest issue is your constant phrasing things as that everyone must have your experience. That it is absolutely impossible and inconceivable to you that the people that I've gamed with have not put their strength at 20 in all the Heroic games that we play. That we have had Strengths ranging from 8 to 25 in our Heroic games, and no one felt penalized by it, ever.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

But you can sell secondaries back' date=' actually [b']generating[/b] points. You can't do that with any other cost-saving device in the rules. So there is, in fact, a papable difference.

 

cheers, Mark

 

No you can't. Please tell me the ONE figured characteristic you are selling back to make more points

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I don't have time to read this lengthy thread, so excuse me if my post is passe.

 

I've said it before and Ill say it again here:

 

Mechanically and mathematically STR should cost at least 2 points each point.

 

Under the current system:

 

Every 5 points of STR doubles your lifting ability, gives you +1d6 unarmed damage and to break out of Grabs and Entangles and to maintain Grabs of your own, and +1" of Leaping ability.

 

That alone would be a tidy bargain, but STR also has three Figured Characteristics based on it; Physical Defense (PD), Recovery (REC), and Stun (STUN).

Every 5 points of STR, rounded in the character's favor, garners +1 PD and +1 REC.

Every 2 points of STR, rounded in the character's favor, garners +1 STUN.

 

So lets do a little math. Every character starts off with a 10 point base for STR which grants 100kg lifting, 2d6 exerting, and 2" leaping. It also grants 2 PD, 2 REC, and 5 STUN. Not bad.

If I spend 5 points on STR my character has 15 STR, then in addition to the other things STR grants (lifting, exerting, leaping), it also grants +1 PD (1 points), +1 REC (2 points), and +3 STUN (3 points). So wait a second...I spent 5 character points, and got all the things STR grants on it's own PLUS 6 points worth of other figured characteristics?

 

That is a "Point Recursion". Spending points shouldn't generate more points, and in my opinion it is a real flaw.

 

Some people are of the position that this point recursion allows superheroic bricks to compete with other archetypes that benefit from Power Frameworks, but I don't buy it (I've never found bricks to have problems being competitive -- quite the opposite in fact). And even if one concedes that point, it still doesn't excuse the brokenness of this at heroic levels of play.

 

 

 

However, lets just put the mathematical disconnect aside and stop to think about why players feel like they need a phenomenally high STR; why its important to have a means by which characters can potentially afford 60 to 100+ STR, when every other stat is generally measured in thresholds below 40.

 

The answer? Simple. Two reasons:

 

1) The STR Chart. None of the other stats have such a document that gives real world hard numbers for specific increments. Thus, to be special / standout in those other stats only requires a character to have higher than average numbers but to lift 100 tons requires somewhere between 60 and 65 STR depending on where you fall on the old "barely lift and stagger a few feet" argument. To lift something as heavy as Superman lifts on panel 5 of issue ### requires 110 STR (or whatever).

 

2) STR effects almost always are resolved by counting BODY on a damage roll rather than with a 3d6 roll under like every other stat effect. To succeed at some tasks you need to roll a lot of dice, thus you need a lot of STR.

 

 

I see the "fix" for STR as being threefold:

1) Either ditch the STR chart entirely and keep it relative / vague or else rewrite it so that each increment of STR is stronger than it currently is, rather than going with the current approach of doubling the weight every 5 points of STR

 

2) Move towards using damage rolls to do damage and using 3d6 roll unders modified as necessary / appropriate to do STR tasks including lifting, granting bonuses to the roll for extended actions, balance, etc. A stepped system of lifting things above or below normal tolerances could be used to make STR more variable -- moving around light things is trivial, moving around heavier things is difficult but not impossible with a sufficiently good roll. I.e. like every other Char based Skill resolution already works.

 

3) Raise the cost to 2 points per point. Characters that want to do pure damage and not benefit for the other many pros of buying up STR can buy HA directly. Get rid of the band-aid Hand Attack lim.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

...unless you actually do sell back your extra STUN' date=' in which case you've paid 1/2 point per point of strength net, have more strength AND higher figured characteristics.[/quote']

 

Which to me is an issue with Stun not Str (personaly I think the Stun calc should be Body+Con)

[caris]

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

 

OK, once again every character that gets submitted to me has martial art manuevers. Everyone can buy martial art manuevers.

 

OK, 60 point multipower with 5 ultra slots points spent 90. Points worth of Powers 300. Points saved 210. How exactly is 210 not more than 90?

 

I'll have fun with Martial Arts Manuevers when I get home from work.

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

To me STR is the epitome of the black box syndrome. It is a way in which the game designer is telling you that any character who has high strength will also have higher PD' date=' REC and STUN whether you like it or not. Limiting the number of figured stats you can sell back simply emphasises that design stricture.[/quote']

 

Well, it's also a requirement of the current design. STR is teh worst offender by far, but it's not the only one. As STR is set up currently if you could sell back more than one figured, you could effectively get STR for (literally) less than nothing - in effect gaining points as you bought more STR and sold off the secondaries.

 

While I can see the desire to remove the link to figured Stat.s to address this problem, it seems like a far more disruptive approach than simply tackling the one primary stat. that routinely causes problems. Similarly rather than adding extra stat.s (breaking STR into slow STR and fast STR, DEX into agility, dexterity and presence of mind, etc) which would add extra complexity, I'd rather handle those distinctions using the already existing mechanisms (ie: slow STR is limited STR - fast STR is simply unlimited STR).

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Sheesh, is this thread being run by The Replicators? I swear it is actually picking up momentum!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

OK, once again every character that gets submitted to me has martial art manuevers. Everyone can buy martial art manuevers.

 

OK, 60 point multipower with 5 ultra slots points spent 90. Points worth of Powers 300. Points saved 210. How exactly is 210 not more than 90?

 

I'll have fun with Martial Arts Manuevers when I get home from work.

 

A couple of points; the reason that MArts is such a bargain is that the cost is based on strength, which is cheap anyway: +5 STR 0 END: 7 points, only useable with MA Maneouvres -1/4, no figured -1/2. Presumably.

 

Second point, whilst MArts are available to even the strongest of characters, most games at least have a DC cap which prevents this in practice.

 

As to the MP thing, well I kinda agree: depending on build they can be very abusive BUT what it is difficult to do with a MP is get benefit from several slots as once. This is Hero - it can be done - but it is far more obviously munchkinny. Say hello to my friend, Mr Uncontrolled....

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

OK, once again every character that gets submitted to me has martial art manuevers. Everyone can buy martial art manuevers.

 

OK, 60 point multipower with 5 ultra slots points spent 90. Points worth of Powers 300. Points saved 210. How exactly is 210 not more than 90?

 

I'll have fun with Martial Arts Manuevers when I get home from work.

 

Because you can't use those 300 at the same time, nor can you have 300 AP of powers active at any time.

 

What you actually have is 60 AP of powers on which you paid a 50% premium for increased flexibility. That's still a pretty good deal, but - in good hero system fashion - you are paying points for flexibility. Someone who spent those 90 points on a single power is less flexible, but they have way more oomph in that power than any power owned by the guy who put it in a framework.

 

STR functions quite, quite differently, as has been repeatedly pointed out in the last few posts. There, you're getting a price break in exchange for .... ummm... getting more good stuff.

 

In short, with your example, 90 points spent on the framework gets you a choice of 60 active point powers. 90 points spent on STR gets you 189 active points of Attack, movement and characteristics even before you figure in grabbing, lifting and breaking things. Again, the math is incontrovertible:characteristics are the only buy that nets you more active points than the points you spent - and STR gives you more than any other CHA, exaggerating that difference.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Sheesh' date=' is this thread being run by The Replicators? I swear it is actually picking up momentum![/quote']

 

People have been busy over the weekend - I went to the movies and dinner out (Friday), roleplaying (saturday afternoon and evening), Kath's Hafla (dance and music exhibition) and dinner out again afterwards (Sunday). Other people probably the same: you're seeing the outpouring of everything not written on the weekend.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

A couple of points; the reason that MArts is such a bargain is that the cost is based on strength' date=' which is cheap anyway: +5 STR 0 END: 7 points, only useable with MA Maneouvres -1/4, no figured -1/2. Presumably.[/quote']

 

Sure, the damage class for martial arts is more or less forced to be priced where it is because it's more useful than HA but way less useful than STR. So it shouldn't be 3, but can't be 5.

 

Given the pricing issues around STR and HA, that extra DC more or less gets shoehorned inevitably into the 4 point slot. Martial artists would be way, way better off paying 1 extra point per DC for STR, if their concept allowed it - or if they are stingy, buying the STR and selling off leaping to get more damage, more figureds and better overall effectiveness for the same 4 points.

 

If STR is costed at 2:1, the simplest approach is simply to treat them as limited STR: in which case, HA and martial arts DC both cost 5, which works out well - they both add a DC that costs the same as any other DC.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

No you can't. Please tell me the ONE figured characteristic you are selling back to make more points

 

I did give an example. You can't generate more points than you invested, but you can generate points - without limiting the power itself. No other construction lets you do that.

 

10 STR costs you 5 points if you sell off STUN, 3 points if you sell off leaping as well. However that 10 STR is fully functional - in every way comparable to the 10 STR of someone who didn't sell off STUN.

 

In contrast, you can reduce the 10 points for 2d6 HA to 5 (or 3) by taking another -1/2 or -1 1/2 limit or for EB by taking a -1 or -2 limit, but those two attack forms are going to be significantly less effective than the unlimited forms.

 

A smart player will use those saved points to offset that limitation, but the powers themselves are still limited: it's a fundamental difference. You could say the character who sold down his STUN is limited, but that's still fundamentally different from the way power limitations and advantages work - and compared to the guy who bought EB, he's not limited at all - he still has a better Stat line and an attack of the same size.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

If that is the issue' date=' than why did [b']you[/b] bring up that "no one ever sells back Strength" and why did you bring up that "[everyone] never sees someone play strength at 10"? Why did you focus in the examples you gave from published characters not having a 10 Strength? Why did you not talk about the ranges of Strength those published characters have?

 

Wouldn't you be having the same issue if everyone bought there Strength to any single number: 5, 8, 10, 13, 15 or 18?

 

No. That's a substantial degree of variation right there, from "very weak" to "very strong". It gives a hugely different feel to having most PCs pegged at the "very strong" end of the scale.

 

Of course' date=' my biggest issue is your constant phrasing things as that everyone must have your experience. That it is absolutely impossible and inconceivable to you that the people that I've gamed with have not put their strength at 20 in all the Heroic games that we play. That we have had Strengths ranging from 8 to 25 in our Heroic games, and no one felt penalized by it, ever.[/quote']

 

All I can do - and I tried to make that point - is speak from my own experience. And in my own experience, STR bias HAS repeatedly been a problem. If it was only my games, then I'd suspect my GM'ing style. If it was only my gaming group, then I'd put it down to that particular group of players. But it's neither: it's a persistent problem for many groups - and as indicated, it tends to show up in published characters as well (though I agree, it's not such an issue for NPCs).

 

If it wasn't a recurring problem, we wouldn't have been having this debate every few months for the last couple of decades.

 

If it's not a problem for you - then, cool. You don't need to change anything (well, except maybe your player's fixation with martial arts ). But there have been plenty of comments suggesting that 2:1 isn't viable, when in fact actual gaming experience from multiple GMs shows it most certainly is. There's also the idea that the bias in favour of STR was largely imaginary - and that's where the issue of Powergirl and Energyman took flight: here we have two characters deliberately designed to be equal - when we actually compare the two, the high STR character is clearly superior.

 

We can of course compare builds endlessly, but it did make the point very clearly that even using a framework to try and offset his disadvantage pitting EB versus STR, STR has a major advantage. That's about all it really does show - making "equal" characters is actually unfair to an energy blaster since realistically, they can't be expected to match up to a STR-based character in both damage output AND physical stat.s when STR is 1:1. They're better off focussing on their own strengths. Energyman would have been a better match if he had been weaker physically and had a higher OCV and move.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

While I can see the desire to remove the link to figured Stat.s to address this problem' date=' it seems like a far more disruptive approach than simply tackling the one primary stat. that routinely causes problems. Similarly rather than adding extra stat.s (breaking STR into slow STR and fast STR, DEX into agility, dexterity and presence of mind, etc) which would add extra complexity, I'd rather handle those distinctions using the already existing mechanisms (ie: slow STR is limited STR - fast STR is simply unlimited STR).[/quote']

 

Currently if you build your character with the 'gifting' stats - STR and CON mostly - and you intended to have high figures with the hig figured then you are gaining a benefit and getting the figureds, or the STR, for free. With the sell back only one, you are probably getting higher STUN, PD or REC than you intended and have to live with that...

 

If I was going to change the costing structure of STR or CON it would impact on the costs of so many of the current characters etc that I would be inclined to say that it was a PITA for many people. I would be inclined to have a much bigger disruption and try to re-package the game for a new era of characteristicless (as opposed to characterless ) gaming!

 

This is compulsive - I have OCD of the keyboard!

 

Doc

[Markdoc]

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

 

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.

 

Well, all I can say is that I'm genuinely sorry. I hesitated to write it, but asked because there are lots of people on the boards who'd like to play but don't have a group and I know that actually running something can change your perspective compared to just doing the math. I wanted to get a better feel for your perspective, is all.

 

 

Yes' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

Oh, no, not in the slightest: in general, when we played supers, we tended to have slugfests that would consume an entire evening's play. Perhaps that's why we saw a tendency toward bricks: long fights where defence, REC and STUN are important play to their strengths.

 

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.

 

Actually, my point - stated explicitly, several times was that there were multiple ways she could win. Grab and haymaker (technically speaking once grabbed, you can't haymaker - see my earlier link to the FAQ - so she can do it to him, but he can't return the favour once grabbed), grab and slam, movethrough, use of environmental features. Haymaker lets him damage her - but only at significant levels of risk. In short, his options are greatly reduced compared to hers.

 

SNIP

 

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.

 

IF all he does is use his actions dodging. I've already mentioned that fleeing is probably his best option. If he does that, he reduces that 6% chance to nothing: he can't outpace her, but she can't catch him. But that sounds like concession to me.

 

I've snipped out the big chunk on movement - I agree that in most circumstances, a fight between these two opponents is going to end up in the sky. That helps EM a bit - but not much.

 

 

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.

 

Agreed.

 

Let's say he blocks (that's an attack action ending his phase). He has initiative next phase. But what does it get him? He can shoot her - doing no significant damage and likely remaining in half move range even if he hits - and having attacked, he cannot then block again. If he misses, she's right in his face. All it does is delay the phase when she finally lands a solid one. Frankly, he'd be better off fleeing.

 

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)?

 

Sure - as I noted, I was assuming he'd get plenty of chances to shoot.

 

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.

 

Sigh. I can't believe we are doing this again. Yes, if he spreads, he improves his chance of hitting and the odds are very good he'll do knockdown or even a little knockback.

 

I hate to sound like the Midnighter, but I've already fought this combat a million times in my head. I know how it ends.

 

Still, let's do the math once again. Spreading to 6 dice means he does 0 stun, so the number of times he hits is irrelevant: he's not going to hurt her and she's not going to run out of END. All we need to worry about then is movement. On average (spreading to 6d6) he'll send her back 2-3" when he hits, meaning that on phases where he hits her he'll gain 2-3" of distance on her (assuming he always moves back a half move and she has to spend a halfmove re-orienting). On phases where he misses (slightly more than 1 phase in 3) she'll gain 10" on him. In other words, even using your own math here, on average she'll move 4-5" closer to him in total every 3 phases. Basically she'll close the last 20" between them in a couple of turns - losing no STUN and no END in the process.

 

He has to consistently roll way over the odds to blast her away from him. He might gain a few phases, but he's doing no damage and she's burning less END than she recovers. Whether he spreads the dice doing less KNB more frequently, or more KNB, less frequently, the maths is remorseless: She will close to HTH range in a few phases. And he cannot avoid it, just by shooting her.

 

At that point, all the stuff you wrote below this, about moving out of her movement range is irrelevant. He doesn't get any "free moves" so unless he turns and flees, the best he can realistically hope for at that point is to move (half move plus KNB) away, barring an incredibly lucky series of rolls on his part. And even if he is incredibly lucky, all that does is give him a chance to try haymakering her without getting splattered in return. Since that's highly unlikely to stun her, and can't take her out of the fight, it doesn't help him much - and he's taking a huge risk. Since haymaker takes an extra segment she can either half move and dodge or full move towards him: either way the odds are very good that if she wins the next DEX-off - he's going to be wearing a movethrough while at -5 DCV, which will hurt him a lot more than a haymaker will hurt her.

 

He can of course abort to dodge, but then she's right on top of him again and we are back to square 1.

 

And even though the chances of her are succeeding are small, unless he can come up with some way to hurt her or he flees, eventually she's gonna tag him if they are in hand to hand.

 

With these characters, there really isn't anyway to mold the numbers in his favour. Basically all we end up with is that if he fights intelligently, he can delay - for a while - the time until she really gets to hurt him. If that's your point, I agree entirely.

 

Your other points about using environmental weapons of opportunity are well-thought out, but as a GM (and in common with pretty much all the GMs I have played with) I rule that environmental objects cannot do more damage than BOD plus DEF, and they generally have penalties for use (no matter how strong you are, a bus is not designed to be swung like a a baseball bat) so I'd actually say that most things you can find lying around are less of a danger to EM than PW is.

 

EM has such high defences than unless she can find a tank or something similar to hit him with, she's unlikely to be able to hurt him very much with such things - unless he drops his FF, which is a very risky action for him anyway unless she's far, far away. The greater environmental risk for him is non-attack actions like being drowned in a fountain, trapped under a pile of semitrailers, etc.

 

cheers. Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Personally' date=' what I [b']want[/b] 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.

 

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.

 

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"?

 

Answered above: IT IS WORKING. The fact that Bricks and other archetypes work, are competitive but not overpowering, in my game means that I am reluctant to change it and see it not work in my game. Caris and Steamteck have obviously had similar experiences, from their comments above. Doubling the cost of STR when it works at its present cost cannot, intuitively, be a good solution.

 

Which to me is an issue with Stun not Str (personaly I think the Stun calc should be Body+Con)

 

Or the cost of STUN should be reduced. We always leap to raise the price of things that "everybody buys" or that seem overpowered. Why do we not also look economically at things virtually no one buys and ask whether they might be overpriced?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

We want to know the right cost for strength? We have to see how it balances with other powers. We've pretty conclusively estabilished that you can make a brick or a blaster more expensive, depending on how you build it, but really, you are not going to build them to the same spec most of the time, you'll build to the most efficient (sorry, in concept) model for that archetype, considering likely uses. What, however, if cost were not an issue?

 

OK, thought experiment.

 

2 Characters, Power Woman and Energy Guy. They both look like this:

 

20 DEX, 25 CON

20 pd 20 ed (fully resistant)

SPD 5

REC 15

STUN 50

Flight 20"

 

PW has 50 STR, EG has 10d6 EB, their other characteristics are not increased or sold back. Forget the cost, let us check the utility:

 

1. Combat

 

So, they average 15 stun through defences and so they can last 4 to 6 hits, depending how long it takes (factoring in recoveries). That's 1 to 2 turns and it should all be over, bearing in mind a 62.5% hit rate. Of course if there is a lot of rolling with punch and defensive play this can stretch out.

 

The likely result is largely down to environment, IMO. In a large open space, starting more than 20" apart, the ranged attacker will have the edge, and to win, PW will have to be lucky (i.e. use maneouvres that have less chance of hitting, like grab, grab by and move through). Played to similar tactical levels and discounting luck, EG should win. Note, however, that PW only needs a 12" move through to average enough damage to stun EG, then it is probably all over, and that is only -2 to hit, certainly do-able. Even if it doesn't actually stun EG, it is liekly to cause him to waste phases avoiding the attack. EG can only manage that kind of damage with a haymaker, which is a very risky tactic. Quite finely balanced, edge to EG.

 

Indoors, the situation is likely to be reversed, IMO. PW will have the edge, as the range probably doesn't matter any more and she can afford to keep trying grabs until one succeeds - then it really is all over, especially if you are applying the Point Of Origin rules. A grab is only -1 OCV, and PW won't care if she gets hit once or twice or even 3 times - EG will be lucky to win once she has hands on him.

 

So, we can argue about who'll win, but it is reasonably honours even on a one to one.

 

Against multiple opponents, it will depend on build, but I'd suggest PW has the edge as she can use her strength, in many situations, to hit multiple opponents with bits of scenery, without sacrificing damage or CV.

 

Overall therefore, I'd suggest that PW is generally more useful in combat.

 

2. Non combat

 

I can, of course, think of non-combat situations where an EB is more useful than strength, but in the vast majority of cases strength is a far more versatile ability than a straight damage dealing power.

 

3. Overall

 

Overall, I'd suggest strength is a more useful ability than energy blast, ignoring cost, just looking at utility.

 

Now if we assume that the inability of strength to usefully enter into a relationship with a framework is exactly balanced by the rather intimate relationship it has with figured characteristics, doesn't that still leave us with the base line that strength is a more useful ability, and, in Hero, that means it should cost more?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Answered above: IT IS WORKING. The fact that Bricks and other archetypes work' date=' are competitive but not overpowering, [b']in my game[/b] means that I am reluctant to change it and see it not work in my game. Caris and Steamteck have obviously had similar experiences, from their comments above. Doubling the cost of STR when it works at its present cost cannot, intuitively, be a good solution.

 

It works alright: the brick wades into the middle of the combat and soaks loads of damage up. We hobble most bricks with build.

 

If you build a fast brick: high STR, decent defences, high DEX and SPD (which you can do easily enough for the points) you have a different tiger by the tail. Suddenly they have an awful lot of the limelight. To me, that is a killer combination, and it is made possible by the low cost of (most) characteristics when measured against utility.

 

 

 

Or the cost of STUN should be reduced. We always leap to raise the price of things that "everybody buys" or that seem overpowered. Why do we not also look economically at things virtually no one buys and ask whether they might be overpriced?

 

I'm with you in principle but I'm hesitant to have any more fractional costs of things than we have at present. OTOH I like (in principle) the idea of being able to have a character with 120+ stun .

 

I say in principle, because the fights are going to drag...also it would probably mean re-costing Damage Reduction.

 

That's the trouble here - the domino effect (not, as I initially wrote, the Domina effect; that's a quite different effect). It is the main reason I'm not keen on changing the cost of strength.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Regarding MA: I do think that it is a piece of the puzzle' date=' 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[/quote']

 

Agree completely

 

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

 

And now the light bulb goes on and I finally understand the disconect. For just about the last 2 decades bricks have used MPs in almost exactly the same ratio as Energy Projectors, so really almost all with only the occasional outlier. So it's not a Bricks have to take MPs, it's a Bricks do take MPs experience