Discussion on costs of Characteristics

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Yup. The reason they can't is ... ta-da' date=' STR! Costing HA at 5pts per d6 makes it useless, since you can just buy STR for that cost and get oodles of extra goodness. Which should, again, tell us something about the cost of STR. A PART of STR is correctly costed at 1:1, and that's the part that corresponds to HA, the damage part, what I called "explosive strength" earlier. By "explosive strength" I mean strength you can apply in a very short period of time (like punching). "Slow strength" is strength you can apply over a longer period of time (like lifting something).[/quote']

 

I would rather remove HKA from the system. If you want a killing attack with no range, you would buy a Killing Attack, No Range. This can MPA with your STR, if desired, or you can limit it. If you want to simulate STR adding to it, you buy extra KA which is drained as STR and cannot MPA with your STR.

 

Hand Attack should be adressed similarly, in my view. If you have a Flaming Fist, you have a No Range EB which you can MPA with your STR, not bonus damage to STR. Again, if you want to simulate STR adds, you buy more EB and limit it to be unable to MPA with STR, and to be drained with STR.

 

And if you want an AP hand attack, it does not convert your STR to AP as a freebie.

 

The problem here is powers that can add STR, not STR itself.

 

So fix "STR Adds" powers and recost figured characteristics.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Just as an observation.

 

Characteristics are a funny grab bag of things. They have:

game mechanical counts (STUN, BODY, END with REC thrown in here as a related mechanism),

an action regulator (SPD - how many actions you can perform in a turn),

combat functions (PD, ED, CON, DEX - for combat value stuff, EGO & INT for ego combat values),

Skill modifiers (most primaries),

Game effect (STR).

 

STR is the only one with a game effect and thus has these knock on effects with the other powers.

 

They really are a grab bag of things rather than a group of like things....

 

We only discuss STR, but:

 

- +15 DEX (45 points) provides bonus SPD (15), +5 DCV (25), +5 OCV (I say 25) and lightning reflexes.

 

- +10 CON (20 points) provides 21 points of figured stats and 10 points' resistance to Stunning. [should resistance to stunning have a capped cost? Automatons can buy immunity for a fixed cost.]

 

- BOD is a bookkeeping stat, so it provides 1 BOD and 1 STUN for 2 points. Decouple STUN and cost it at 1 point.

 

- INT provides bonuses to INT skills and to PER rolls. The cost of individual abilities within INT is a subject of much debate. Does 1 skill level (5 points) add to every INT roll, or only some of them?

 

- PRE provides bonuses to 1 set of skills, PRE attacks and PRE defenses. Just adding +1 to PRE rolls costs the same as +5 PRE, so you get attack and defense free of charge.

 

- EGO provides mental OCV, DCV and defense, and resistance to PRE attacks. Maybe ONLY EGO should defend against PRE attacks, so impressiveness adds but willpower subtracts. This would balance the two a bit better, and also eliminate the "negative synergy" of buying up both PRE and EGO.

 

- COM, of course, has no game benefit.

 

If we deconstruct the stats, why do we have skill levels? Why can't they be limited stats (+5 PRE, only for skill rolls)? Combat levels must remain as they can also add damage, which DEX cannot.

 

I'd prefer to see this done as a series of limitations for each item removed from the ability, such as:

 

DEX:

-1/2 No Figured

-1/4 no combat order impact

-1/2 does not enhance DCV

-3/4 does not enhance OCV

-1/2 does not enhance skill rolls

 

[the last for a few reasons, first because offense traditionally costs more than defense and second because I want "skill only" DEX to cost no more than 1 point, the same as PRE and INT]

[Comic]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

These approaches, while doubtless well-intentioned, leave me asking where the benefit is, compared to the added overhead and decreased uniformity?

 

Won't partitioning and recosting and re-working these elements merely end up with a more, not less, complex system that takes longer to create characters and run combats in?

 

Will it not produce the same situation as we see with senses in 5eR? While it allows the building of practically every perception possible, it still winds up with more, not fewer, rules debates and fewer, not more, commonly used constructs that are most mechanically advantageous, not most suited to represent the power they model?

 

Far simpler to go with what is there, and work out 'after market' fixes on characters built, like DC caps, suggested minimum and maximum ranges, and templates to show examples of what stereotypical characters might look like, I think.

 

It's done no harm that I can see up to now.

[caris]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

These approaches, while doubtless well-intentioned, leave me asking where the benefit is, compared to the added overhead and decreased uniformity?

 

Won't partitioning and recosting and re-working these elements merely end up with a more, not less, complex system that takes longer to create characters and run combats in?

 

Will it not produce the same situation as we see with senses in 5eR? While it allows the building of practically every perception possible, it still winds up with more, not fewer, rules debates and fewer, not more, commonly used constructs that are most mechanically advantageous, not most suited to represent the power they model?

 

Far simpler to go with what is there, and work out 'after market' fixes on characters built, like DC caps, suggested minimum and maximum ranges, and templates to show examples of what stereotypical characters might look like, I think.

 

It's done no harm that I can see up to now.

 

 

OK, now I'm going to probably confuse people by seeming to change position. There are some real issues here. Even when I think the issue is that some people are just having their aesthetic senses offended, that is a real issue. Whether or not the fix to the issue is worth the effort and/or other considerations is right now a matter for individual groups to decide.

 

If I have been insufficiently clear, I have no problem with anyone as a matter of for their group changing the cost of Strength or instituting any other house rule. The game has to work for them.

 

I am opposed to making an official change to the core rules unless it can be proven that it is a wide spread enough problem to warrant a fix, and the at the change is the most reasonable choice of possible fixes.

[Opal]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

STR! Costing HA at 5pts per d6 makes it useless' date=' since you can just buy STR for that cost and get oodles of extra goodness. [/quote']And if you put the STR in a framework, the oodles (figure characteristics) go away. If you're talking about stuff like picking things up (but not throwing them to do damage), and superleap, fine, but that's really not worth much, and very peripheral to what you'd buy an HA for, in the first place. STR just isn't like an attack power, it's like a limitted attack power in a framework. Of course comparisons like STR to EB or HA or whatever don't work.

 

By "explosive strength" I mean strength you can apply in a very short period of time (like punching). "Slow strength" is strength you can apply over a longer period of time (like lifting something).

OK, that's a fair distinction. STR that you limitted to only affect lifting capacity would just be heavily (npi) limited. STR that did everything /except/ lifting capacity would face a much lower limitation.

[Opal]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

We only discuss STR, but:

 

- +15 DEX (45 points) provides bonus SPD (15), +5 DCV (25), +5 OCV (I say 25) and lightning reflexes.

Don't forget +3 with all DEX-based skills.

 

- INT provides bonuses to INT skills and to PER rolls. The cost of individual abilities within INT is a subject of much debate. Does 1 skill level (5 points) add to every INT roll, or only some of them?

I'd assume that you'd need one set of levels with PER and another with Skills.

 

None of that (or the other stats you mentioned) 'breaks' the game, though. The game accepts 'discounts' for buying packages of related abilities, and has a model of increasing returns (very roughly "5 points doubles"). It's pervasive. Why people notice it one bit at a time get bent out of shape about it is beyond me. First it was figured characteristics, selling back all your figured stats from CON nets you a point! So you can only sell back one figured stat. Then it was EC. XOMG! ECs give FREE POINTs. So ECs got some added restrictions, and get hosed by adjustment powers. Now, aparently it's STR (and it's looking like it might be figured stats in general). What's next? Limmitations?

[Opal]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

IThe fact that such a solution (giving Energy Blast as well the "Normal" limitation' date=' and perhaps making it -1 as the Martial Arts rules suggest it should be) ALSO addresses the issue of the cost of STR is one of the reasons I support it. Also what makes it even vaguely on-topic here.[/quote']I'd much rather see KAs 'nerfed' in some way, like having them do even less STN (d3 stun multiplier instead of d6-1) or (as I do) aplying the multiplier only to the BOD that gets through or whatever else takes one's fancy.

 

 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

HERO SYSTEM IS NOT JUST CHAMPIONS!

Not what I said. I said that was it's origin. Hero System is an afterthought. "Champions!" came out in 1980. After it had been successful for a few years, several games using similar, but definitely not identical, systems were put out by Hero Games (Justice Inc, Epsionage!, Fantasy Hero, Star Hero). /Then/ the 'Hero System' was first coined as a term, then finally formalized as a core system. Though, it was only with the HSR that the core book was finally severed from the Champions! game.

 

 

 

Who said anything about killing? I'm talking about Killing Attacks.

Which is what Killing Attacks /do/, they kill. Normal Attacks are much more efficient at KO'ing people without killing them, while still being able to damage objects about as well. STN-only attacks are perfectly efficient at KOing people mercifully, but can't harm objects. Each form of attack is highly desireable to certain characters, under certain circumstances.

[Tonio]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

And if you put the STR in a framework' date=' the oodles (figure characteristics) go away. If you're talking about stuff like picking things up (but not throwing them to do damage), and superleap, fine, but that's really not worth much, and very peripheral to what you'd buy an HA for, in the first place. STR just isn't like an attack power, it's like a limitted attack power in a framework. Of course comparisons like STR to EB or HA or whatever don't work.[/quote']

 

But that still leaves STR as superior to HA (if costed at 5pts per d6) in general, since out of frameworks, it's much better, and in frameworks, it's still better, if only "plain" better. But when looking at HKA vs RKA, you still get this feeling that HA SHOULD cost 5pts per d6, compared to EB. I'm pretty sure this is a serious indication that STR is underpriced, somehow. ("Somehow" because my opinion is not that the cost should be increased, but that it should be split.)

 

OK' date=' that's a fair distinction. STR that you limitted to only affect lifting capacity would just be heavily (npi) limited. STR that did everything /except/ lifting capacity would face a much lower limitation.[/quote']

 

Except I'm suggesting it should be two Characteristics/Powers. Explosive STR should cost 1:1 (or maybe, 5pts per d6?), and Slow STR should cost whatever:1 (dunno, mebbe 1:1 is too expensive, mebbe 1/2 : 1, like COM or END, is more balanced?). Refigure skills and such to use the "correct" characteristic (I guess this really only means Hoist? Which should use Slow STR, of course). Do the same for other game mechanics. (Grabs? Probably Slow STR. Entangles? Probably slow, too, unless it's one of those Entangles that doesn't prevent use of Accessible Foci, which means you could probably punch your way out, so use Explosive. Hitting? Explosive. Lifting? Slow. Breaking stuff (this includes most uses of Casual STR)? Explosive. Etc...) This should help balance the cost of STR against EB, by adding some added value to STR to balance out the lack of range, but not so many that it ends up being undervalued.

[Kenn]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

We only discuss STR, but:

 

- +15 DEX (45 points) provides bonus SPD (15), +5 DCV (25), +5 OCV (I say 25) and lightning reflexes.

 

- +10 CON (20 points) provides 21 points of figured stats and 10 points' resistance to Stunning. [should resistance to stunning have a capped cost? Automatons can buy immunity for a fixed cost.]

 

- BOD is a bookkeeping stat, so it provides 1 BOD and 1 STUN for 2 points. Decouple STUN and cost it at 1 point.

 

- INT provides bonuses to INT skills and to PER rolls. The cost of individual abilities within INT is a subject of much debate. Does 1 skill level (5 points) add to every INT roll, or only some of them?

 

- PRE provides bonuses to 1 set of skills, PRE attacks and PRE defenses. Just adding +1 to PRE rolls costs the same as +5 PRE, so you get attack and defense free of charge.

 

- EGO provides mental OCV, DCV and defense, and resistance to PRE attacks. Maybe ONLY EGO should defend against PRE attacks, so impressiveness adds but willpower subtracts. This would balance the two a bit better, and also eliminate the "negative synergy" of buying up both PRE and EGO.

 

- COM, of course, has no game benefit.

 

Wait. Do you mean... if you're going to be lots of agility type things, and have a fair number of agility skills, the system is rigged to make them easier for the character with a high Dexterity?

 

And. *GASP* If you're going to be doing lots of Intellect related things, the system is rigged to make it easier if you have a high intelligence?

 

And if the things you do are primarily related to your will power its cheaper if you have a high EGO?

 

And so, if you plan on getting into a lot of fist fights, and presumably hit a lot, it'll be cheaper for you if you're strong?

 

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?

 

Everyone knows that agility skills should be cheaper if you're clumbsy; intellect skills should be cheaper if you're dumb; imposing your will is easier if you don't have much self-esteem; and surviving in a fist fight should be easier for a weakling.

[Opal]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

But that still leaves STR as superior to HA (if costed at 5pts per d6) in general' date=' since out of frameworks, it's much better, and in frameworks, it's still better, if only "plain" better.[/quote']By that reasoning, even the standard HA is inferior. It has a -1/2 limitation (manditory), STR in a framework has the -1/2 limititation for no figured charateristics, both do normal physical damage, only, both do that damage when punching, STR also does it when grabbing.

 

It's not hard to find STR 'superior' to a power, but it's really /not/ a power, it's a characteristic, and they don't work like powers. They do work a bit like frameworks.

 

But when looking at HKA vs RKA, you still get this feeling that HA SHOULD cost 5pts per d6, compared to EB.

No question about it. One key difference is the ability to 'transform' STR damage. RKAs do that, standard HAs don't. A 5pt HA would have to have that potential, even if it wasn't always used, to make it an apropriate opposite number to EB.

 

 

I'm pretty sure this is a serious indication that STR is underpriced, somehow. ("Somehow" because my opinion is not that the cost should be increased, but that it should be split.)

STR, on one hand, does damage in melee. So does a no-range EB, which is cheaper. STR with no figured characteristics costs the same as the no-range EB. It can be used to grab and throw things, though, while the EB can be spread. And, while STR always does normal physical damage, EB might do energy or stun-only damage. Also, while everyone has STR, not everyone has EB. STR can be used to leap or pick things up. EB might be used in a variety of ways depending on it's F/X. STR is more quantified in the rules, perhaps becasue it covers a narrower range of more everyday F/X, perhaps, but it's also much more the known quantity.

 

Any disparity between the two is really not that significant. Otherwise, you simply wouldn't see energy projectors.

 

STR with it's figured characteristics is more like an EB in a power framework.

 

 

 

Except I'm suggesting it should be two Characteristics/Powers. Explosive STR should cost 1:1 (or maybe, 5pts per d6?)

Since it's the 'attack power,' yes, that'd be the way to go.

 

and Slow STR should cost whatever:1 (dunno, mebbe 1:1 is too expensive, mebbe 1/2 : 1, like COM or END, is more balanced?). Refigure skills and such to use the "correct" characteristic (I guess this really only means Hoist? Which should use Slow STR, of course).

Are there any STR skills these days? Climbining is the only one I remember. Lifting is occassionally very useful (freeing trapped innocents from rubble), but would have minimal effect in combat. It could probably be priced pretty low.

 

(Grabs? Probably Slow STR. Entangles? Probably slow, too, unless it's one of those Entangles that doesn't prevent use of Accessible Foci, which means you could probably punch your way out, so use Explosive. Hitting? Explosive. Lifting? Slow. Breaking stuff (this includes most uses of Casual STR)? Explosive. Etc...)

I'd think all of those would be 'explosive' to break out of a grab, for instance, you only need to exceed the force holding you for an instant. Anything that inflicted normal damage, likewise. I suppose 'slow' STR could be used for an anaconda-like constriction NND or something. If it could (currently, STR doesn't let you do that), then it would have to be more expensive.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Sorry it does not hold water, if it helps you to visualize it, imagine you are getting everything strength provides you with a 75% discound for the package (like EC gives 50%, reasonable considering STR is a lock on what you can get) plus "Str effects" + a control cost

 

Cost Element

12.5 Control cost

12.5 points for str effects (Str rolls, grabs, etc...)

2.25 PD

5 REC

6.25 Stun

8.25 HA

2.5 leaping

---

49.25 Points

 

Each thing is being paid for, but then it is being packaged together and charged one cost

I'm not sure what you're trying to show here, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rules as written, nor the changes anyone has proposed. AFAICT, you're buying 25 points of STR, which gets you 5 PD, 5 REC, 12.5 STUN, 5d6 HA (25 Active/16.667 Real), 5" Leaping (5 Points), plus all the other STR effects. I don't see what that has to do with anything. It's not at all like an Elemental Control. It's certainly not unreasonable for a non-brick to want more PD, REC, and STUN; but why should they buy these things when they can just buy STR for fewer points and get a lot more benefit from it. Sure, it's not in the non-brick concept, but that's the whole point: an unfair advantage to one concept over another.

 

Yes, I have seen bricks be too powerful at STR 1:1. And if my example brick stat-block was competitive at 2:1 after the 88 additional points are spent, it would surely be even more powerful at 1:1, giving it 138 more points to spend, right?

 

OK, this is getting a bit confusing. I wouldn't blame anyone for not following what I'm saying (or anyone else, for that matter). I'm having a difficult time keeping up with this thread. I only have so much time to devote to this (and I'm spending far more of it than I should). I post a responce and come back the next day to find 2-3 more pages of posts added in the meantime. I find myself replying/referring to posts 4-5 pages ago. I don't know what to do about this.

 

So let me point out one last thing (yeah, right:rolleyes:), and then I'll (try to) bow out: The idea of STR costing 2 points is already in the rulebook. It's in FREd, page 361, and I'm sure it's in 5ER as well.

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Not what I said. I said that was it's origin. Hero System is an afterthought.

 

I hardly consider it an “afterthought.” I’d use the word “evolution.”

 

"Champions!" came out in 1980. After it had been successful for a few years, several games using similar, but definitely not identical, systems were put out by Hero Games (Justice Inc, Epsionage!, Fantasy Hero, Star Hero). /Then/ the 'Hero System' was first coined as a term, then finally formalized as a core system. Though, it was only with the HSR that the core book was finally severed from the Champions! game.

 

I’m aware of the history; I lived through it, having played Champions from the start.

 

And if it had STAYED just Champions, one of two things would have happened:

 

1) I’d have taken the essence of the system and come up with a “homebrew” version of what the Hero System now is – especially likely as after Champions II, I saw just how powerful and flexible the system could become.

 

2) I’d have completely lost interest and probably be playing some form of Runequest or its derivatives now. I would say GURPS, except that if Champions had remained just Champions, I don’t know if there ever would have BEEN a GURPS.

 

Which is what Killing Attacks /do/, they kill.

 

We’ve been round and round on these boards about Killing Attacks more times than I can count. If you like, we can start yet another thread and talk about it again. But to recap some points I’ve made numerous times:

 

A Killing Attack that does a lot of BODy is likely to kill someone. A Killing Attack that does little BODy is unlikely to kill someone. A Killing Attack that does no BODy is not going to kill someone.

 

An Energy Blast that does a lot of BODy is likely to kill someone. An Energy Blast that does little BODy is unlikely to kill someone. An Energy Blast that does no BODy is not going to kill someone.

 

“Killing Attack” is a game mechanic; it does what the rulebook says it does, like any other Power on the list, no more and no less. For some reason we can accept “Invisibility” to taste (that would be me – I’m told I have no taste) and “Darkness” to radio (ECM jamming) and “Flash” vs sound (Sonic BOOM!) but when it comes to Killing Attack people can’t seem to get past the literal meaning of the name – which I think makes about as much sense as saying an Energy Blast can’t possibly do Physical damage because it has the word “Energy” in the title.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary remembers Opal, but suspects Opal has forgotten us.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to show here, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rules as written, nor the changes anyone has proposed. AFAICT, you're buying 25 points of STR, which gets you 5 PD, 5 REC, 12.5 STUN, 5d6 HA (25 Active/16.667 Real), 5" Leaping (5 Points), plus all the other STR effects. I don't see what that has to do with anything. It's not at all like an Elemental Control. It's certainly not unreasonable for a non-brick to want more PD, REC, and STUN; but why should they buy these things when they can just buy STR for fewer points and get a lot more benefit from it. Sure, it's not in the non-brick concept, but that's the whole point: an unfair advantage to one concept over another.

 

Yes, I have seen bricks be too powerful at STR 1:1. And if my example brick stat-block was competitive at 2:1 after the 88 additional points are spent, it would surely be even more powerful at 1:1, giving it 138 more points to spend, right?

 

OK, this is getting a bit confusing. I wouldn't blame anyone for not following what I'm saying (or anyone else, for that matter). I'm having a difficult time keeping up with this thread. I only have so much time to devote to this (and I'm spending far more of it than I should). I post a responce and come back the next day to find 2-3 more pages of posts added in the meantime. I find myself replying/referring to posts 4-5 pages ago. I don't know what to do about this.

 

So let me point out one last thing (yeah, right:rolleyes:), and then I'll (try to) bow out: The idea of STR costing 2 points is already in the rulebook. It's in FREd, page 361, and I'm sure it's in 5ER as well.

 

The point I was getting at, with that example, was that you do not get points back from buying STR, but rather you get a number of elements at a deep discount. That the whole "Negative Points" argument was not completly accurate, as you could not buy str and then magicaly have more points, that in essense Str acts like a EC that gives a deeper discount because of the reduced versitility (The Blackbox EC)

 

As I have said repeatedly I would like to see a much more detailed discusion on altering game elements, such as costs of characteristics than the what, 10 pages? Details on effects etc...

[Tonio]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The point I was getting at, with that example, was that you do not get points back from buying STR, but rather you get a number of elements at a deep discount. That the whole "Negative Points" argument was not completly accurate, as you could not buy str and then magicaly have more points, that in essense Str acts like a EC that gives a deeper discount because of the reduced versitility (The Blackbox EC)

 

As I have said repeatedly I would like to see a much more detailed discusion on altering game elements, such as costs of characteristics than the what, 10 pages? Details on effects etc...

 

But it IS negative points, in many circumstances. Just like Limitations give you negative points, just like buying back characteristics give you negative points, and yes, just like the EC base cost gives you, in effect, negative points. The reason STR is singled out here is that it's the only construct (well, along with, probably, other characteristics) that BENEFITS you while giving you negative points, rather than hindering you.

[Opal]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

“Killing Attack” is a game mechanic; it does what the rulebook says it does' date=' like any other Power on the list, no more and no less.[/quote']And what it does is very dependably inflict BOD damage on normal people. It doesn't matter if it's a 1 pip KA or a 6d KA, it /can/ be used to kill, because every hit with it inflicts BOD.

 

Sure, you can also buy it "doesn't work vs living things" and it'll /never/ kill. It is just a mechanic, but it's a mechanic that primarily inflicts BOD (more than any other attack power for the points), and the most common defense doesn't stop it, with STN as a secondary, unpredictable, function.

 

Normal attacks, OTOH, primarily inflict a dependable amount of STN, secondarily, they inflict a dependable amount of BOD that /everyone/ has at least some defense against.

 

STN-only attacks inflict stun with no risk (or capabilty) of inflicting BOD.

 

Three attack options the desireability of which depends on the situation and the intention of the character. Innately, one is not better than the others. So they're all comparable in cost. But, each of which is better suited to some uses than others, making the option of choosing among them desireable.

 

The palindromedary remembers Opal, but suspects Opal has forgotten us.

I do remember the name, I always found it amusing.

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Three attack options the desireability of which depends on the situation and the intention of the character. Innately' date=' one is not better than the others. [/quote']

 

Either there are more than three attack options, or only two; for our purposes, I would say, two, Normal and Killing. "Stun Only" is an option that can apply to either, as can Attack Vs. Limited Defense, Based on Ego Combat, the choice of Physical or Energy damage, etc.

 

And one of them IS innately better than the other; you already acknowledge that when you say you see a need to "nerf" Killing Attacks.

 

But to get back on topic: While I now do see the point of comparing STR to an Elemental Control, the question remains: is this "black box" framework a good thing?

 

Mr. Fleischmann and I have exchanged a couple of private messages which I think are helping me see the problem more clearly. No matter how you justify the situation - including viewing STR & CON as like an Elemental Control - the fact is, the rules encourage players who want high figured characteristics to buy up those two primaries, even if that's not in concept. This is great for munchkins (who love an exploitable loophole) but I can't quite see it as otherwise desireable.

 

I am leaning towards saying the solution is:

 

Extend the Normal Limitation to Energy Blast (which is, after all, Normal Damage) and possibly recast it as 2 limitations at -1/2 each: one limitation to make it count all defenses, not just Resistant, and one to change to the less advantageous dice rolling mechanism of a Normal Attack. This demonstrates that the damage dealing portion of STR is worth less than it's currently assumed to be. If the limitation is still set at -1/2 total, it should still be split up into two -1/4 limitations.

 

Reduce the cost of several of these figured characteristics: REC, STUN, END. This will enable characters who want high scores on those to buy them seperately instead of buying STR and getting all that "free power" and will eliminate the argument that STR gains you more points than it costs you.

 

Although I am not certain about reducing the cost of END. Basically, because I find it hard to grasp what kind of character would have high REC, STUN, and END, and NOT have a high CON! Anyone got a suggestion for such a character?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Now the palindromedary wants its own account so it can get and give rep on its own account!

[Opal]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Either there are more than three attack options' date=' or only two; for our purposes, I would say, two, Normal and Killing. "Stun Only" is an option that can apply to either.[/quote']STN only is an option for KAs? Since when? "Your KA does no BOD, now, multiply that my the STNx...."

 

And one of them IS innately better than the other; you already acknowledge that when you say you see a need to "nerf" Killing Attacks.

KAs are innately better at inflicting BOD (3.5 average per 3 DCs vs 3 for normal attacks) and much better at inflicting it on normal people (no resistant def); they're not as good at inflicting stun (9.3 average per 3 DCs vs 10.5). In addition, KAs are much less consistent in dealing damage, because they roll fewer dice, and because of the STN mutliplier. Consitency is desireable for a character who has a clear advantage, as with a super fighting Agents. A longshot chance at very high damage is desireable when the shoe is on the other foot, such as Supers fighing uber-villains meant to whipe the floor with the whole team. That the STN lotto gives an agent with a 3d RKA a remote chance of instantly KOing an 'invulnerable' brick, or the group wolverine type a remote chance of stunning the galactus type is arguably a flaw in the system. But it doesn't make KAs better at inflicting STN than normal attacks - normal attacks do more STN, the extreme corner cases where the STN lotto gives unfortunate results notwithstanding.

 

Thus, while KA may need a tweek of some kind, the idea of a 'normal limitation' for EBs is bunk.

 

 

But to get back on topic: While I now do see the point of comparing STR to an Elemental Control, the question remains: is this "black box" framework a good thing?

That is the question you have to ask yourself. Do you want 'discounts' in the game, at all? If you don't, figured characteristics, power frameworks, perhaps even limitations need to go. If cost breaks are OK, then they can all stay. Getting rid of some cost breaks and not others, though, is not such a great idea. Even reigning in a cost break and not others, as was done with EC, in part, I'm sure, due to complaints like those now being leveled at figured characteristics, causes problems. This thread illustrates that.

[Tonio]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

That is the question you have to ask yourself. Do you want 'discounts' in the game' date=' at all? If you don't, figured characteristics, power frameworks, perhaps even limitations need to go. If cost breaks are OK, then they can all stay. Getting rid of some cost breaks and not others, though, is not such a great idea. Even reigning in a cost break and not others, as was done with EC, in part, I'm sure, due to complaints like those now being leveled at figured characteristics, causes problems. This thread illustrates that.[/quote']

 

You ask a question, but fail to consider one of the answers:

 

Yes, I want discounts/cost breaks in the game, but only when they're tied to a reduction in efficiency/power/utility.

 

This allows for all Limitations. It allows for the current rule of "A Limitation that doesn't limit isn't worth any points". It allows for Disadvantages. It allows for Multipowers. It allows for ECs (given the current "drain one, drain all" rule). It doesn't allow free Characteristics for those who pick certain character concepts.

 

Getting rid of some cost breaks, but not others, is a GREAT idea. The current rules already do this (hence -0 limitations).

[Opal]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

You ask a question, but fail to consider one of the answers:

 

Yes, I want discounts/cost breaks in the game, but only when they're tied to a reduction in efficiency/power/utility.

That's why I said "/perhaps/ even limitations."

 

In FRED, the gangfire type rules do make having multiple attack powers worthwhile, to an extent, though it's still wildly inferior to just having one big attack, so there is some 'loss of utility' in putting attack powers in a multipower. Before, though, when attack powers couldn't be combined unless linked, there was no difference to speak of between having six different attack powers, and six different attack powers in a multipower. You weren't getting a discount for 'reduced utility' for taking a multipower of attacks, so much as a recognition of the redundancy of having multiple attack powers in the firstplace.

 

Any package discount, though, could be justified as a reduction in 'efficiency' or 'utility,' since it limits choice.

 

Buying 3 powers in a 'Fire' EC, saves you lots of points, even in 3rd Ed, before you faced discrimination with adjustment powers, but, even then, you'd have come up against situations where fire-based powers just weren't the thing to use, and having three unrelated powers would have worked better for you.

 

Similarly, STR has always been something of a good deal, but it does give you a very predictable and commonplace power set.

 

 

Getting rid of some existing cost breaks but not others would change the balance of the game. No STR bonus for bricks, for instance, means you'd see fewer bricks with thier powers bought 'straight' up, you'd see more with frameworks or limitations more typical of energy projectors, or simply fewer bricks.

[Tonio]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

That's why I said "/perhaps/ even limitations."

 

In FRED, the gangfire type rules do make having multiple attack powers worthwhile, to an extent, though it's still wildly inferior to just having one big attack, so there is some 'loss of utility' in putting attack powers in a multipower. Before, though, when attack powers couldn't be combined unless linked, there was no difference to speak of between having six different attack powers, and six different attack powers in a multipower. You weren't getting a discount for 'reduced utility' for taking a multipower of attacks, so much as a recognition of the redundancy of having multiple attack powers in the firstplace.

 

Any package discount, though, could be justified as a reduction in 'efficiency' or 'utility,' since it limits choice.

 

Buying 3 powers in a 'Fire' EC, saves you lots of points, even in 3rd Ed, before you faced discrimination with adjustment powers, but, even then, you'd have come up against situations where fire-based powers just weren't the thing to use, and having three unrelated powers would have worked better for you.

 

Similarly, STR has always been something of a good deal, but it does give you a very predictable and commonplace power set.

 

I'm not much concerned with how things used to work, except to point out how cost breaks that didn't bring with them a reduction in utility have been eliminated: EC, Package Deal Bonuses, to some extent MultiPower Attacks. Saying having only fire powers reduces your utility because you might come up in a situation where fire powers aren't very useful, and therefore should get a cost break... well, I might point out how you could also come up in a situation where fire powers are especially useful, or you could team up with someone with an Aid All Fire Powers Simultaneously, or whatever... that's a conceptual choice, not a mechanical one. If it's that big a deal, use the rules from Ultimate Energy Projector, which give Limitations, Adders, or Advantages depending on SFXs, based on how extra-useful the SFX is, and how often that extra utility comes up.

 

 

Getting rid of some existing cost breaks but not others would change the balance of the game. No STR bonus for bricks' date=' for instance, means you'd see fewer bricks with thier powers bought 'straight' up, you'd see more with frameworks or limitations more typical of energy projectors, or simply fewer bricks.[/quote']

 

If getting rid of STR freebies means Bricks are now built just like every other character type... wouldn't that mean it'd be a good thing? What makes Bricks special?

[Opal]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

If getting rid of STR freebies means Bricks are now built just like every other character type... wouldn't that mean it'd be a good thing? What makes Bricks special?

It's actually what makes bricks ordinary. Bricks are a very simple character concept. They're really strong, they're kinda tough - stereotypically, they're a little slow. The options they have to deal with challenges - pound someone uncsioncious, break something, bend something, throw something, hold something still - are pretty darn predictable. 'Other characters' might also be able to do that sort of thing (TK), or just about anything else (every other power in the book).

 

A brick can buy any other power, too, but, except for HKA & superleap, he's buying it from scratch, he can't just toss his STR into a multipower and be able to fly or go desolid, when he doesn't want to be strong. A basic EP can do that with his EB.

 

The sort of package deal you get with STR (or any other characteristic), does limit your other choices once you've decided to invest a fair proportion of your character to it, simply because it doesn't mesh well with other such discounts.

 

Honestly, package deals - GM authored packaged deals - should still give package bonuses, too. They shouldn't 'hide' disadvantages like they used to, but package bonuses are just fine.

[Tonio]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

It's actually what makes bricks ordinary. Bricks are a very simple character concept. They're really strong, they're kinda tough - stereotypically, they're a little slow. The options they have to deal with challenges - pound someone uncsioncious, break something, bend something, throw something, hold something still - are pretty darn predictable. 'Other characters' might also be able to do that sort of thing (TK), or just about anything else (every other power in the book).

 

A brick can buy any other power, too, but, except for HKA & superleap, he's buying it from scratch, he can't just toss his STR into a multipower and be able to fly or go desolid, when he doesn't want to be strong. A basic EP can do that with his EB.

 

The sort of package deal you get with STR (or any other characteristic), does limit your other choices once you've decided to invest a fair proportion of your character to it, simply because it doesn't mesh well with other such discounts.

 

Honestly, package deals - GM authored packaged deals - should still give package bonuses, too. They shouldn't 'hide' disadvantages like they used to, but package bonuses are just fine.

 

When you say it makes Bricks "ordinary", I think you mean "as opposed to other characters, which are extraordinary". If so, then they're still "special", as in "they're a special case". Again... why?

 

Well, Bricks CAN put STR in a multipower, it just means they don't get any extra PD, REC, or STUN. EPs can put EB in a multipower, it just means they don't get any extra FF, Flight, or END.

 

The "plain old Brick" you're describing would still be humongously easy to build, too... You just need to buy extra PD, REC, STUN, and Leaping, and voilà, you've got a Brick like you used to have.

 

Package deals... well, I do liked them, because they encouraged getting "useless" skills like PS and KS... but the fact of the matter is that there should be other reasons to get those, not cost breaks.

[Opal]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

When you say it makes Bricks "ordinary"' date=' I think you mean "as opposed to other characters, which are extraordinary". If so, then they're still "special", as in "they're a special case". Again... why?[/quote']I believe I just explained that. They have a common, familiar, predictable power set that does not efficiently synergize with many other powers. A brick is generally going to hit you hard - maybe with his fist, maybe with a bus. He's not likely to Ego Attack you. If he does, he's paid a lot of points or accepted a lot of limitations to get the Ego blast - compared to what a character with a multipower or even apropriate EC would have paid to add Ego Blast to his framework.

 

EC-based characters face a similar distinction. Thier power set is based around a given F/X, and any 'surprise' power bought with a different F/X costs them more. They're channelled into a more predictable set of powers (Flame guy is unlikely to hit your vulnerablity to cold), not nearly so predictable as the STR-based character, but more so than a character who didn't go with an EC.

 

The "plain old Brick" you're describing would still be humongously easy to build, too... You just need to buy extra PD, REC, STUN, and Leaping, and voilà, you've got a Brick like you used to have.

 

Well, lets see:

 

25 EC: "Plain old Brick" powers

25 STR: +50 points

25 Superleap: +50"

25 PD +50

25 Rec +25

25 STN +50

 

Um, not quite the same, no. Nevermind that it's an illegal construct, unless we start taking on some freakish 'costs END.'

 

Oh, sure, you could just build him 'easily' by buying all his stats straight up, he just trims 55 points off whatever he had before. While the guy with the EC is still getting his 60 point discount...

 

 

 

Package deals... well, I do liked them, because they encouraged getting "useless" skills like PS and KS... but the fact of the matter is that there should be other reasons to get those, not cost breaks.

The reason for the cost breaks isn't so much the useless skills, as it is the whole package. Instead of customizing the charcter, you're conforming it to the package. That's worth a little something.

[Tonio]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I believe I just explained that. They have a common, familiar, predictable power set that does not efficiently synergize with many other powers. A brick is generally going to hit you hard - maybe with his fist, maybe with a bus. He's not likely to Ego Attack you. If he does, he's paid a lot of points or accepted a lot of limitations to get the Ego blast - compared to what a character with a multipower or even apropriate EC would have paid to add Ego Blast to his framework.

 

EC-based characters face a similar distinction. Thier power set is based around a given F/X, and any 'surprise' power bought with a different F/X costs them more. They're channelled into a more predictable set of powers (Flame guy is unlikely to hit your vulnerablity to cold), not nearly so predictable as the STR-based character, but more so than a character who didn't go with an EC.

 

I don't buy this. Having a "predictable" power set is a campaign thing. In a standard supers campaign based on a standard world, maybe. But not only are there plenty unpredictable things you can do with strength, but there are other plenty other predictable powersets that don't get cost breaks like Bricks do.

 

Additionally, EC-based characters have an added disadvantage: draining one power drains them all. Draining a Brick's STR doesn't touch his PD, REC, STUN, or Leaping.

 

Also, the problem still exists for non-Brick characters who choose to have a high STR. Or worse still, for those that choose to have a high PD, REC, STUN, and Leaping (or some combination thereof), who nonetheless want a low STR, concept-wise. They can choose a low STR, or they can save some points by getting a higher STR. Odd, usually getting more utility COSTS you points.

 

Well, lets see:

 

25 EC: "Plain old Brick" powers

25 STR: +50 points

25 Superleap: +50"

25 PD +50

25 Rec +25

25 STN +50

 

Um, not quite the same, no. Nevermind that it's an illegal construct, unless we start taking on some freakish 'costs END.'

 

Oh, sure, you could just build him 'easily' by buying all his stats straight up, he just trims 55 points off whatever he had before. While the guy with the EC is still getting his 60 point discount...

 

Oh, yeah... I didn't mean you could build him with the same amount of points. I realize I shoulda been clearer on that, sorry!

 

And yes, he's now more expensive compared to someone with an EC. But that's appropriate; the guy with the EC has reduced utility. His FF costs END and is Visible and nonpersistent; your rPD is END-free and always on. Um... that's the only difference, I think. You can get an HA in an EC. You can put Leaping in there, too. What other wonderful toys does the guy with the EC have in his EC that you don't get?

 

The reason for the cost breaks isn't so much the useless skills' date=' as it is the whole package. Instead of customizing the charcter, you're conforming it to the package. That's worth a little something.[/quote']

 

I don't share this point of view. A character should be balanced regardless of how it gets built. And by that I don't mean what powers, skills, etc. you choose, but what your reason for choosing them was. It shouldn't matter whether you WANT KS: Crimes and Misdemeanors Law, or whether you're only getting it because you want the Cop Package Deal.

[Opal]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I don't buy this. Having a "predictable" power set is a campaign thing.

Strength is such a straightforward thing, though, you'll find it in any campaign, and it'll do the same things. And, yes, if a GM wants a certain skill or power set to be commonplace and/or predictable in his campaign, he can make it so by presenting many NPCs with it - but he can make it so for the players by giving it a discount.

 

And, having a power set that doesn't stand out is a little less cool than having one that's unique.

 

 

Additionally, EC-based characters have an added disadvantage: draining one power drains them all.

True. That was tacked on when people in conversations like this one complained loud and long that EC was just giving people 'free points' - and, no, it wasn't /anything/ like figured characteristics, oh, no, figured characteristics aren't free points, you can't sell them back!

 

Seriously, that's the kind of argument you got against ECs back then. Not looking at the system as a whole, not considering anything but points.

 

 

Draining a Brick's STR doesn't touch his PD, REC, STUN, or Leaping.

True, though that wouldn't be a difficult change to make.

 

 

Also, the problem still exists for non-Brick characters who choose to have a high STR. Or worse still, for those that choose to have a high PD, REC, STUN, and Leaping (or some combination thereof), who nonetheless want a low STR, concept-wise.

Yeah, um, if I every see any I'll let you know...

 

And yes, he's now more expensive compared to someone with an EC. But that's appropriate; the guy with the EC has reduced utility.

There's the Drain, thing, yes. Tell me, if that were a disad, along the lines of a vulnerability, how many points do you think it'd be worth? 60?

 

I don't share this point of view. A character should be balanced regardless of how it gets built. And by that I don't mean what powers, skills, etc. you choose, but what your reason for choosing them was.

I fully apreciate your point of view on that, in fact, I agree, that would be ideal. But, point costs are already impacted by such things in much broader ways than that. The judgement the GM uses when setting the value of limitations and disads, for instance. And, the GM may well /want/ to influence PC choices a bit. Discounts do that.