Discussion on costs of Characteristics

[Tonio]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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.

 

You don't have to be non-unique to not qualify for freebies (say, a super-skilled Batman type), and you can qualify for freebies and still be somewhat unique (a character based on, say, directly manipulating spacetime, I dunno... just pick an SFX that hasn't been done much and build a character around it, including an EC and/or a MP).

 

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.

 

The problem, then, was not including Figureds in the complaint.

 

True' date=' though that wouldn't be a difficult change to make.[/quote']

 

True, and that'd help mitigate the problem. But, again, this ties STR more into that SFX we've been talking about. =/

 

Yeah' date=' um, if I every see any I'll let you know...[/quote']

 

Oh come now... "I'm not creative enough" is hardly a good counter-argument! How 'bout a Powered Armor (PD) with Pain Dampening (STUN) and Re-energizing (REC) neural contacts and Short-Burst Rocket Boosters (Leaping)? Sure, I could also add "Strength Enhancing Thingamajigs" to add STR, but my concept doesn't call for it.

 

And anyway, just because you can't think of something doesn't mean you shouldn't consider the possibility it exists, and plan for it.

 

There's the Drain' date=' 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?[/quote']

 

Hell no. EC saves you way too many points, most of the time. I like the concept. I'm not so sure about the actual numbers.

 

I fully apreciate your point of view on that' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Except Figureds aren't a conscious GM choice intended to set a feel for a specific campaign, but a core game rule. I'd have no beef, at all, with a GM that decided to double STR's contribution to Figureds. Or who decided STR also added to CON. Or whatever! If it helps set the tone of his campaign, excellent! But we're not talking about that. =)

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

Now see, that's where it's obvious that you didn't do the math at all. KAs actually outperform EBs in the stun department too. In reality, Stun lotto benefits the attacker, it's an advantage. What gun do you want? The gun that does 10 points of stun per hit, or the gun that misses twice as often (because sometimes you just do zero stun, equalling a miss) but does *more than* twice as much when it hits? You even get free stuns.

This will be my next simulator after block/dodge.

It's not a remote chance either. 4d6, 1d6-1 stun lotto. Roll a five or six on stun lotto (33% chance) * roll 15 or more on 4d6 (about 34% too): one in nine hits does 60 stun or more, one in fifteen does 80 or more. That's huuuuuge.

 

Now back on topic please, I just get annoying by people still stating that "Stun lotto is a disadvantage for the attacker" and "str is not negative points". It's just de facto wrong. We can still discuss whether str costing -1 per 10 is a problem, but it's priced like that.

 

 

BTW: What about Density Increase and Growth?

 

Density Increase 15 AP

15 str (no figureds), -3" knockback, 3 pd, 3ed, costs 1 end per phase, x8 mass (physical limitation with value 0)

points you pay: 15 + end, so 22.5 if you put "costs no end" on it

points you get: 15 str, 6 for KB, 3 for PD, 3 for ED, total 26 cp worth for 22.5 spent. You get a couple out, but not a lot. I'm ok with this.

 

15 str (figureds), 3 PD, 1.5 REC, 3 STUN, 3" leap

points you pay: 15, no end and persistent included.

points you get: 15 str, 3 for rec (might be 4 due to rounding), 3 for stun, 3 for pd, 6 for leap, total 24 without leap, 30 with leap. (+1 for rounding not included).

 

So 15 STR gives more stats than DI for the same AP and real points, but the str costs no 1.5 END per phase to use? Fair!?

 

 

Growth: 15 AP of Growth give you

15 str (15 cp), 3 body (6 cp), (-3 stun, assuming body gave stun which it did not) -3cp, -3" KB (6 cp), -2 DCV (let's call that -6 points), double reach, call that stretching (60 AP would be x8 reach, so let's by 8" stretching and divide by 4) 2" (4 cp), -2 PER rolls to be percieved (worth: -0), physical limitation big (worth: -0).

total points you get: 15 + 6 -3 +6 -6 +4 -0 -0 = 22

if you put no end on growth, you get 22.5 cost. And it's not persistent yet.

 

STR vastly outperforms growth, and is slightly better than DI (although DI can be efficiently ECd, making it about priced on par (not better! and way more limited (mass, costs end, easy to drain)), I give it that). Growth is just bad.

 

Are drained together: -1/4

It's not worth more for me, I rarely use drains as a GM, as they are so math-intensive. So yes, ECs are ridiculous cost breaks for small limitations in my games I usually allow them for stuff that's too expensive anyway (Force Field, Growth, DI) but I prefer people to take MPs. At least that way there is some real drawback. Telepathy and MC in MP? You better make sure he can hear you.

[JmOz]

Removed because I am being to snarky right now

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Removed because I am being to snarky right now

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

removed as I am being to snarky right now

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I'm trying not to get drawn into the argument, but:

 

The Stun Lotto isn't the real problem with Killing. It exacerbates the problem, but even fixes based on quashing the lottery miss the fact that Killing has

1. A more advantageous rolling mechanic.

2. An "Attack Vs. Limited Defense" aspect.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Attack Vs. Limited Palindromedary

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

RE: KA's & the stun lotto: I would not say it is either an advantage or a limitation, been on the receiving end of the unreliability to much to call it an advantage. As for a rules issue, the stun multiplier is always a minimum of 1, never 0 as implied up thread

 

RE: Negative cost: It does not exist, for it to be a negative cost you would actualy need to be getting POINTS back, not other game elements (Such as other characteristics), If the above comment was true that for 10 points of strength it is costing you -1 points I would be able to use that 1 point for anything I wanted, not for the predetermined list of things. This argument would be valid if not for the rule of only being able to sell back one figured characteristic, but as long as that rule is in existance then it is a savings, not negative points

 

This does not mean that there is not a valid argument that strength MAY be giving to many discounts, that it's value in game is underrepresented by the current cost. While I do not agree, I see some valid points made about the costing. The whole negative cost thing is wrong.

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

RE: KA's & the stun lotto: I would not say it is either an advantage or a limitation' date=' been on the receiving end of the unreliability to much to call it an advantage. As for a rules issue, the stun multiplier is always a minimum of 1, never 0 as implied up thread[/quote']

Simulation has to be postponed, I just don't have time right now to write that. If you are concerned about it's unreliablity, you can just put it into a MP for 10% price increase and use the EB against mooks. If it matters (read: "not against two mooks"), KA is superior. Humans have a weird view of probability which is usually highly flawed and not in line with what math says. I can tell countless stories of people complaining "But it's impossible to roll 5 ones in a row!!!". Sorry, it's not. It's only unlikely, but perfectly possible. Usually, KA is better and you don't realize (or the GM built the villain with 75% DR but low defenses, mainly to get rid of terribly BBEG-killing stun lotto, the more DR you have, the less KA shines, the less DR and the more Armor, KA owns).

 

RE: Negative cost: It does not exist, for it to be a negative cost you would actualy need to be getting POINTS back, not other game elements (Such as other characteristics), If the above comment was true that for 10 points of strength it is costing you -1 points I would be able to use that 1 point for anything I wanted, not for the predetermined list of things. This argument would be valid if not for the rule of only being able to sell back one figured characteristic, but as long as that rule is in existance then it is a savings, not negative points

Powergirl
VAL...CHA...Cost...Total...Roll......Notes
60....STR.....50...60......21-.......HTH Damage 12d6 END [6]
25....CON.....30...25......14-
12....PD......00
05....ED......00
18....REC.....2...18
50....END.....0...50
54....STUN....1...54

EC framework for passive powers like flight and Force Field: 30
EC slot Force Field for 30 points to get to campaign defense levels.

MP framework for attack powers: 60

char cost: 50+30+2+1 = 83
power cost: 90+30+ slots

Blasterboy
VAL...CHA...Cost...Total...Roll......Notes
10....STR.....0...10......11-.......HTH Damage 2d6 END [1]
25....CON.....30...25......14-
12....PD......10
05....ED......00
18....REC.....22...18
50....END.....0...50
54....STUN....26...54
6" Leap, ignored.


EC framework for passive powers like flight and Force Field: 30
EC slot Force Field for 30 points to get to campaign defense levels.
*possibly some sort of 50-60 AP power to compensate for low strength: x points (probably 30)

MP framework for attack powers: 60
*possibly some sort of attack: y points (probably 6)


char cost:  88
power cost: 90+30+x+y+ slots

 

Both characters still need to buy about 10 PD and 17 ED, of which 12 each have to be resistant to cope with campaign standards (so "No, These Stats Are Not Wasted").

 

REC: Both characters have rather high REC, and can sell it for the same price, no difference there (although str is cheaper in END than other things, since you only pay it once per phase, so if you really want to cut corners, powergirl can probably afford lower rec than blasterboy).

 

STUN and END is useful for both (and if both buy a ranged attack, they can both sell some stun since they don't get hit as often).

 

The STR guy obviously got -5 points (NEGATIVE FIVE POINTS!) somewhere, since he is 5 points cheaper, which can be spent in one skill plus one skill level, there you go, negative points. Oh, and he already has bought some sort of 12 DC Attack (for free), whereas Blasterboy needs to spend at least 6 more points on an MP slot (or 30 on an EC slot). So yeah, he somehow magically saved at least 11 points somewhere, and as a bonus, he gets anti-grab, anti-entangle, lift and carry. If that's not negative points, then you're substituting some name for what everyone else calls "negative", as in "minus five/eleven/thirtyfive".

 

ECs MAY give discounts in certain circumstances, and you get some sort of limitation with it (easier to drain, same special effect), STR on the other hand nearly ALWAYS gives you more points than you even spent! Increase STR by 50, and suddenly my character is 5 points cheaper? You'd have to be pretty sleazy to do that with an Elemental Control (any slot you add *costs* positive points, even if it is cheaper than usually).

 

When STR does not give you negative points:

- You've already abused the system quite a bit and already sold some secondaries like free END from (too cheap) CON. Two flaws make one good. Not quite a sensible approach to balancing, and shows how bad the "can only sell one figured" fix really is.

- Your build is already unoptimized and you sold secondaries which you could use (sell one point of speed and then realize you could sell 10 STUN instead).

- You're at campaign max for PD, don't want more REC or STUN and (obviously) your strength is already very high. Meaning: You've already abused STR, it's not that easy anymore.

 

I dare anyone to make Blasterboy cheaper/cleary better than Powerwoman without buying strength. Obviously I reserve the right to re-build powerwoman accordingly, spending as many points as you spent in the process. Since Powerwoman has 5 more points left with the same stats, that will be impossible. And no, you cannot sell ridiculous amounts of secondaries, you have to adhere to campaign limit defenses (or have more).

The only thing you could do to make him cheaper than her is to have a huge difference in STUN and REC (PD not so much, he'd have to buy some defenses to compensate, that would not be much cheaper). So if you get an endurance reserve and add some automaton powers to be immune to stun, THEN FINALLY str is not overpriced anymore.

Oh, and I wonder where will get something to compensate for not having 60 strength too. I accept *any* power with 50 AP worth.

 

But for anyone else (read: 99% of all characters), strength is negative points.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Simulation has to be postponed, I just don't have time right now to write that. If you are concerned about it's unreliablity, you can just put it into a MP for 10% price increase and use the EB against mooks. If it matters (read: "not against two mooks"), KA is superior. Humans have a weird view of probability which is usually highly flawed and not in line with what math says. I can tell countless stories of people complaining "But it's impossible to roll 5 ones in a row!!!". Sorry, it's not. It's only unlikely, but perfectly possible. Usually, KA is better and you don't realize (or the GM built the villain with 75% DR but low defenses, mainly to get rid of terribly BBEG-killing stun lotto, the more DR you have, the less KA shines, the less DR and the more Armor, KA owns).

 

 

Powergirl
VAL...CHA...Cost...Total...Roll......Notes
60....STR.....50...60......21-.......HTH Damage 12d6 END [6]
25....CON.....30...25......14-
12....PD......00
05....ED......00
18....REC.....2...18
50....END.....0...50
54....STUN....1...54

EC framework for passive powers like flight and Force Field: 30
EC slot Force Field for 30 points to get to campaign defense levels.

MP framework for attack powers: 60

char cost: 50+30+2+1 = 83
power cost: 90+30+ slots

Blasterboy
VAL...CHA...Cost...Total...Roll......Notes
10....STR.....0...10......11-.......HTH Damage 2d6 END [1]
25....CON.....30...25......14-
12....PD......10
05....ED......00
18....REC.....22...18
50....END.....0...50
54....STUN....26...54
6" Leap, ignored.


EC framework for passive powers like flight and Force Field: 30
EC slot Force Field for 30 points to get to campaign defense levels.
*possibly some sort of 50-60 AP power to compensate for low strength: x points (probably 30)

MP framework for attack powers: 60
*possibly some sort of attack: y points (probably 6)


char cost:  88
power cost: 90+30+x+y+ slots

 

Both characters still need to buy about 10 PD and 17 ED, of which 12 each have to be resistant to cope with campaign standards (so "No, These Stats Are Not Wasted").

 

REC: Both characters have rather high REC, and can sell it for the same price, no difference there (although str is cheaper in END than other things, since you only pay it once per phase, so if you really want to cut corners, powergirl can probably afford lower rec than blasterboy).

 

STUN and END is useful for both (and if both buy a ranged attack, they can both sell some stun since they don't get hit as often).

 

The STR guy obviously got -5 points (NEGATIVE FIVE POINTS!) somewhere, since he is 5 points cheaper, which can be spent in one skill plus one skill level, there you go, negative points. Oh, and he already has bought some sort of 12 DC Attack (for free), whereas Blasterboy needs to spend at least 6 more points on an MP slot (or 30 on an EC slot). So yeah, he somehow magically saved at least 11 points somewhere, and as a bonus, he gets anti-grab, anti-entangle, lift and carry. If that's not negative points, then you're substituting some name for what everyone else calls "negative", as in "minus five/eleven/thirtyfive".

 

ECs MAY give discounts in certain circumstances, and you get some sort of limitation with it (easier to drain, same special effect), STR on the other hand nearly ALWAYS gives you more points than you even spent! Increase STR by 50, and suddenly my character is 5 points cheaper? You'd have to be pretty sleazy to do that with an Elemental Control (any slot you add *costs* positive points, even if it is cheaper than usually).

 

When STR does not give you negative points:

- You've already abused the system quite a bit and already sold some secondaries like free END from (too cheap) CON. Two flaws make one good. Not quite a sensible approach to balancing, and shows how bad the "can only sell one figured" fix really is.

- Your build is already unoptimized and you sold secondaries which you could use (sell one point of speed and then realize you could sell 10 STUN instead).

- You're at campaign max for PD, don't want more REC or STUN and (obviously) your strength is already very high. Meaning: You've already abused STR, it's not that easy anymore.

 

I dare anyone to make Blasterboy cheaper/cleary better than Powerwoman without buying strength. Obviously I reserve the right to re-build powerwoman accordingly, spending as many points as you spent in the process. Since Powerwoman has 5 more points left with the same stats, that will be impossible. And no, you cannot sell ridiculous amounts of secondaries, you have to adhere to campaign limit defenses (or have more).

The only thing you could do to make him cheaper than her is to have a huge difference in STUN and REC (PD not so much, he'd have to buy some defenses to compensate, that would not be much cheaper). So if you get an endurance reserve and add some automaton powers to be immune to stun, THEN FINALLY str is not overpriced anymore.

Oh, and I wonder where will get something to compensate for not having 60 strength too. I accept *any* power with 50 AP worth.

 

But for anyone else (read: 99% of all characters), strength is negative points.

 

So obviously you count ANYTHING that saves you points as a negative points, this is a conceptual fault

 

If I go into best buy, and each of the Star Wars Trilogy movies is $15, and a Box set is $30, I save $15 buy buying them in a box set, this is not the same as $15 negative dollars, this is the same as having each at $10.

 

Only a stone cold fool would debate that str is not a wonderful deal, but the whole Idea of Negative points would be you buy x, AND ONLY X, and get more points from the purchase than what you get, to spend ANYWHERE YOU WANT, this does not happen, you do get more points in figured characteristics, and yes there is definatly room for debate on if Str gives to much of a DISCOUNT on it

 

By your logic these are other areas of "Negative points"

Martial Arts

EC (In practical use)

CON

DEX

Skill Enhancers

 

Your "chalange" is a false argument, because you will only accept a character that has the same PD, same REC, same Stun, of course the person who gets a BONUS on these items for purchasing STR would be cheaper, that is not NEGATIVE points, because...and this is the main point...You have no choise on how to spend them, it is a savings, not a refund

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I like being able to see both sides of an argument, except it's frustating not being able to explain either side to the other in such a way that everyone actually understands one another.

 

I want to restate my question on CON, since it got no response:

 

Under what circumstances would a character have hight END, REC, and/or STUN, and NOT be inherently "healthy" and also have a high CON? Is there a character concept that would call for a low to medium CON but high scores on those figured characteristics?

 

And I think I'm going to make a commitment to a position here (although I'm sure I can still be argued out of it.)

 

STR is not undercosted. Some of the elements that go with STR are overvalued.

 

While there are sound reasons to value Normal damage at 5 ACTIVE points per die, the best way to balance Normal and Killing is to take the fix the system ALREADY USES on Hand to Hand Normal, and extend it, and possibly make the limitation even greater. So that d6 of damage with 5 STR is not really worth 5 pts.

 

A good argument has been made that some of the secondary characteristics are too expensive. Revaluing them at a lower cost will

1. Eliminate the perception that STR is "too cheap." Same for CON, although I don't see CON as being as big a problem.

2. Enable more characters to buy them up seperately and make, for example, a high END, high REC character a viable alternative to buying the Reduced END advantage on all of one's powers, or a high STUN character an option instead of high defenses or Damage Reduction.

3. Mitigate the discrepency of cost and utility that makes END Reserve look like a tremendous improvement over anyone's "Natural" END and REC.

 

That leaves only the question of just where to revalue these traits at.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary already sees a counterargument and is grinning at one end.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I like being able to see both sides of an argument, except it's frustating not being able to explain either side to the other in such a way that everyone actually understands one another.

 

I want to restate my question on CON, since it got no response:

 

Under what circumstances would a character have hight END, REC, and/or STUN, and NOT be inherently "healthy" and also have a high CON? Is there a character concept that would call for a low to medium CON but high scores on those figured characteristics?

 

OK, How about one way to simulate a glass jaw, easily stunned but otherwise very healthy, or maybe a recovering alcholoc or addict or someone suffering from a long term/degenerative illness. Doesn't necessarily effect short term end or recovery but does interfere with long term health.

 

And I think I'm going to make a commitment to a position here (although I'm sure I can still be argued out of it.)

 

STR is not undercosted. Some of the elements that go with STR are overvalued.

 

I would say that these are equivilent statements the only difference is how they effect your approach to a solution. My only argument for one solution over another would be that increasing the cost is easier to house rule than adjusting the downstream. If we're talking redesign then either approach works.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Under what circumstances would a character have hight END' date=' REC, and/or STUN, and NOT be inherently "healthy" and also have a high CON? Is there a character concept that would call for a low to medium CON but high scores on those figured characteristics? [/quote']

 

The first example that leaps to my mind is that of a ancient sorceror whose health is on the wane but is preternatural powers ensure that it is difficult to knock him unconcious and he is able to fight and maintain his powers.

 

 

Doc

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

So obviously you count ANYTHING that saves you points as a negative points' date=' this is a conceptual fault[/quote']

That isn't what Kdansky said, nor what anyone here said. What counts as negative points is saving points *while at the same time gaining benefits*. Several people have said this several times.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

That isn't what Kdansky said' date=' nor what anyone here said. What counts as negative points is saving points *while at the same time gaining benefits*. Several people have said this several times.[/quote']

 

Are there situations that are being called point savings where you aren't at the same time gaining benefits?

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Your right, he has not said, BUT if you follow the logic used you get the following

 

 

Fast Strike +2 OCV, +2d6 = 4 points

4 + 10 (0 end, -1/2 HA) = 14 points

 

According to the logic Fast Strike is negative 10 points

 

If I have already decided to buy

flight, FF, and EB, each at 60 points

then decide I can use them all in a EC, my total has gone down (from 180 points to 120 points). Just like the examples KDansky has used over and over again about the figured characteristics and Str. Spend 30, save 90, net 60 of these so called "negative points"

 

If I decide I want to know 12 languages, at the 2 point level, I have spent 24 points, then I go...Gee I can take linguist, that brings the cost to 15, gee looks like 9 points that by this philosiphy would have to be called "Negative points"

 

However in all fairness it would have been better stated as "Anything that saves you points and does not hinder the character is negative points"

 

Admitingly EC does have a very minor limitation on it (The drain thing), but I think that is fairly minor really

 

You cannot net points from strength UNLESS you have already bought up elements that it gives you, in which case you are really redesigning the character to purchase certain things at a discount, again you are purchasing them at a (Admitingly very DEEP) discount, not getting "Negative Points"

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Are there situations that are being called point savings where you aren't at the same time gaining benefits?

 

Wow, so much better than I could have said it

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

No, your example is not negative points.

 

STR:

Add 50 str, get 5 negative points.

 

EC (60 base):

Add a EC slot, spend 30 points for the slot, save 30 points, get some 60 AP power.

 

MP (60 base):

Add a MP slot, spend 6 points for the slot, save 54 points, get some 60 AP Power.

 

Martial Art:

Fast Strike +2 OCV, +2d6 = 4 points

4 + 10 (0 end, -1/2 HA) = 14 points

To me this looks like you have to spend four points to get this, or am I wrong?

So spend 4 points, save 10 points, get some 14 AP power. Plus four is not negative.

 

Skills:

If I decide I want to know 12 languages, at the 2 point level, I have spent 24 points, then I go...Gee I can take linguist, that brings the cost to 15, gee looks like 9 points that by this philosiphy would have to be called "Negative points"

Nope, you spend 15 points. Also, you didn't add any new powers, you just added a framework. "Linguist" does not do anything by itself. 50 strength do.

 

Strength is a power (or characteristic), not a framework. An empty MP or EC or VPP does not do anything at all. It just makes whatever you buy inside it cheaper. But you still need to pay something for whatever you buy.

 

Adding more Strength makes the character cheaper. That is wrong. This argument would not hold if adding 50 strength would make the character 1 point more expensive (which would still be ridiculous, I mean: One skill costs as much as 150 str?), but then you could say: "Ok, strength gives a huge discount (98%)." Currently, it does not.

 

Definition of negative points is not: "Add some ability and get point savings, in the result not paying full price for what you added", but it is: Adding an ability (not changing some power from being outside a framework to inside a framework), but really adding a new power, and somehow pay less in total.

 

RL Example:

If you go to a supermarket and the chocolate has a 20% discount if you buy it together with the china set, then that's sensible. But if the chocolate gives you a 10$ discount on your overall bill but only costs 9$, then you just pick up a hundred chocolates, add 50$ of other goods and the heckout lady will still hand you another 50$ bill. That's strength.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

No, your example is not negative points.

 

STR:

Add 50 str, get 5 negative points.

 

This statement is not comparable to those that follow. In order to add 50 STR and get 5 negative points, you need to assume you already had purchased +10 PD, +10 REC and +25 STUN, so you save 55 points. If he did not already have these figured characteristics, he paid 50 points to enhance STR by 50, PD and REC by 10 and STUN by 25. He did not get points back. Your conclusion he recovers 5 points presupposes he would purchase those figured characteristics even if he did not buy up his STR. You have set a baseline where the abilities granted by STR were already purchased, then shown that STR would make them cheaper.

 

You have not applied similar assumptions to your other statements. Allow me to address this.

 

EC (60 base):

Add a EC slot, spend 30 points for the slot, save 30 points, get some 60 AP power.

 

Character has a 60 point Energy Blast, a 60 point force field, and 60 points of Flight. By placing them in an EC, the cost drops from 180 to 120, or 60 negative points.

 

MP (60 base):

Add a MP slot, spend 6 points for the slot, save 54 points, get some 60 AP Power.

 

Character has a 12d6 EB (cannot MPA), a 12d6 Sight Flash (cannot MPA), a 4d6 RKA (cannot MPA), a 6d6 NND (cannot MPA) and a 4d6 ranged Stun Drain (cannot MPA). These cost 48 points each for a total of 240 points. he rearranges them into a Multipower of 5 attacks, 60 base cost and 6 per Ultra slot, for a total of 120 points. That's 120 negative points.

 

Martial Art:

 

To me this looks like you have to spend four points to get this, or am I wrong?

So spend 4 points, save 10 points, get some 14 AP power. Plus four is not negative.

 

You need, again, to assume the character already had +2d6 Hand Attack (7 points) and +2 OCV with that Hand Attack (4 points), for a total of 11. He then replaces them with the MA maneuver and gets back 7 points.

 

RL Example:

If you go to a supermarket and the chocolate has a 20% discount if you buy it together with the china set, then that's sensible. But if the chocolate gives you a 10$ discount on your overall bill but only costs 9$, then you just pick up a hundred chocolates, add 50$ of other goods and the heckout lady will still hand you another 50$ bill. That's strength.

 

Coming back to the Best Buy example, you can find many DVD's where purchasing the boxed set saves you more than the price of a single DVD included. Unrelated to that, I recall looking at a tax research subcription service some years ago and realizing it was more expensive to buy it without the province of Quebec (but with all other provinces) than it was to buy the package including Quebec. More information for a lower price. So this does exist.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

This was a cross post with Hugh, who said it better, I wish I was half as articulate as some of the people around here

 

And to make your negative points argument work you need to have already bought up the elements strength gives you

 

For a TRUE Real life example

 

Go buy the 3 star wars movies

 

each costs 15

 

A box set costs 30

 

It is not a negative amount, it is a bundle deal, you get NO CHOICE on what's in the box set, this is the way it is with STR (Ok, you can sell back one figured, which I agree is broken, but that is an entire different argument)

 

take it from another angle, because I am getting tired of beeting my head agains a brick wall of something obvious (you are not getting something for nothing as you still have to pay for STR, you are just getting alot of bonus items with it)

 

Assume I want a stun of 20, a PD of 2, a recovery of 4

 

I also want a strength of 50, if the points were TRULY NEGATIVE, then I would be able to buy the strength at 50, and walk away with 5 points left over, and my figured characteristics would not have changed. This does not happen, for it to be TRULEY NEGATIVE POINTS, then that is EXACTLY what would happen, I buy Strength, nothing else matters, and I get more points than I put into it, not more stun, or more PD, or higher REcovery, or HA, or leaping, etc... I get MORE POINTS

 

OR

 

My examples are all Negative points examples by your definition

 

Now I will admit that most Primary characteristics are good deals, maybe to good, but this negative points thing is a falsehood

[Kdansky]

Ok, well, if you want to phrase it like that:

 

Yes, you only get negative points, if and only if your PD/STUN/END/REC are already in the "I spent points for it" region. If you want to run around with base values, then you will not get points out of it (well, you still get a huge discount on str due to selling back stun and you still get to keep the others).

 

Now the points comes up: How many character concepts do not cry out for 30+ strength? I would estimate that quite a few concepts can get by with less than 50 strength.

But on the other hand: How many characters are playable with less than DC*2 PD, 40-50 END and STUN each, and a rec of about 10 or more?

- Those that sell end and rec back to 0 and buy an end reserve. If you sell 50 END for 25 and then buy 250 end for 25, something smells very, very fishy. We probably agree that this is an END Reserve problem (or probably end is too expensive).

- Those that don't have armor/pd but instead Damage Reduction.

- Automatons who don't need stun.

- Characters who don't cope with campaign standards. Your 20 stun, 20 end, 4 rec, 2 pd example. How in hell are you going to play that? And if you buy any sort of PD armor/FF, then you could just buy strength instead and take the free pd, sell the stun and make a good deal.

That's about it. Everyone else has use for these stats. Hence I understand them as "I would have bougth these anyway", therefore they are already paid for. It's like saying: "Only people who breathe air get this discount!"

 

Oh and for the EC example: If you go from Flight for 60 + FF for 60 to Flight for 30 + FF for 30 + EC for 30, then you gain points, but you lose power (easier to drain). If you add 50 strength, you gain points, and you gain power (str no figured). That's my gripe there.

 

Things you would buy usually: Potatoes, Milk, Rice, Pasta, Fruits (each 2$, total 10$). Now if you buy the chocolate for 7$, you get a set bonus and Potatoes, Milk, Rice, Pasta and Fruits for 2$ each with it. Buying the chocolate, discarding it and another article is cheaper as buying them normally. You'll never see that anyway.

 

I think we have one other disagreement: I consider Strength a power, you consider it an EC. I'm pretty sure I'm right there

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Ok, well, if you want to phrase it like that:

 

Yes, you only get negative points, if and only if your PD/STUN/END/REC are already in the "I spent points for it" region. If you want to run around with base values, then you will not get points out of it (well, you still get a huge discount on str due to selling back stun and you still get to keep the others).

 

Now the points comes up: How many character concepts do not cry out for 30+ strength? I would estimate that quite a few concepts can get by with less than 50 strength.

But on the other hand: How many characters are playable with less than DC*2 PD, 40-50 END and STUN each, and a rec of about 10 or more?

- Those that sell end and rec back to 0 and buy an end reserve. If you sell 50 END for 25 and then buy 250 end for 25, something smells very, very fishy. We probably agree that this is an END Reserve problem (or probably end is too expensive).

- Those that don't have armor/pd but instead Damage Reduction.

- Automatons who don't need stun.

- Characters who don't cope with campaign standards. Your 20 stun, 20 end, 4 rec, 2 pd example. How in hell are you going to play that? And if you buy any sort of PD armor/FF, then you could just buy strength instead and take the free pd, sell the stun and make a good deal.

That's about it. Everyone else has use for these stats. Hence I understand them as "I would have bougth these anyway", therefore they are already paid for. It's like saying: "Only people who breathe air get this discount!"

 

Oh and for the EC example: If you go from Flight for 60 + FF for 60 to Flight for 30 + FF for 30 + EC for 30, then you gain points, but you lose power (easier to drain). If you add 50 strength, you gain points, and you gain power (str no figured). That's my gripe there.

 

Things you would buy usually: Potatoes, Milk, Rice, Pasta, Fruits (each 2$, total 10$). Now if you buy the chocolate for 7$, you get a set bonus and Potatoes, Milk, Rice, Pasta and Fruits for 2$ each with it. Buying the chocolate, discarding it and another article is cheaper as buying them normally. You'll never see that anyway.

 

I think we have one other disagreement: I consider Strength a power, you consider it an EC. I'm pretty sure I'm right there

 

No, i consider it a characteristic and a power (called Characteristic: Strength)...the book backs me up on that BTW

 

I just happen to look at most characteristics as cost savers, as bundle deals, not the same as EC's, just similar. My problem with the Negative characteristics is that it implies that Mr. I-have-no-extras-in-figured-characteristics can buy strength and get points for it, that is just not the case.

 

Furthermore, and while I will admit that in some genre's it would not work, I can name others where the stats above would be low, but fairly close to average (my ESPianage game for instance),

 

Now that we have established that STR does not give negative points we can turn back to the point of this thread: Do the bonuses you get from buying up your strength, and other key primary characteristics, unbalance the game, and if so what should be done about it

 

My answer: I think that Str, and other characteristics CAN but will not nessesarily unbalance the game, especial in the lack of what I call cost savers, such as MA, and other frameworks. As such while as a default the cost should remain 1:1 more pages should be dedicated to the advantages and disadvantages of changing the cost and the relationship to figured characteristics.

 

FURTHERMORE, as the sell one figured characteristic rule is broken it should either be changed to YOu can sell back figured characteristics at .25 there normal value, or change to you can not sell back figured characteristics at all. However the decoupling thread is an interesting thing

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The first example that leaps to my mind is that of a ancient sorceror whose health is on the wane but is preternatural powers ensure that it is difficult to knock him unconcious and he is able to fight and maintain his powers.

 

 

Doc

 

 

Difficult to knock unconscious, but easy to stun??

 

Lucius Alexander

 

We the Palindromedaries, in order to perfect a more united form....

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I would say that these are equivilent statements the only difference is how they effect your approach to a solution. My only argument for one solution over another would be that increasing the cost is easier to house rule than adjusting the downstream. If we're talking redesign then either approach works.

 

Well, there are those for whom "double the STR cost" certainly works.

 

However, coming at it from the other direction seems to simultaneously address other concerns in the game.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

.....justify the establishment, securely tranquilize domesticated palindromedaries...

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Difficult to knock unconscious, but easy to stun??

 

Lucius Alexander

 

We the Palindromedaries, in order to perfect a more united form....

 

He relies on his Damage Reduction.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Ok' date=' well, if you want to phrase it like that:[/quote']

 

Yeah, I kind of like accuracy.

 

Yes' date=' you only get negative points, if and only if your PD/STUN/END/REC are already in the "I spent points for it" region. If you want to run around with base values, then you will not get points out of it (well, you still get a huge discount on str due to selling back stun and you still get to keep the others).[/quote']

 

Just like I generally require players to define how their abilities work to justify buying them, I also require them to justify selling them back. So I would not expect a character described as a scrawny weakling to have a 23 STR, but I also would not expect someone without a backstory explaining it to sell back STUN.

 

Now the points comes up: How many character concepts do not cry out for 30+ strength? I would estimate that quite a few concepts can get by with less than 50 strength.

 

But on the other hand: How many characters are playable with less than DC*2 PD, 40-50 END and STUN each, and a rec of about 10 or more?

 

Many, in my experience. In my games, some characters get by quite nicely with PD less than 2x DC because they buy force fields, armor and/or damage reduction to protect themselves.

 

40 - 50 END has precisely nothing to do with STR. The vast majority of Supers have no less than 23 CON, which is 46 END off the bat.

 

STUN? I've seen STUN levels of 27 and up (10 STR, 10 BOD and 23 CON). In our games, buying up STUN is actually pretty rare. Low STUN characters tend to have decent defenses and/or CV's.

 

REC? Well, it tends to bottom out at 7 (10 STR + 23 CON), and I've seen numerous characters get by with 8. They generally reduce their END costs to keep going, and suck it up if KO'd. They don't see themselves as KO'd; recover; keep fighting machines.

 

Every time I review these issues, I come back to a few things. First, END, STUN and REC are costed too high - I rarely see them purchased, rather than acquired as Figured's. I wouldn't mind seeing the occasional character with lower defenses, but big STUN and REC. Or with full END costs, but high END and REC.

 

OTOH, such concepts take a heft risk - once you get KO'd, you start back with no END. Once you're at -10, all that REC doesn't do you much good (or any at -20 STUN).

 

Second, while we always glare at STR, my experience is that it's CON and DEX that are virtually never below the top of NCM on any Super's character sheet. DEX inflation is easily explained - 1st Ed started out with characters that set 18 as "very low", 23 as "standard", 30 as "fast standard" and 35 as "high DEX". The bar is easily lowered, if desired - you could drop everyone by 9 or 12 across the board and they'd still have exactly the same chance of hitting each other.

 

CON also stems back to 1st ED, but is not readily changed. Resistance to being Stunned and those figured stats combine to suggest a CON of less than 23 is not a bright move by any Super. Then again, one would expect that Supers, and any other heroic characters, lead a vary active lifestyle. It's not a practical lifestyle for the unhealthy, and all that exercise has to have some results over time, so I can live with the high CON scores.

 

- Those that sell end and rec back to 0 and buy an end reserve. If you sell 50 END for 25 and then buy 250 end for 25' date=' something smells very, very fishy. We probably agree that this is an END Reserve problem (or probably end is too expensive).[/quote']

 

I haven't had a lot of issues with END reserves as most characters still have some abilities pulling from ordinary END. By the way, selling back two figured's is against the rules. In any case, selling all your REC means your STUN never comes back, so I've never seen anyone do that. The END reserve actually devalues your REC stat.

 

- Those that don't have armor/pd but instead Damage Reduction.

 

Actually, I see these guys buy a bit of PD and ED quite often, as they want a baseline so they have some resistance to BOD damage.

 

- Automatons who don't need stun.

 

Also don't need CON

 

- Characters who don't cope with campaign standards. Your 20 stun' date=' 20 end, 4 rec, 2 pd example. How in hell are you going to play that? And if you buy any sort of PD armor/FF, then you could just buy strength instead and take the free pd, sell the stun and make a good deal.[/quote']

 

They buy CON, so they don't have 20 STUN, 20 END and 4 REC. As to PD, they also need ED, which CON provides. Yeah, I could buy STR and PD instead of an energy blast and a force field, but that's a different character entirely.

 

Oh and for the EC example: If you go from Flight for 60 + FF for 60 to Flight for 30 + FF for 30 + EC for 30' date=' then you gain points, but you lose power (easier to drain). If you add 50 strength, you gain points, and you gain power (str no figured). That's my gripe there.[/quote']

 

In theory. In practice, I see a LOT more STR drains and transfers than EB, Force Field and Flight adjustments combined, so in practice, we're all at risk of SR drains but the EC "limit" becomes a flavour issue. In fact, I think "drain one/all SFX" is much more common, so EC or not, Flame Lady will have concerns against Aquarius the Living Fire Hose.

 

Things you would buy usually: Potatoes' date=' Milk, Rice, Pasta, Fruits (each 2$, total 10$). Now if you buy the chocolate for 7$, you get a set bonus and Potatoes, Milk, Rice, Pasta and Fruits for 2$ each with it. Buying the chocolate, discarding it and another article is cheaper as buying them normally. You'll never see that anyway.[/quote']

 

You seem to think these combo's never happen. We bought an extra copy of a Season 1 DVD set a while back because we wanted the rest of the seasons, and the bundle of Season 1 - 4 was cheaper than buying Seasons 2, 3 and 4 separately.

 

Check out some fast food combo prices - often, it's cheaper to upgrade an item to a larger size and throw out the rest than to buy the component parts with a smaller size for one item.

 

I think we have one other disagreement: I consider Strength a power' date=' you consider it an EC. I'm pretty sure I'm right there [/quote']

 

I consider it a Characteristic. The rules say I'm right, although they do allow you to buy it as a power in some circumstances.