Discussion on costs of Characteristics

[Markdoc]

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

 

Do you allow frameworks in your heroic games?

 

Yep.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

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

 

Of that 518, there are exactly 300 (statistical oddity) in the 0-20 "human" range. 155 (51.7%) of them are in the 15-20 range. This is in a super hero campaign where "highly trained normals" are expected. The other 145 fall in the 0-13 range, and honestly, there are a lot of 13 STRs. So while I can say that yeah, there may be some STR stat elevation in my experience, I can't say it's an "everyone does it" situation.

 

Interesting numbers - thanks! I do note however the traditional bulges at 30-35 the "not a brick, but getting a good boost from STR" level where many EB specialists live, though

 

Is it possible to do a breakdown only of ranged characters? I'd be curious to see the results.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

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

 

So, if a STR 10 guy grabs the Space Shuttle, and it fires its jets, the shuttle won't move?

 

Probably not, because of the Shuttle's strength, but the shuttle's movement won't help...see below:)

 

Vehicles have a STR score just like characters. It's usually based on what the vehicle itself can carry or lift. I'm pretty sure the Shuttle's STR is 40+.

 

Also, Flight can be used to augment STR for lifting purposes.

 

So let's say you have Marvel's Hercules grab Northstar. Northstar is not going to be able to break the Grab itself. However, he might have enough normal STR to lift Hercules and therefore fly into the air while Herc' hangs on.

 

HERO rules might not spell out this specific situation but they do stress that GM's should always apply a little common sense where appropriate.

 

Oh ye of little faith OF COURSE Hero deals with the situation...in the most perverse and counterintuitive way I can imagine...

 

What happens if a character Grabs a moving character (typically, but not necessarily, with Telekinesis) — does the moving character instantly decelerate to 0” of movement?

 

When a moving character is Grabbed, he immediately gets a standard Casual STR Roll to break out. If the GM is using the optional rule on 5E 238 regarding the effect of movement on STR, then the character’s Casual STR would be calculated with that in mind. If the roll succeeds, the character keeps moving until the end of his declared inches of movement (assuming he wasn’t there already). If the roll fails, the character is reduced to 0” of movement and remains in the hex where he was Grabbed; he has to break out in the usual fashion, without gaining any STR benefit from movement.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

Also can I just apologise for suggesting earlier in the thread that you can link powers to your strength to simulate stength based abilities like, extra leaping, armour, whatever. You can't.

 

Can a character Link a power to his STR?

 

No. Characters can’t Link an ability to “STR”; they have to Link to a specific use of STR (Link to Punch, Link to Grab, or the like). To create an ability that injures or affects any target a character touches, use Damage Shield.

 

Note to self: stop reading the FAQ as well as the QnA. And the rule book. Sheesh.

[Guest steamteck]

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

 

How about flipping the cost of STR and CON? CON always seemed overpriced for its utility.Actually I won't do anything myself. I'm not going to recost 100s of characters but STR always seemed much more useful than CON which is pretty passive.

You guys make good arguments on both sides but ultimately depends on how it flows in your campaigns I've never had any problems and apparently our Energy guys/gals are really good builds because the Powerwomen don't dominate.If Energywuss has a few skill levels things might change I suspect.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

OK, I just lost a large reply. Some comments:

 

- Why can't EB Guy wait until PowerWoman starts that Move Through, then fire (when shes at closer range, possibly) while she is at -3 DCV from MT (IIRC) to do knockback and interrupther move so she doesn't get so close.

 

- How come PW can use the ground slam maneuver, but EB Guy can't use buildings or other cover to make it tougher for PW to make a move through because she needs to re-locate him?

 

I'm quoting Kenn, but making some changes. Show me the improved balance of 2:1 STR

 

Okay...

 

Power Woman

 

Val Char Cost

50 STR 80 costs 2:1 now

20 DEX 30

30 CON 40

15 BODY 10

10 INT 0

10 EGO 0

10 PRE 0

10 COM 0

22 PD 12 reduce defenses as they are too high for attacks

22 ED 16

4 SPD 10

16 REC 0

60 END 0

55 STUN 0

6" RUN 0

2" SWIM 0

10" LEAP 0

Characteristics Cost: 198

 

Cost Power

25 +0 STR, Reduced Endurance (Half END; +1/4) (25 Active Points) (Modifiers affect Base Characteristic) (added to Primary Value)

 

Higher AP for STR, remember?

 

20 Damage Resistance (20 PD / 20 ED) Lower defenses

62 Flight 20" (Improved Noncombat Movement (x8)), Reduced Endurance (Half END; +1/4) (62 Active Points)

Powers Cost: 107

 

Total Character Cost: 305

Base Points: 200

Experience Required: 105

Total Experience Available: 0

Experience Unspent: 0

 

So Energy Man should be a 305 point character as well, right?

 

Energy Man

Val Char Cost

10 STR 0

20 DEX 30

30 CON 40

15 BODY 10

10 INT 0

10 EGO 0

10 PRE 0

10 COM 0

27 PD 4 Equalized with ED base at 6

27 ED 0 W/ FF, has 5 DEF more than PW

4 SPD 10

16 REC 16

60 END 0

55 STUN 20

6" RUN 0

2" SWIM 0

10" LEAP 0

Characteristics Cost: 130

 

Cost Power

31 Elemental Control, 62-point Powers

31 1) Energy Blast 10d6 (vs. ED), Reduced Endurance (Half END; +1/4) (62 Active Points)

31 2) Flight 20" (Improved Noncombat Movement (x8)), Reduced Endurance (Half END; +1/4) (62 Active Points)

32 3) Force Field (21 PD / 21 ED), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (63 Active Points) (added to Primary Value)

 

Less defense,no END and note that EB Guy has more defenses than PW

 

8 Leaping +8" (10" forward, 5" upward) (added to Primary Value)

Powers Cost: 133

Total Character Cost: 263

 

Base Points: 200

Experience Required: 60

Total Experience Available: 0

Experience Unspent: 0

 

That leaves 42 points for EB Guy to spend. Let's buy:

 

30 4d6 Sight Flash, 0 END

12 PSL's vs Range (those are what, 2 points? 3 points? That's either four or six PSL's)

 

EB Guy has eliminated his END deficit, can MPA to blind PowerWoman, and hits easily at much greater distances. If 1:1 is too cheap, I submit 2:1 is way too expensive. Find a win for PowerWoman without stacking the deck!

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

You guys make good arguments on both sides but ultimately depends on how it flows in your campaigns I've never had any problems and apparently our Energy guys/gals are really good builds because the Powerwomen don't dominate.If Energywuss has a few skill levels things might change I suspect.

 

EB Guy spending 8 points to equal Power Woman's leaping is a waste of points - they can fly, so who needs leaping? Also, in my games, EP's tend to have lower REC and STUN than EBGuy Spend some of those points changing that Flash to a Multipower (toss in a ranged drain and an NND or AVLD, off the top) and some other EB tricks, and he's much more effective.

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

And Powerwoman can't put that flight in an EC or other framework, can she?

 

I would say your example makes it rather clear: If you put str at 2:1, the better character is more expensive. That's fair and square. If you start optimizing, the winner might change, but it highly depends on how you do this.

 

For the environment argument: I'm sure I can name more cities/towns that have a river and/or lake than you can name cities that do not. Even if you use google and I don't. There's virtually always a body of water nearby. Str is like "use any commonly avialably environment", whereas EB is like "can use specific environment". That's why str should be more expensive.

[Fedifensor]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The whole Energy Man / Power Girl argument really doesn't have much value to me, because it doesn't compare apples to apples. The builds need to be as identical as possible.

 

Try this...

 

-

Strength Guy

VAL...CHA...Cost...Total...Roll......Notes

60....STR.....50...60......21-.......HTH Damage 12d6 END [6]

20....DEX.....30...20......13-.......OCV 7 DCV 7

25....CON.....30...25......14-

10....BODY....0...10......11-

10....INT.....0...10......11-.......PER Roll 11-

10....EGO.....0...10......11-.......ECV: 3

10....PRE.....0...10......11-.......PRE Attack: 2d6

10....COM.....0...10......11-

30....PD......18...30.............30 PD (10 rPD)

30....ED......25...30.............30 ED (10 rED)

4....SPD.....10...4.................Phases: 3, 6, 9, 12

18....REC.....2...18

50....END.....0...50

54....STUN....1...54

6....RUN......0...6"................END [1]

2....SWIM.....0...2"................END [1]

12....LEAP.....0...12"................12" forward, 6" upward

 

CHA Cost: 166

 

Cost...POWERS

24.....Flight 12" - END=2

10.....Damage Resistance (10 PD/10 ED) - END=0

 

POWERS Cost: 34

 

Total Character Cost: 200

 

-

Hand-to-Hand Guy

VAL...CHA...Cost...Total...Roll......Notes

10....STR.....0...10......11-.......HTH Damage 2d6 END [1]

20....DEX.....30...20......13-.......OCV 7 DCV 7

25....CON.....30...25......14-

10....BODY....0...10......11-

10....INT.....0...10......11-.......PER Roll 11-

10....EGO.....0...10......11-.......ECV: 3

10....PRE.....0...10......11-.......PRE Attack: 2d6

10....COM.....0...10......11-

30....PD......28...30.............30 PD (10 rPD)

30....ED......25...30.............30 ED (10 rED)

4....SPD.....10...4.................Phases: 3, 6, 9, 12

18....REC.....22...18

50....END.....0...50

54....STUN....26...54

6....RUN......0...6"................END [1]

2....SWIM.....0...2"................END [1]

2....LEAP.....0...2"................2" forward, 1" upward

 

CHA Cost: 171

 

Cost...POWERS

33.....Hand-To-Hand Attack +10d6 (50 Active Points); Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/2) - END=5

24.....Flight 12" - END=2

10.....Damage Resistance (10 PD/10 ED) - END=0

 

POWERS Cost: 67

 

Total Character Cost: 238

 

These two characters do the same thing in combat - go up and beat someone down. They both do 12d6 damage. Strong Guy, however, can use his Strength for grabs in addition to pure damage...and he's 38 points cheaper.

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I wanted to make a similar example, going this direction:

 

Build a Powerwoman with 60 Strength.

Build a Energyguy with EB as main Attack.

 

Now build Energypowerguy with EB as main Attack, but give him 60 Strength. Change defenses to fit the newly found PD etc.

 

You will see that EPG wastly overshadows both builds but does not exactly cost much more. That's where STR is unbalanced, you can get if for free on your EG.

[Markdoc]

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

 

OK, I just lost a large reply. Some comments:

 

- Why can't EB Guy wait until PowerWoman starts that Move Through, then fire (when shes at closer range, possibly) while she is at -3 DCV from MT (IIRC) to do knockback and interrupther move so she doesn't get so close.

 

He can certainly delay but he can't choose to "delay and then interrupt her action" So his choices are:

1) Fire as soon as he gets the chance

2) delay and let her take her action - hoping that if he's still conscious afterwards, he can shoot her at -3 DCV from move through. He could even haymaker at that point, though he's taking a risk since, he can't expect to KNB her out of half move range, is highly unlikely to stun her and if he loses the DEX-off next turn, he's toast.

 

What he can't do is delay until the other player has committed to a course of action, then take his move and demand to go before she executes her action.

 

How come PW can use the ground slam maneuver' date=' but EB Guy can't use buildings or other cover to make it tougher for PW to make a move through because she needs to re-locate him?[/quote']

 

He can, of course - I already commented that both sides can use terrain as cover. But I also mentioned that since the HTH combatant wants to close the range, in general, terrain is slightly more to her advantage.

 

I'm quoting Kenn' date=' but making some changes. Show me the improved balance of 2:1 STR Find a win for PowerWoman without stacking the deck![/quote']

 

It's perfectly fair request: and a simple one to deal with. Starting with classic archetypes like Captain Marvel or PowerMan:

 

1. Powergirl is actually nerdy Nuclear scientist Julie Dweeb. But when she says the magic word "HAZMAT" she becomes Powergirl! (OIHID) Stat.s and powers are exactly the same as Keen's original build, except that she now has a bunch of points to spend on science skills and more COM

In straight fight, as illustrated, she still stomps Energy guy, but now she's no longer all-invulnerable all the time: if he surprises her when she's out of Hero ID, he can turn her into chunky salsa as easily as she can do it to him if she surprises him with his FF down. The character is still pretty powerful but that's compensated for by a healthy weakness - sounds balanced to me.

 

2. The "powerman build". Powerman (I think I got his name right) is a flying Brick: he has dorky goggles and a jetbelt. IIRC he used to hang out with the West Coast avengers... We can dump the goggles, but keep the jetbelt. If we reconfigure her flight, to make it OIF and drop the reduced END, plus drop the reduced END on STR, the other stat.s remain the same. This version might stomp Energy guy, but it's no longer a sure thing. The increased END use means that she can no longer chase Energy guy all over the sky and fly him around in a headlock indefinitely. She can still beat him in a straight fight - if she catches him quickly. However, if he plays smart - running away to tire her out, then returning to attack or using KNB to delay her approach, even if he can't prevent it, etc then he has a chance: when she's low on END he can afford to take the riskier maneuvers. Strangely, now that she's paying 2:1 for her STR, suddenly they're relatively balanced.

 

You can also use more variant builds. Drop her STR to 30 (same cost) and sell back 3" of leaping (her flight makes it largely redundant) and that reduced END on STR, to buy Find Weakness with strike (12-) and you have a character that can still grapple Energy man effectively and does, on average rolls about the same damage through his defences when striking (in fact, 1 point more than the original build) - and with slightly above average rolls, does significantly more. That character has slightly reduced secondaries, but nothing that makes any difference to this fight, due to her high defences. Sell back 5 BOD (with 26 rPD, 30rED, she's unlikely to take BOD very often), and you get a character with Find weakness 14- who in a couple of phases is going to start doing serious harm with each punch, since Energyman is more than likely to end up with 8PD: on a good roll, she can drop him to 4PD so she'll be doing him BOD. The drawback is that if she futzes her FW roll, she can't hurt him with her strike (she can still try power-diving him into the pavement or dragging him to water and drowning him tho')

Now this build is not as energy efficient as the original, giving Energyman a chance, nor is it quite as powerful (that's the point, no?) as the original. But she is a perfectly viable character and still has a pretty good chance of catching and stomping Energyman, even without resorting to terrain exploits.

 

Or you could drop the STR to 35, reduce the cost of reduced END on STR, and instead of buying up PD and ED plus DR give him an EC equivalent to Energyman's, but with HA instead of EB. That version, of course would be far more powerful than the original, but would also exceed the damage caps these two were built to. To keep it at 10 DC, you'd need to advantage the heck of the HA, but that would give her a good chance of smearing poor old Energyman, since it gives her even more options in the attack. You'd even end up with points left over, from that build

 

Now of course, you could make more efficient Energyman builds, too - that's not the point. The point is that here - with all of 5 minutes thought, I've made 4 builds that could still take Energyman as originally scripted but using a cost of 2:1 for STR. It would be trivial to build further examples, but that's enough to lay to rest the myth that Bricks built with 2:1 STR cannot be effective in a Supers game. Clearly, they can.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

For the environment argument: I'm sure I can name more cities/towns that have a river and/or lake than you can name cities that do not. Even if you use google and I don't. There's virtually always a body of water nearby. Str is like "use any commonly avialably environment"' date=' whereas EB is like "can use specific environment". That's why str should be more expensive.[/quote']

 

I bet I can name more with buildings EBGuy can duck behind to make it harder for PW to close in a straight line than you can name that do not...

 

He can certainly delay but he can't choose to "delay and then interrupt her action" So his choices are:

1) Fire as soon as he gets the chance

2) delay and let her take her action - hoping that if he's still conscious afterwards, he can shoot her at -3 DCV from move through. He could even haymaker at that point, though he's taking a risk since, he can't expect to KNB her out of half move range, is highly unlikely to stun her and if he loses the DEX-off next turn, he's toast.

 

What he can't do is delay until the other player has committed to a course of action, then take his move and demand to go before she executes her action.

 

I believe he can try to interrupt, but IIRC, they have to roll DEX rolls to see who goes first so I concede that, at worst (for PW) this is a 50/50 chance.

 

It's perfectly fair request: and a simple one to deal with. Starting with classic archetypes like Captain Marvel or PowerMan:

 

1. Powergirl is actually nerdy Nuclear scientist Julie Dweeb. But when she says the magic word "HAZMAT" she becomes Powergirl! (OIHID) Stat.s and powers are exactly the same as Keen's original build, except that she now has a bunch of points to spend on science skills and more COM

In straight fight, as illustrated, she still stomps Energy guy, but now she's no longer all-invulnerable all the time: if he surprises her when she's out of Hero ID, he can turn her into chunky salsa as easily as she can do it to him if she surprises him with his FF down. The character is still pretty powerful but that's compensated for by a healthy weakness - sounds balanced to me.

 

Now we're making the characters "unequal". EB Guy could also have a small limitation on most/all his powers (maybe he's really college student Parker Peterson and also has OIHID). I think they both have points left ovr if they're 350 point characters, so that's where the skills come from.

 

2. The "powerman build". Powerman (I think I got his name right) is a flying Brick: he has dorky goggles and a jetbelt. IIRC he used to hang out with the West Coast avengers... We can dump the goggles' date=' but keep the jetbelt. If we reconfigure her flight, to make it OIF and drop the reduced END, plus drop the reduced END on STR, the other stat.s remain the same. This version [b']might[/b] stomp Energy guy, but it's no longer a sure thing. The increased END use means that she can no longer chase Energy guy all over the sky and fly him around in a headlock indefinitely. She can still beat him in a straight fight - if she catches him quickly. However, if he plays smart - running away to tire her out, then returning to attack or using KNB to delay her approach, even if he can't prevent it, etc then he has a chance: when she's low on END he can afford to take the riskier maneuvers. Strangely, now that she's paying 2:1 for her STR, suddenly they're relatively balanced.

 

Wonder Man. And EB Guy can target the flight belt and then maintain altitude while FocusLad runs around loking for something he can throw. Or EB Guy could be clad in Powered Energy Armor.

 

You can also use more variant builds. Drop her STR to 30 (same cost) and sell back 3" of leaping (her flight makes it largely redundant) and that reduced END on STR' date=' to buy Find Weakness with strike (12-) and you have a character that can still grapple Energy man effectively and does, on average rolls about the same damage through his defences when striking (in fact, 1 point more than the original build) - and with slightly above average rolls, does significantly more. That character has slightly reduced secondaries, but nothing that makes any difference to this fight, due to her high defences.[/quote']

 

Note that I reduced those defenses. In my experience, EB Guy would have the lower secondaries, BTW. But I kept them equal for purposes of the experiment.

 

Sell back 5 BOD (with 26 rPD' date=' 30rED, she's unlikely to take BOD very often), and you get a character with Find weakness 14- who in a couple of phases is going to start doing serious harm with each punch, since Energyman is more than likely to end up with 8PD: on a good roll, she can drop him to 4PD so she'll be doing him BOD.[/quote']

 

EB Guy can also sell back BOD and have FW for his EB. Or 10 points' Lack of Weakness. And note again the reduced defenses. By the way, PW is still blind from the Flash EB Guy MPA's with - how's that FW working for her?

 

Or you could drop the STR to 35' date=' reduce the cost of reduced END on STR, and instead of buying up PD and ED plus DR give him an EC equivalent to Energyman's, but with HA instead of EB. That version, of course would be far more powerful than the original, but would also exceed the damage caps these two were built to. To keep it at 10 DC, you'd need to advantage the heck of the HA, but that would give her a good chance of smearing poor old Energyman, since it gives her even more options in the attack. You'd even end up with points left over, from that build [/quote']

 

In other words, I can change PW's concept from a strong Brick to something else so she can be competetive. IOW, characters based on STR are not viable if we double the cost of STR.

 

Now of course' date=' you could make more efficient Energyman builds, too - that's not the point. The point is that here - with all of 5 minutes thought, I've made 4 builds that could still take Energyman as originally scripted but using a cost of 2:1 for STR. It would be trivial to build further examples, but that's enough to lay to rest the myth that Bricks built with 2:1 STR cannot be effective in a Supers game. Clearly, they can.[/quote']

 

Sure. If we make them non-bricks using abilities other than STR to cmompensate, or design them more cleverly/creatively than other characters. But I don't think that's a valid comparison.

 

Markdoc, I'll ad another thought here. You've noted you don't do a lot of Supers, and my sense is Fantasy is your big genre. To my mind, the benefit of STR is enhanced in heroic games, and especially fantasy, due to free equipment which you can lug around better and use more efectively with high STR.

 

Perhaps the problem is as much or more point-free equipment as the cost of STR. What if we kept the cost of STR at 1:1, but required all charaters to pay for access to equipment, a resource pool concept? I suspect this would also have a balancing effect, as Sargon the Scrawny Sorceror has limited equipment, and BroMax the Burly Brawler now pays for both his STR and for access to that heavy armor and weaponry he uses with that STR.

[Kdansky]

To the topic of cover: I don't think that cover will ever help a blaster more than a brick. Can't shoot me due to LoS, but I can still run after you. Oh, and throw that wall at you too. Or just "tunnel" through it. I mean: 3 def 3 body? Casual Strength baby! If it's more, I'll "move-through" on it. Really "through". And then I'm in HTH range since you were behind it. Followup see as above.

 

Markdoc's general idea was: Change as few things as possible and try *not* to add any new powers (or else we'd just put a cosmic VPP there, which will dominate any simple character instantly), while still staying at 2:1 str. I will make another example, where you can clearly see that STR is mispriced at 1:1.

 

Dex and speed are equal, all other values at base, no comparison needed.

 

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


char cost: 50+30+2+1 = 83

EC Brick powers
30 base
30 flight
30 Energy blast 12d6
30 Force Field, four times hardened and half end or some such to make it fitting to campaign limits.


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.

char cost:  88

EC Blaster powers
30 base
30 flight
30 Energy blast 12d6
30 Force Field, four times hardened and half end or some such to make it fitting to campaign limits.

 

So, these two characters are completely the same, except for Powergirl having 60 str vs Blasterboy having 10, and she is 5 points cheaper. There is nothing he can do that she can't, but she can grab, escape out of grabs etc etc. And you tell me 50 free strength is ok? THIS is my problem. It's not like blasterboy has no use for STUN, END and REC (and arguably PD, but that's 10 cpoints at most). If we put str at 2:1, suddenly she is 45 points more expensive, which is quite exactly what she has in STR andvantage (10% off, that's ok if you ask me).

 

Honestly: Which of these two builds is more powerful (by far) and why is Powergirl 5 cp cheaper on top of that? Neither character is totally flawed and wastes points (although they are really bland, I agree, and powergirl does not really *need* the EB and could save 30 points there).

 

Addendum: STR is really like a MP, all included. You get an entangle (grab), a movement power (leap + casual str "tunneling"), AoE (throw cars), a ranged attack (throw things), a melee attack (punch) and a defensive power (escape from grabs/entangles). Therefore it's ok if it is not completely free due to secondaries, I think. Also, if you really *pay* for str, you don't have the problem that the brick can do things he strictly speaking did not buy, since he spent about as much on these things as any other character spends on his Attack MP. Yeah, it might be 10% off, but that's ok. We're not splitting hairs here, and many of the "slots" have inbuilt limitations (focus of opportunity, no range on grab, etc).

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Sure. If we make them non-bricks using abilities other than STR to cmompensate' date=' or design them more cleverly/creatively than other characters. But I don't think that's a valid comparison.[/quote']

 

Sigh: the reason I refrained from posting 2:1 builds when i was first requested was because I thought "If I do, people will just say "Yeah, but I can redesign the other character..." And the answer is, of course you could. And I could redesign further and we're going to end up at parity again. It's a pointless exercise. Several of my builds had points left over, so could buy flash defence, or whatever ...

 

All of which is, of course, utterly, utterly beside the point.

 

I made 4 simple builds, all according to the rules. All effective. All using 2:1 cost. The argument is not "can other people also build effective characters". Duh. Of course they can. Energyman could easily have been optimized so it wasn't such a walkover for Powerwoman in the first place (using his extra points for some CSLs would be a good start) - and Powerwoman could have been re-optimized to take him down again. However, the fact that 2:1 characters can be competitive with other characters is pretty clearly established.

 

You complain that using OIHID is "unequal" - yet there's a second brick version that uses an exactly comparable EC build to Energy guy and even at 2:1, it could easily smear him. You complain that I'm changing "full STR to part STR" - but in fact we have two full STR builds and two reduced STR builds. So what? They're all bricks, they're all effective, they all cost STR at 2:1. I was making the point that there are multiple ways to build a brick at 2:1 and they can all be effective, so it's not like there's a magic breakpoint.

 

Yes, costing STR at 2:1 does mean that a character relying only on STR is going to be less effective than one at 1:1. But you know what? I already knew that. It was the point, after all. Complaining that using standard Hero system rules to build characters makes them somehow "unequal" is nonsense. EnergyMan started off with a power framework, did that make him "unequal"? No - as we have seen he still gets pwned by a less cost effective build with STR at 1:1.

 

The question posed was, can you build an effective brick with STR at 2.1? The answer, clearly, is yes. You're not disputing their effectiveness. Can a brick with STR at 2:1, buying all his powers straight, compete with other characters using frameworks or foci? The answer is probably not - which is the same answer that applies to an character using EB as their prime attack.

 

To me that's prima facie evidence to me, that actually at STR at 2:1 is a good, balanced cost: suddenly characters with high STR are subject to the same design constraints as other characters.

 

Markdoc' date=' I'll ad another thought here. You've noted you don't do a lot of Supers, and my sense is Fantasy is your big genre. To my mind, the benefit of STR is enhanced in heroic games, and especially fantasy, due to free equipment which you can lug around better and use more efectively with high STR.[/quote']

 

It's certainly true that we first noticed it in Fantasy (and in Pulp), for two reasons: first the predominance of muscle powered weapons and second the importance of being able to carry stuff yourself. But then we noticed that the same general effect was visible in all our games, supers (which I play: i just don't GM it much) and non supers, SciFi and Fantasy.

 

The problem is not near as obvious in Champions: because there are multiple ways to offset STR. But in general, for general oomph, even in a supers game, it's damn hard to beat, even if the STR is not leveraged in any way.

 

Perhaps the problem is as much or more point-free equipment as the cost of STR. What if we kept the cost of STR at 1:1' date=' but required all charaters to pay for access to equipment, a resource pool concept? I suspect this would also have a balancing effect, as Sargon the Scrawny Sorceror has limited equipment, and BroMax the Burly Brawler now pays for both his STR and for access to that heavy armor and weaponry he uses with that STR.[/quote']

 

That was in fact the first thing we tried (in fact, all our initial fantasy games had "pay for" equipment and STR at 1:1). That approach was not a success.

 

The issue has been discussed in depth on the FH board, but the short version, is it's really not a good idea at all. It introduces all kinds of weird logical anomalies (my favourite was the player who took off his armour so he could pick up a sword...). It introduces all sorts of complications and doesn't solve one of the base issues: that everyone STILL buys STR up: at 1:1 it's such a deal, that' it's worth sacrificing a few points out of your equipment buy - you'll more than make it up in secondaries and you can still leverage it effectively with free gear even if you are not a brawler.

 

So it was worthwhile idea, but as solution, it failed. We played 5 different FH campaigns, with 3 different GMs trying different variants on equipment costs (buy it straight, equipment pools, powers with variable limits, etc). Hundreds of hours of gaming, scores of characters, hundreds of NPCs but in the end, the conclusion - to us at least - was inescapable. The cost of STR and HA needed to be bought in line with the rest of the system. Once that was done, the problem disappeared - and interestingly, the one GM who still liked equipment pools found it worked just fine if he used them.

 

At this point, 2:1 has been used by me and many of my GM'ing buddies for years. I'm really no longer looking for alternate solutions, because I no longer have a problem to solve. However, when I do play in a game with STR at 1:1, I almost always play a really strong character, who's the party's most effective combatant

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Maybe one last point.

 

I was unusually lucky when I was introduced to Hero system: we had a very active roleplaying group with 5-6 GMs and we usually had multiple campaigns running simultaneously, so for a few years, we were playing several times a week. Even better, several of those GMs were excellent. However back in those days all we had was Champions I- II and III , so we had to literally make up and playtest the rules for non-supers games as we went.

 

As a result we ran a lot of minicampaigns that might go 6-12 sessions, where we messed with the ground rules, and at the "Thursday night game" we usually ended around midnight, due to one player's need to get home early. 3 of the GMs (occasionally 4) would then sit around for 2-4 hours going over the week's games, noting what worked, what didn't, suggesting rules tweaks, writing up and critiquing spell, equipment, or character builds, etc (as well as discussing general GM game issues).

 

In addition we used to run "personalized warfare": one shot, one day games where a mass of players (sometimes up to 16) would pre-build a character to firm guidelines (anything you like as long as it meets the guidelines: so we had the telepathic tunnelling slug long before it became a meme) and then after quick scrutiny, we'd set 'em down on the tabletop and let 'em go at each other. Last man/woman/thing standing wins.

 

Basically - although we didn't realize it at the time - we had set up a group that for years stress-tested the rules to the point of destruction. What came out of it were many things that later ended up in subsequent versions of Hero system. It's given me a very clear sense of what works and what doesn't, that I don't think you could get from a single group, because in my experience campaign dynamics vary greatly from group to group and game to game.

 

It's also given me a very firm sense "how things should be done"

 

cheers, Mark

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Every time I think I have something to add, Mark makes the point infinitely more eloquently and with better examples. A clear case of 20 years vs. 2.

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Every time I think I have something to add' date=' Mark makes the point infinitely more eloquently and with better examples. A clear case of 20 years vs. 2. [/quote']

Let's start a support group.

 

"Hi, my name is Kdansky, and Mark is outdoing me in eloquence on a regular basis."

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

MacDoc's entire argument is based on one false premice (Actualy I don't remember the term, but it is when you apply an opinion as a fact)

 

"It is undesirable that all characters buy up there strength"

 

At least in every form of heroic fiction (Novels, movies, comics, etc...) I have been exposed to the protagonists tend to be better than normals. The only exception I can think of is one character from the Dragonlance series of novels, now I will not doubt that there are others, but I do feel comfortable in saying that the average protanginist is better than normal in all physical characteristics, so if the game is suppose to model this, should there not be insentives to that effect?

 

Furthermore, I stand by the statement that if you are not using all aspects of the game, such as EC's, MP's, MA, etc... that the point balance will be off, and that you have stoped comparing apples to apples. I also find it hard to beleive that the very few points that a heroic character (Remember NCM is in effect over 20) is saving is that unbalancing.

 

While I realise that my experiences are not the same as everyone's, I do think that the 2:1 camp is truley more concerned with the points from the figured characteristics more than the playability.

[Tonio]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

MacDoc's entire argument is based on one false premice (Actualy I don't remember the term, but it is when you apply an opinion as a fact)

 

"It is undesirable that all characters buy up there strength"

 

I disagree. I don't think his argument is based on that. It's based on a lack of options, mostly. An analogous situation would be a game where the HKA Power was free. Anyone who wished to play a character based on ranged attacks would find themselves at a serious disadvantage. This isn't based on a premise stating that "It is undesirable that all characters buy HKA".

 

As it is, players who wish to play a character with low STR find themselves playing a sub-par character, since they're losing capacity without gaining anything in return.

 

The premise, I think, would be more like "It is undesirable that all characters HAVE to buy up their strength, or be at a disadvantage". In certain settings, it's entirely appropriate to expect everybody to buy up their STR, or be at a disadvantage. As an analogy, in a space campaign (not necessarily a Star Hero one, but one that takes place in space, outside of ships, mostly), it's reasonable to expect everybody to buy some form of LS: Self-Contained Breathing, or be at a disadvantage. The setting itself requires it. Back to the STR issue, in a campaign where everybody's a member of a race known for their strength, it's reasonable to expect everybody to buy it up, or be at a disadvantage (the environment is set up to require a lot of strength: doors are way heavy, levers are hard to pull, there are no hand-to-hand weapons (people do more damage with their fists anyway), etc.). But that shouldn't be built-in.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

OK, I just lost a large reply. Some comments:

 

- Why can't EB Guy wait until PowerWoman starts that Move Through, then fire (when shes at closer range, possibly) while she is at -3 DCV from MT (IIRC) to do knockback and interrupther move so she doesn't get so close.

 

- How come PW can use the ground slam maneuver, but EB Guy can't use buildings or other cover to make it tougher for PW to make a move through because she needs to re-locate him?

 

I'm quoting Kenn, but making some changes. Show me the improved balance of 2:1 STR

 

 

 

That leaves 42 points for EB Guy to spend. Let's buy:

 

30 4d6 Sight Flash, 0 END

12 PSL's vs Range (those are what, 2 points? 3 points? That's either four or six PSL's)

 

EB Guy has eliminated his END deficit, can MPA to blind PowerWoman, and hits easily at much greater distances. If 1:1 is too cheap, I submit 2:1 is way too expensive. Find a win for PowerWoman without stacking the deck!

 

Not entirely with you, although I appreciate the devil's advocate approach

 

1. You've got the Energy Guy defences too high. Build the same thing with 'proper' campaign level defences i.e the same as the other character. Either you need to seriously downgrade the overall efficeincy of the EC or build it (say) 16/16 FF (32 points) 0 END (which makes 48 points) and then some other advantage worth +1/2, say persistent. OK, that is fair, and closer to the other build in terms of utility, and it only adds 2 points.

 

You still need to make 16 pd and 16 ed (with damage resistance) of Power woman visible (-1/4), which saves some 10 points.

 

2. You could, instead, build Power Woman with a FF, and put it in an EC with her flight.

 

I think the problem here is that we are not exactly building like for like, and using maximum efficiency in the builds. if you do that, the points work out a lot closer, I do believe (if you make PW's FF IPE and persistent she'll cost more!)

 

You can probably prove anything you like with a certain build, but all we are really should be doings is comparing two builds as identical as possible but for the use of EB v extra strength.

 

Moreover, I think this completely fails to take into consideration the utility of strength against that of EB, or almost any similar attack power. EB is no good for restraining opponents, or, in many cases, escaping from restraint. It is no good for lifting a fallen power pylon off a group of cowering innocents, it is no good for carrying those dozens of innocents to safety afterwards.

 

It is easy to get caught up in 'who would win a fight'. That is not the be all and end all though, not by a long chalk.

[Tonio]

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

 

Moreover, I think this completely fails to take into consideration the utility of strength against that of EB, or almost any similar attack power. EB is no good for restraining opponents, or, in many cases, escaping from restraint. It is no good for lifting a fallen power pylon off a group of cowering innocents, it is no good for carrying those dozens of innocents to safety afterwards.

 

It is easy to get caught up in 'who would win a fight'. That is not the be all and end all though, not by a long chalk.

 

I think this is the most important point in the argument. STR as an attack power is, I believe, pretty balanced at 1:1, except maybe for the fact that everybody gets 10 APs free. But STR is so much more than just an attack power, and all that added usefulness comes free.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

MacDoc's entire argument is based on one false premice (Actualy I don't remember the term, but it is when you apply an opinion as a fact)

 

"It is undesirable that all characters buy up there strength"

 

At least in every form of heroic fiction (Novels, movies, comics, etc...) I have been exposed to the protagonists tend to be better than normals. The only exception I can think of is one character from the Dragonlance series of novels, now I will not doubt that there are others, but I do feel comfortable in saying that the average protanginist is better than normal in all physical characteristics, so if the game is suppose to model this, should there not be insentives to that effect?

 

Furthermore, I stand by the statement that if you are not using all aspects of the game, such as EC's, MP's, MA, etc... that the point balance will be off, and that you have stoped comparing apples to apples. I also find it hard to beleive that the very few points that a heroic character (Remember NCM is in effect over 20) is saving is that unbalancing.

 

While I realise that my experiences are not the same as everyone's, I do think that the 2:1 camp is truley more concerned with the points from the figured characteristics more than the playability.

 

I'm in a little camp of my own as usual, but I'm most concerned with having a system that can most accurately model a concept, and is not going to convinve people to build one way OR the other because of perceived benefit/prejudice.

 

It is always going to be a judgement call, because this is not an exact science, and you can rarely measure one build against another unless one is superior in EVERY respect.

 

I'm not a fan of frameworks, and I'm not a fan of figured characteristics. This will naturally inform my opinions expressed in my posts. I'm not trying to convert people to my way of thinking (there are not enough hospitals to take on the extra work) but I do think this kind of discussion is useful, if noly to spring clean the cupboard of prejudices and embedded ideas we tend to carry with us.

 

Of course that could just be me...

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I disagree. I don't think his argument is based on that. It's based on a lack of options, mostly. An analogous situation would be a game where the HKA Power was free. Anyone who wished to play a character based on ranged attacks would find themselves at a serious disadvantage. This isn't based on a premise stating that "It is undesirable that all characters buy HKA".

 

As it is, players who wish to play a character with low STR find themselves playing a sub-par character, since they're losing capacity without gaining anything in return.

 

The premise, I think, would be more like "It is undesirable that all characters HAVE to buy up their strength, or be at a disadvantage". In certain settings, it's entirely appropriate to expect everybody to buy up their STR, or be at a disadvantage. As an analogy, in a space campaign (not necessarily a Star Hero one, but one that takes place in space, outside of ships, mostly), it's reasonable to expect everybody to buy some form of LS: Self-Contained Breathing, or be at a disadvantage. The setting itself requires it. Back to the STR issue, in a campaign where everybody's a member of a race known for their strength, it's reasonable to expect everybody to buy it up, or be at a disadvantage (the environment is set up to require a lot of strength: doors are way heavy, levers are hard to pull, there are no hand-to-hand weapons (people do more damage with their fists anyway), etc.). But that shouldn't be built-in.

 

The point I was failing to make is that in heroic fiction, I have rarely seen characters who IMO would not have at least bought some str (I can honestly say I can only think of one character, and a big part of the character concept was him being physicaly weak). If only so they can carry the injured teammate outside of the burning building, as such it is desirable for most characters to buy it up. If we take the hero Motto of "Recreating heroic fiction, not reality" at face value, we have to consider what role STR plays in heroic fiction.

[Tonio]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The point I was failing to make is that in heroic fiction' date=' I have rarely seen characters who IMO would not have at least bought some str (I can honestly say I can only think of one character, and a big part of the character concept was him being physicaly weak). If only so they can carry the injured teammate outside of the burning building, as such it is desirable for most characters to buy it up. If we take the hero Motto of "Recreating heroic fiction, not reality" at face value, we have to consider what role STR plays in heroic fiction.[/quote']

 

Well, that's certainly opinion and personal experience. But still, that'd be a reason for everybody to buy up STR, not a reason to make STR cheaper. Maybe even make the base STR higher than 10? If your experience has everybody buying up their STR to, say, 15, at least, then have 15 be the baseline. But making it cheaper means that those that buy it up higher than baseline are getting more bang for their buck than those who build their characters in other ways.

 

Arguments can be made as to why everybody should buy up their STR, or why the base STR should be more than 10, but those arguments don't support having STR be cheaper than other powers/stats.

 

For what it's worth, I don't agree with your idea that everybody should buy STR in a heroic campaign (as opposed to villanous, not as opposed to superheroic). In SOME settings, sure. But certainly not "across the board", nor even "by default". Well, concept-wise, anyway... points/efficiency-wise, then yeah, everybody should, since it's basically free points.

[Kenn]

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

 

Interesting numbers - thanks! I do note however the traditional bulges at 30-35 the "not a brick, but getting a good boost from STR" level where many EB specialists live, though

 

Is it possible to do a breakdown only of ranged characters? I'd be curious to see the results.

 

cheers, Mark

 

With the number of characters involved, it'll take some time. There's also a question about what "only of ranged characters" means, largly because of the fair number of characters who aren't just bricks or just aren't energy projectors.

 

For instance, among the 38 "people" w/30 STR (that provides secondaries) it breaks down...

 

1 water speedster

1 air speedster

1 land speedster

1 robot (infiltration)

2 lycanthropes

1 zombie

2 size changing bricks

1 bio-enhanced human martial artist

1 brick martial artist

1 alien/human hybrid (no weapons)

 

2 stretchy types

 

1 density altering brick (w/weather powers)

1 brick mentalist

1 gravity manipulator (brick or energy)

2 alien/human hybrid soldiers (weapons)

3 bio-enhanced human martial artist/weapon users

1 alien (non humanoid) Jedi knock-off

1 telekinetic brick (w/m.a.)

1 lycanthropic mage

 

1 energy absorber (Drains and such)

 

1 extra dimensional mage

1 mutant mentalist / martial artist

1 spike shooting demon

1 human-turned-demon mentalist mage

1 mutant octopus mentalist

1 telekinetic martial artist

1 telekintic

1 aquatic energy projector (w/m.a.)

1 giant bird-man energy projector

2 energy pure energy manipulators

1 atomic matter manipulator super soldier

 

That the first 12 are clearly not ranged combatants, I have no doubt. That the last 12 primarily are ranged combat specialists, I have no doubt. The two stretch people (HtH attacks, at Range) and Leecher (energy absorbtion through touch) are both specialised cases that I'm not sure how to count, and the middle eleven can all use enough of a mix of their ranged attacks and hand-to-hand abilities that I'm not sure where to count them.