Discussion on costs of Characteristics

[Fedifensor]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Well, don't let my apples to apples argument (#159 in this thread) get in the way of comparing two wildly different builds and expecting to come to an agreement...

 

I'm just not seeing where comparing a ranged attacker to a melee attacker is relevant in any way, shape, or form. You're not talking about the cost of Strength anymore - you're talking about the cost of being able to attack at range. Energy Blast has long been one of the better values in the game, effectively being its own multipower that allows you to trade off dice of damage for bonuses to hit or allowing a limited AoE attack. The problem is that no matter how good of a value Energy Blast is, or Power Frameworks are...they're irrelevant to the question.

 

You want to see if Strength is priced properly...compare it to the closest equivalent, which is Hand-to-Hand Attack, not Energy Blast. Anything else is a strawman argument

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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.

 

Not saying everyone should buy it up, I am saying that in heroic genre's it is appropriate for everyone to buy it up. Honestly I don't think 2:1 is balanced, every argument I have heard breaks down on one of two levels. 1st is the idea of Figured characteristics giving more points, which I feel is balanced by frameworks, martial arts, and free equipment . The other is harder to explain, but is based the idea of 1:1 puts them to far above "normal" people, but I feel that in most heroic fiction the protagonists are more physicaly powerful than a normal person, so 1:1 represents this well

 

As a third point, I would sugest that no points are fairly balanced until a GM makes it so.

 

4th point: actualy, another, but related topic I will post elsewhere on second thought

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Well, don't let my apples to apples argument (#159 in this thread) get in the way of comparing two wildly different builds and expecting to come to an agreement...

 

I'm just not seeing where comparing a ranged attacker to a melee attacker is relevant in any way, shape, or form. You're not talking about the cost of Strength anymore - you're talking about the cost of being able to attack at range. Energy Blast has long been one of the better values in the game, effectively being its own multipower that allows you to trade off dice of damage for bonuses to hit or allowing a limited AoE attack. The problem is that no matter how good of a value Energy Blast is, or Power Frameworks are...they're irrelevant to the question.

 

You want to see if Strength is priced properly...compare it to the closest equivalent, which is Hand-to-Hand Attack, not Energy Blast. Anything else is a strawman argument

 

 

no, No, NO

 

First HtH is just limited str (and the limit should be greater IMO)

 

Second, you need to compare Str's place IN THE WHOLE SYSTEM, comparing it to one other cog is not accurate, you need to compare every element with every other element, or in this case Str as it fits INTO the system

[JmOz]

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

 

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.

 

 

Of course STR 30 is still within human range (admitingly the maximum)..

[Fedifensor]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

First HtH is just limited str (and the limit should be greater IMO)

Check the pricing again. 5 points per 1d6, with a -1/2 limitation. Gee, that sounds suspiciously like Energy Blast, No Range. The basic structure of the system, going all the way back to the 1st edition rulebook, is that 5 points buys you 1d6 of ranged damage. So why would you compare something with range (Energy Blast without the No Range limitation) to something without range? It's a strawman argument that's inherently biased against Strength.

 

Second, you need to compare Str's place IN THE WHOLE SYSTEM, comparing it to one other cog is not accurate, you need to compare every element with every other element, or in this case Str as it fits INTO the system

You don't start by comparing everything to everything. Your first test should have as few variables as possible. Only after you parse the results of the most basic comparison should you expand your inquiry.

[Kenn]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Boiling down the argument, the question is "Are the benefits of range equal in value to either to getting figured characteristics and lifting capacity OR the ability to add STR damage"

 

Even in first edition, 5 pt. gave you +5 STR (and all that goes with it) OR 5 pts. gave you 1d6 of Energy Blast. 15 pts. gave you 1d6 HKA or 1d6 RKA.

 

Maybe the question should be "Is Ranged Under Priced"?

 

I'm convinced 2:1 is too high. I'll concede that 1:1 MIGHT be too low. Has anyone considered 3:2?

 

I still think that a lot of it depends on the individual group, and therefore 1:1 as a baseline, and 2:1 is available if you need it is a good idea.

 

I also think, at the end of the day, the most effective character, almost regardless of points, is going to be the character whose PLAYER has the highest INT.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I made 4 simple builds' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Your builds all incorporated point tweaks that were not used, and would be qually relevant to, EB guy. You then claimed that your point-optimized builds at 2:1 STR were comparable to a non-point optimized EB Guy. I find that a poor comparison at best.

 

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

 

I concur the figured's are an issue. As noted peviously, there are other approaches to deal with figured characteristics.

 

Energy Blast has long been one of the better values in the game' date=' effectively being its own multipower that allows you to trade off dice of damage for bonuses to hit or allowing a limited AoE attack. The problem is that no matter how good of a value Energy Blast is, or Power Frameworks are...they're irrelevant to the question. [/quote']

 

And these are tradeoffs that the "STR is underpriced" camp seems incapable of seeing. Pit both PowerWoman and EB Guy against AgileMan. He has a DEX of 35 for a DCV 12. He has very low defenses. Both characters need a 6- to hit him, but only one can boost his OCV at the cost of reduced damage.

 

Put up several lower DEF opponents. PW must smash each one in turn. EB Guy can spread and hit several at once.

 

Both STR and EB have advantages. They vary. In play, my experience is that they average out and the system works at current costs.

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

And these are tradeoffs that the "STR is underpriced" camp seems incapable of seeing. Pit both PowerWoman and EB Guy against AgileMan. He has a DEX of 35 for a DCV 12. He has very low defenses. Both characters need a 6- to hit him, but only one can boost his OCV at the cost of reduced damage.

 

Put up several lower DEF opponents. PW must smash each one in turn. EB Guy can spread and hit several at once.

 

Both STR and EB have advantages. They vary. In play, my experience is that they average out and the system works at current costs.

 

Throw Car/Bus/Tank/Sofa/Dumpster; Need a 15 less Range

Sweep; multiple targets no reduction in damage.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

Of course STR 30 is still within human range (admitingly the maximum)..

 

Fictional, heroic human range

[JmOz]

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

 

Fictional' date=' heroic human range [/quote']

 

true, but he is comparing Champions Universe characters, so the scale in Champions Universe makes sense to use to me

 

I personaly feel that there is nothing wrong with setting different ranges, or even for each campeign changing the costing of Prime's for the feel you want. The catch is what default is, and that I think should be 1:1

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I think I've read about 5 times from page 11 to 13 any one of these sentences:

 

A: You cannot compare apples to oranges!

B: You have to take frameworks into account!

 

You might habe missed my last post, or didn't want to acknowledge it:

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, same characters, one has 50 STR more AND is 5 points cheaper. How in hell is that correct? Note that neither character is built stupidly and wastes points for things they don't need. (Arguably, Blasterboy does not need 12 PD, but even if he sells them ALL back, he'll only be 5 points more expensive than her in exchange for 50 STR ("no figured"), AND have less defenses)

 

Frameworks do not make a difference. That's pure superstition! Stop believing that! I beg you! Both characters did spend the same amount of points on an identical framework, and could buy any other framework too, and Powerwoman will still have 50 str more in the end and be cheaper. If you have high strength, you are not magically excluded from the framework chapter in 5ER. "Frameworks even things out" is really the most stupid argument that survives on these boards.

 

As it turns out, if STR was 2:1, Powergirl would pay 45 points more, which is fine, since she gets a Strength Trick MP for free. Entangle (Grab), Tunneling (Casual STR), Attack (Punch), Movement (Leap, arguably useless), AE (throw truck), EB (throw rock), NND (drown in lake), Lift and Carry capacity, Escape from grabs. 45 Points is cheap for al that, but all of these things have "limitations", like foci or SFX, some smaller (throw rock), some rather impractical (drown in lake).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

You've got to admit, chaps, that's a pretty good argument

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Not really, you have basicaly given character A a extra Cost saver, that you have not given character B. OF COURSE Character A is more effective under those circumstances. Only a stone cold idiot would not say that Figured Characteristics make strength an attractive deal. In essence you gave one character 2 frameworks instead of 1

 

Put another way, which is a more effective character: The guy with an EC and the guy without an EC but otherwise identical builds?

[Kdansky]

No, I did not put a second framework on the first character, I bought strength, which is not a framework, as it is not listed in that chapter. That's the only difference between the two, and it's what we're talking about here.

 

To put it more precise: If you think you can somehow fix these characters by *adding* something to the blaster, please do so. Note that you have a full negative 5 points left to spend. If you want more, sure, go ahead. Powergirl also gets these points and will just buy the idential framework (or whatever you want) too. You'll never ever catch up the free 50 strength, no matter how many frameworks you toss around. The only thing that brings him to par is: 50 strength.

 

The problem you spot is what the "str is mispriced" faction tries to get across: STR is mispriced, you get way too much bang for the buck. As my example shows: In very common circumstances (note that these characters are basic, solid, without obvious flaws or cheese), str is technically free (or even negative points).

 

That

Is

Not

Balanced

 

50 Active points of anything should never come for (less than) 0 points, ever.

 

Although I can agree that just changing strengths price is not the cleanest way to solve the problem, and cutting it loose from secondaries might be the better choice, but that is way more complicated and messy (and what do you do with con? and dex?), whereas doubling it's price gives nearly perfect results and is very simple. 50 STR = 100 AP = 55 cp in secondaries + 50 cp in "pure" strength, which in itself is pretty powerful, arguably still better than 50 cp in EB (as demonstrated in this thread time and time again). And you get a couple points of discount due to rounding, not much of a deal. I don't complain if blasters have "more than 10" strength, I complain if they have 50 for 0 points (which they do, see my example).

 

edit: I really should not have written this, as anyone should be able to read the last post and figure things out for themselves. But well, I also try to discuss religion with christians and muslims. If people believe, they believe, no matter what proof you show.

[Vestnik]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

2d6 Energy Blast, No Normal Defense (Defense Is Expanded Breathing: Underwater; +1), Does Body (+1) (30 Active Points), Must Follow Grab (-1/2), OIF (Lakes of Opportunity; -1/2), No Range (-1/2)

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

2d6 Energy Blast' date=' No Normal Defense (Defense Is Expanded Breathing: Underwater; +1), Does Body (+1) (30 Active Points), Must Follow Grab (-1/2), OIF (Lakes of Opportunity; -1/2), No Range (-1/2)[/quote']

real cost: 45

 

So, you're taking strength then? Powergirl will not take anything, since she already got this ability for free in her underpriced strength. It's now 50 points difference, characters still de facto equal.

 

Also, Blasterboy will never manage to grab with his 10 str. Powergirl will.

 

Or do I misunderstand you?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

No' date=' I did not put a second framework on the first character, I bought strength, which is not a framework, as it is not listed in that chapter. [/quote']

 

 

Strength is not listed in the framework chapter because it requires no rules to use it. Primary characteristics are, in effect, black box frameworks - you dont get to peek inside at the costings like you can with the other frameworks at your disposal.

 

Your example is a good one, I agree with Sean. I still dont like the idea o simply charging STR 2 points per point.

 

I have been thinking of a compromise, because there are good mechanical arguments against the change - if not as strong as the balance one you have outlined - most especially the limitation you then place on STR based characters in AP limited games.

 

What about making STR 2 points per point but making the damage generated directly from STR 2D6 per 5 STR above 10? Keep the damage for manouevres as they are - same divisions of STR. I think you would also then have to allow adders that were simply to increase lifting etc - like a non-combat multiple.

 

This in some way begins to shine light on what the framework actually is and probably meets the needs of both camps.

 

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

What about making STR 2 points per point but making the damage generated directly from STR 2D6 per 5 STR above 10? Keep the damage for manouevres as they are - same divisions of STR. I think you would also then have to allow adders that were simply to increase lifting etc - like a non-combat multiple.

 

Have I proposed this in the past?? I'm getting severe deja vu...

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The argument that is being put forth regarding adding "X" amount of STR to a character for free is flawed in one very important aspect.

 

You can only sell 1 Figured stat back to save points.

 

If the non-STR based character a certain number* (2 or more?) of Figured stats at their base figured value then increasing STR will COST points, not save them.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The argument that is being put forth regarding adding "X" amount of STR to a character for free is flawed in one very important aspect.

 

You can only sell 1 Figured stat back to save points.

 

If the non-STR based character a certain number* (2 or more?) of Figured stats at their base figured value then increasing STR will COST points, not save them.

 

I think the point is that the game pushes people to buy their strength until the point where they would have to sell back more than one figured. It basically says that if you want a high STUN, high REC, high PD character then he will also be high STR unless you want to pay as much or more pointsand have a lesser STR.

 

 

Doc

[Vestnik]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

real cost: 45

 

So, you're taking strength then? Powergirl will not take anything, since she already got this ability for free in her underpriced strength. It's now 50 points difference, characters still de facto equal.

 

Also, Blasterboy will never manage to grab with his 10 str. Powergirl will.

 

Or do I misunderstand you?

 

It was just a joke. I like the idea of Lakes of Oppotunity.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I think the point is that the game pushes people to buy their strength until the point where they would have to sell back more than one figured. It basically says that if you want a high STUN, high REC, high PD character then he will also be high STR unless you want to pay as much or more pointsand have a lesser STR.

 

 

Doc

 

However, the character examples use Elemental Controls. And one of the major tenants of EC's is that of 'Drain One, Drain All'. What happens if the characters are hit with a 'super power removal ray'? What amount of STR do the characters lose?

[Nekkidcarpenter]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Probably the most awesome thing about this thread is I usually have to read 2/3 of a post or more before I figure out which side someone is on. There are a few multiple posters here that I've read several posts by and still can't say with certainty where they fall.

 

 

Its more amusing to me that many posters have complained about the ubiquitous 'weak' character who has Str higher than 10, but the same character has 20 + Con as a matter of course and that seems to fly okay. Personally, I have both seen and played characters with lower than average Str, but the lower than 10 Con guy is the Loch Ness Monster of Hero.

[Rick]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I have nothing to add, just that I find it comforting that even if I take a year off from these boards we are still having the same old arguements. I remember this when Bruce Harlick was still running this board.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I have nothing to add' date=' just that I find it comforting that even if I take a year off from these boards we are still having the same old arguements. I remember this when Bruce Harlick was still running this board.[/quote']

 

The more things change the more they stay the same, if any single thing makes me think both that the cost is to low, and that 2:1 is to high is that this one never goes away