Discussion on costs of Characteristics

[Rick]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The more things change the more they stay the same' date=' 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[/quote']

 

HA!!! I never have ever had any issue with the price of str. It has never unbalanced play or character creation. I've had GMs in Fantasy Hero games double the cost, I didn't think it add or hurt the game. The only time it is an issue is when I think about hero analyticaly instead of practically.

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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.

 

That would have a similar effect. But again, it's kinda complicated, or rather, you just proposed 2:3 (more or less), since you pay twice for the str, but the same as now for damage. Having HA at 5 points would solve te "omg, I don't do any damage anymore!" issue for misbuilt bricks. I also don't like changing base costs very much, but it's by far the simplest and least invasive change and works out pretty well on paper (and supposedly in game too, according to Thia and MarkDoc). We've tried decoupling secondaries from primaries once, but that creates huge problems: What do you do with OCV/DCV? How expensive should con be? (was 1/2 point, due to not doing much anymore), etc. Also, characters usually get a lot more expensive (since everyone already has high con + str...) and it's hard to estimate how many points they would need to compensate for this change.

 

And yes, strength is only free if you don't need to sell back multiple secondaries (btw: why do you think this rule exists? I'd say it's obvious: because str and con are too cheap), but the problem is: How often do you want to sell back PD, ED, STUN, REC and END? All these stats are useful up to high values and there is rarely a reason not to have them. The point where they get useless (if that even happens) comes way after str has hit 60 and at that point we're out of AP limits, even under current 1:1 pricing. So no, it really does not work to argue "but you can only sell back one", because we don't need to sell back anything. We just keep the nice stats. Sure, you *can* sell back secondaries of blasterboy, but you would have to lose quite a couple points to make a difference, and in the end, it would not be worth it.

 

CON: Why does everyone complain abou str, but not about con? Simple reasons:

- First, CON gives much less for it's price. You only get secondaries, CON roll (rarely used) and defense against "getting stunned". STR gives soooo much more.

- Second, CON is actually expensive. 2 points for some secondaries plus a minor effect. If the secondaries weren't usefull, you'd not take much con, as it cuts into your points.

- Third, it's technically a defense. All characters just plain need it. If you have 5 CON, you'll hate combat, since you spend more than 50% of the time stunned, and you'll probably be KO'd first turn, as your DCV is halved and your shields go down nonstop. Even mooks can take you on.

So due to balancing reasons, everyone needs to have con, like everyone needs to have PD/ED (be it natural, FF or armor, or even DR). Character concepts with very low con are not playable. If we complain that everyone needs con, we should also complain that everyone needs Defenses, Stun, and some kind of Attack. That's how the system is designed.

 

Btw "how the system *was* designed" explains why str is too cheap. Since in champions, EVERYONE has high str due to comic-book roots, it's not a problem if everyone has to buy high str, in fact, that's intented. The problem arose when hero became generic and suddenly, the superhero feel was creeping into all other settings.

Yeah, I play other settings, who would have thought that

 

And I really hope that one does not have to read 60% of my posts to figure out what I'm trying to say if I'm argueing That should be clear after two sentences!

 

By the way:

Awesome MP! base: 50 points (1/4 range limitation (or more on some slots)

- Drown People: 2u NND 2d6, lakes of opportunity, no range, must follow grab

- Throw Rock: 2u EB 10d6, OAF of opportunity, slightly limited range, improvised focus, cannot be spread or bounced.

- Throw Car: 2u EB 5d6 Area Effect, OAF of opportunity, limited range, improvised focus, cannot be spread or bounced (default for AE?).

- Grab People: 3u Entangle 10d6, no range, lose 1/2 DCV while grabing, cannot do anything else while grabing.

- Punch: 3u EB 10d6 no range, cannot be spread and bounced,

- Escape Grabs: 1u Teleport 1", only to escape grabs and entangles, requires a Power skill roll (Strength powers).

 

I did leave lift and leap out

 

*improvised focus: Focus can be fragile, have OCV modifiers or just be impractical. Also real weapon included.

 

 

So yeah, that's what you get for strength I suppose. Quite a nice package, even if you don't get any figureds at all. To me that says: 2:1 is a good deal.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

That would have a similar effect. But again' date=' it's kinda complicated, or rather, you just proposed 2:3 (more or less), since you pay twice for the str, but the same as now for damage. Having HA at 5 points would solve te "omg, I don't do any damage anymore!" issue for misbuilt bricks. [/quote']

 

It is not quite charging 2:3, I thought about that and it doesn't really work. What I did was change the way the numbers affected the game mechanics surrounding the numbers.

 

There is no argument that 5 STR should do 1D6 damage - just that 5AP should equate to about 1D6 normal damage. If you declare that 5 STR equals 10 AP then it should do about 2D6 normal. That means you are not mucking about with comparisons to EB and stuff.

 

There is no requirement that just because 5 STR is now equal to 10 AP that a move through should change its bonus damage equation or that PD should not be STR/5 etc. Those remain the same.

 

That effectively leaves the brick in the same punching class as before - just a bit less able to leap or lift. Thus I thought that you should be able to purchase non combat multiples for lifting - not sure how much to charge for them though but it would allow for doublings of lifting capability that did not have to be matched by increased damage capability.

 

This begins to allow STR to be bought in a more focussed fashion without the 'compulsory' multiple side benefits that have caused it to look over-priced to you.

 

I also don't like changing base costs very much' date=' but it's by far the simplest and least invasive change and works out pretty well on paper (and supposedly in game too, according to Thia and MarkDoc). [/quote']

 

The problem with characteristics is that changing them chages so many other things because characteristics are not the stripped down parts like powers - they are black box package deals.

 

 

We've tried decoupling secondaries from primaries once' date=' but that creates huge problems: What do you do with OCV/DCV? How expensive should con be? (was 1/2 point, due to not doing much anymore), etc. Also, characters usually get a lot more expensive (since everyone already has high con + str...) and it's hard to estimate how many points they would need to compensate for this change. [/quote']

 

I think as soon as you get to the decoupling point then you pull back or go the whole way and scrap characteristics as a class of things. You use powers for everything that can be built on some base template abilities that you assume all beginning characters etc to have.

 

Doc

[Markdoc]

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"

 

It's not a false premise, it's a matter of preference. I would prefer that "Charlene Keen, plucky student reporter" and "Max Maximum, giant prowrestler" do not have more or less identical STR. Yet in Heroic games, where NCM puts a soft cap at 20, that's often what happens. It means that the STR spread in heroic games is in reality from 15-20 or often from 18-20.

 

In Superheroic games, it means the majority of protagonists - even highly-trained humans - are capable of lifting a light car or jumping onto the roof of a house from a standing start.

 

In all genres, it means that STR gives you a significant combat advantage compared to any other attack form and also leads to all sorts of "extra rules" to try and compensate for the cost problem with STR, like "HA costs 5 points per d6, only it doesn't really" or "You cannot buy ranged on your STR" and "STR - and only STR - has a special END use cost". All of these extra rules exist only as a way to try and compensate for the costing of STR at 1:1.

 

Maybe that doesn't bother you - it bothers me.

 

At least in every form of heroic fiction (Novels' date=' 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?[/quote']

 

Sure and at 2:1, I have vast experience that people who want to be stronger than normal will still buy up STR. It's usual in fact that most people will buy a little extra STR - just less common that everyone ends up at 18 or 20.

 

Furthermore' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Actually the different is significant. For a character to go to STR18, means 8 points which you more than recoup on figureds -plus you get extra lifting and HTH/weapons use utility. It's almost a non-brainer since even characters who are not brawlers will usually benefit from elevated secondaries. However, at 2:1, characters who's main schtick is not STR, look at that 16 point investment and it suddenly seems far less attractive, unless you actually want to focus on STR. For a heroic character, that's beginning to become a significant investment.

 

I can only say that from experience, STR at 2:1

a) does not eliminate the high STR brawler characters, nor render them ineffective

does induce players to build characters across a whole range of STR values, which didn't happen before.

 

As for power frameworks, I take your point, but they have always been available in my heroic level games, so that's a non-issue apart from the fact that it's no longer required to have a framework to compete with characters who focus on STR.

 

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']

 

Nope. Playability is my primary concern. Of course, the points from the secondaries feature into how characters play and figure into character design decisions from the beginning, so you can't really separate those two, IMO.

 

cheers, Mark

[Querysphinx]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

This whole argument just validates the maxim: The rules do not control the game; the GM does.

[GamePhil]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The "solution" that appeals to me the most for the cost of various Characteristics is to eliminate Figured Character and then allow similar abilities to be purchased, with the Primary, in an Elemental Control. It would generally require either that the Figured abilities be put together in a slot, or that the EC would be significantly less than the Primary, reducing the savings substantially.

 

This would make characters that relied on Characteristics work in a similar manner to other characters, rather than having a slightly different set of rules. You'd drain the Brick's STR and have their Figured Characteristics go down, for example. Consistency across the rules has always appealed to me, assuming it can be made to work well. It would also allow greater flexibility for people that wanted to tweak what specifically the character gets out of having a high Characteristic.

 

Of course, down the same lines I've thought of simply eliminating Characteristics altogether and creating similar Powers, along with Skills and Perks (Talents pretty much are already Powers in 5th), but that way lies madness. Or at least a lot of work.

[Sean Waters]

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.

 

Oh strength is not the only bargain, it is just that, as first thing on the character sheet, it tends to get the most clicks, a bit like Google

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

The minimum disruption approach to increasing the cost of strength might be to simply remove the ability to do direct damage with strength, and do direct damage with HtH attack, which can go in frameworks etc, So 50 STR Woman would cost the same, and be able to do the same stuff but would heve to buy +8d6 HtH attack. Moreover, it means that the cost of low END punching would not be increased i.e. you are buying lowered END cost for a power that still costs basically 5 points per 1d6 (Active). Of course it wuill cost more to buy lowered END cost for your punching AND lifting strength. My heart bleeds.

 

Well, it's a thought...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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

 

I laughed

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

My problem with almost all the "solutions" except making STR 2/1 ( which would cause its own problems) Is they make it tougher and more confusing to design what should be a simple character , a basic brick. Can you iimagine explaining to someone new to the system. , buying up your STR doesn't let you hit harder and/or lift,crush etc. kind of would validate lots of the ant-HERO rants about needless and confusing complexity.

I also completely resist getting rid of figured characteristics. They work so elegantly and logically to me if they ever are dropped I'll stick with the previous edition of HERO. Getting rid of them destroys so much of the logical results of a characteristic that it makes no sense to me from any practical and not esoteric or purist standpoint.

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

On a previous occasion when this argument was going, I started a thread specifically to ask “Does anyone have actual experience in superheroic games with STR costing 2 pts per pt? What was it like?”

 

As I recall, there were VERY few who had tried it, but those who did said that “bricks” were neither eliminated nor ineffective.

 

How about flipping the cost of STR and CON? CON always seemed overpriced for its utility.

 

CON is also underpriced, actually, but that’s a much more straightforward argument than the one about STR. Now, if you eliminated the effect of CON on figured characteristics, it WOULD be grossly overpriced.

 

As far as the effects on figured characteristics, the impact of CON is so huge and blatant that I’ve know about it since at least Champions III if not Champions II. The fact that STR also gets more than its points worth in figureds I had overlooked until fairly recently (last couple of years maybe?)

 

Also, it is worth pointing out that there are no (as far as I know) characters whose “schtick” is “I’m the Constitutionliest Man in the World!” Sure CON gets bought up, but not to the stratospheric levels of a comic book brick’s STR. I never see characters built around the concept of having high CON, but you sure see characters built around having high STR.

 

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

 

Me too. A strong character with a Killing Attack and Extra Limbs if I can swing it.

 

But maybe my next character will have a stratospheric CON….

 

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.

 

STR 10 is sufficient to carry someone out of a burning building, isn’t it?

 

It was quite a revelation to me when someone on these boards a few years ago pointed out, to someone saying that STR 18 was for Arnold Schwarzennegger or something, that the famous bodybuilder probably had a STR of at most 13, and pointed to how much STR 13 in the game lifts compared to what Scharzenegger was on record as lifting.

 

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 .

 

And here is where your argument breaks down.

 

Frameworks: the strongman can also use frameworks, although granted he loses the benefits of figured characteristics if STR itself is put in a framework. He can still get every other benefit of STR. Of course, I think your real argument here is that STR IS a framework of sorts; there is some validity to that.

 

Martial Arts: The strongman can and often does take Martial Arts, leveraging his STR even further.

 

Free equipment: If it’s free for others, it’s free for him. Among players at least, in my experience, Hero games follow Hoyle’s Law: Whatever the game, whatever the rules, the same rules apply to all sides.

 

The other is harder to explain' date=' 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 [/quote']

 

Straw man. Sure I’ve taken the trouble to point out that even the basic 10 STR is already “above normal” but I don’t think a single person objecting to the 1:1 cost of STR has done so on the basis that it “puts them too far above normal people.” The argument is that that costing is unbalanced in favor of buying up your STR, making “bricks” too effective for their points and encouraging everyone else to buy more STR than they should need just to fulfill their character concepts.

 

But since you did bring it up, I will point out that fulfilling the requirements of the source literature you suggest is still easily met at 2:1 cost. For 6 pts I can be as strong as Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

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

 

“What world is this, friend?”

 

Not in my reality, STR 30 is not within Human range.

 

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"?

 

Okay, I can’t keep silent on this anymore.

 

People are overlooking the fact that both Hand to Hand Killing, and Hand to Hand Normal attacks, can add STR to the damage. The pricing of the Killing Attacks seems to imply that adding STR is equivalent to adding Range. Whether or not that’s true may be another worthwhile topic.

 

Normal Attacks, whether ranged or not, are not some variant of STR; They are effectively more limited versions of Killing Attacks (or the Killing Attacks are advantaged Normal Attacks, but that’s a more complicated way of looking at it.)

 

As such, the limitation on Hand to Hand should be extended to Energy Blast, so both are more balanced against Killing Attacks. I think the limitation should also be greater, and probably needs to be two limitations actually (one for changing the dice roll mechanic, one for changing how it applies to defenses) but that’s another topic.

 

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?

 

You do realize you are now making his point for him?

 

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.

 

Maybe some of us haven’t fallen yet.

 

Sometimes it takes me years to make up my mind about something.

 

However, I will say that so far it looks to me like those in favor of increasing the STR cost have good arguments.

 

I also think' date=' 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.[/quote']

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

This whole argument just validates the maxim: The rules do not control the game; the GM does.

 

At this point, what can I do shrug and ask, Then why pay points for powers at all? What’s the reason for all this math?

 

What this boils down to is an admission that the cost structure is unbalanced, and an appeal to keeping the status quo on the promise that the one running the game will somehow make it work out fairly. That’s like making bad law with the excuse that the discretion of law enforcement and the wisdom of judges will still somehow see that justice prevails.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

At one end, the palindromedary argues that if the first 10 pts of STR are free, that means 10 pts of STR are free, and you should be able to add another 10 pts for the same price, and another 10 on top of that, as high as you like….the other end is obviously ruminating on a counter-argument….

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

On a previous occasion when this argument was going, I started a thread specifically to ask “Does anyone have actual experience in superheroic games with STR costing 2 pts per pt? What was it like?”

 

As I recall, there were VERY few who had tried it, but those who did said that “bricks” were neither eliminated nor ineffective.

 

I have run Supers campaigns with STR costing 2. The last one still had 2 bricks on the roster and they were every bit as effective as the rest of the team, rather than overshadowing combat as had been my experience in the past.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

CON is a bargain and a more obvious one because the only thing CON does if you take away figured characteristics (in almost every case) is prevent you from being stunned. Very useful, but not a broad ability.

 

Also CON contributes a lot to END, and that is where a lot of the free points go: +5 CON (10 points) = +5 character points of END.

 

Over a certain point, extra END is useless - you'll never use it, so the returns diminish a bit.

 

Still, as The Palindromedary points out, STR is not the only thorny problem here.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Let us look at things on a less superhuman scale, to further muddy the waters If I take a starting character and reduce their strength to 8, I save 2 points. The only effect on figured characetristics is a reduction of 1 point of Stun, so I spend a point ont hat to make things level, and I've gained one point overall and lost 1/2d6 damage and some lifting and throwing ability. Actually I've also lost 1/2" of leaping.

 

If the points were 2/1 I'd have gained 4 points, spent 1 to top up Stun and be 3 points up - enough to buy +1d6 HtH damage, or +1/2d6 damage and +1" leaping - either way, arguably better than someone who had elft their strength alone, for many purposes.

 

If, instead, I increase the starting character's strength to 13, they gain +1 PD, +1 REC and +2 stun, or 5 points worth. For a physical character I'd probably be increasing the characteristics anyway, so I'm gaining 2 points, before we take into consideration the extra 1/2" of leaping and +1/2d6 damage.

 

At 2/1 this would cost me 6 points, so, subtracting the 5 points for figured, I'm getting increased lift and throw plus 1/2d6 damage and 1/2" leap for a point.

 

That isn't really enough to nvest in any kind of framework to even things out, so maybe it is at the micro changes, rather than the macro changes we should be looking.

 

Funny old world.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

 

 

STR 10 is sufficient to carry someone out of a burning building, isn’t it?

 

It was quite a revelation to me when someone on these boards a few years ago pointed out, to someone saying that STR 18 was for Arnold Schwarzennegger or something, that the famous bodybuilder probably had a STR of at most 13, and pointed to how much STR 13 in the game lifts compared to what Scharzenegger was on record as lifting.

 

 

 

And here is where your argument breaks down.

 

Frameworks: the strongman can also use frameworks, although granted he loses the benefits of figured characteristics if STR itself is put in a framework. He can still get every other benefit of STR. Of course, I think your real argument here is that STR IS a framework of sorts; there is some validity to that.

 

Martial Arts: The strongman can and often does take Martial Arts, leveraging his STR even further.

 

Free equipment: If it’s free for others, it’s free for him. Among players at least, in my experience, Hero games follow Hoyle’s Law: Whatever the game, whatever the rules, the same rules apply to all sides.

 

 

 

Straw man. Sure I’ve taken the trouble to point out that even the basic 10 STR is already “above normal” but I don’t think a single person objecting to the 1:1 cost of STR has done so on the basis that it “puts them too far above normal people.” The argument is that that costing is unbalanced in favor of buying up your STR, making “bricks” too effective for their points and encouraging everyone else to buy more STR than they should need just to fulfill their character concepts.

 

But since you did bring it up, I will point out that fulfilling the requirements of the source literature you suggest is still easily met at 2:1 cost. For 6 pts I can be as strong as Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

 

 

“What world is this, friend?”

 

Not in my reality, STR 30 is not within Human range.

 

 

 

You do realize you are now making his point for him?

 

At this point, what can I do shrug and ask, Then why pay points for powers at all? What’s the reason for all this math?

 

What this boils down to is an admission that the cost structure is unbalanced, and an appeal to keeping the status quo on the promise that the one running the game will somehow make it work out fairly. That’s like making bad law with the excuse that the discretion of law enforcement and the wisdom of judges will still somehow see that justice prevails.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

At one end, the palindromedary argues that if the first 10 pts of STR are free, that means 10 pts of STR are free, and you should be able to add another 10 pts for the same price, and another 10 on top of that, as high as you like….the other end is obviously ruminating on a counter-argument….

 

Only responding to the points that were about my points

 

First is Str 10 sufficient to carry someone out of a building, that is debatable, the average man is about 200 lbs I would guess, which is what Str 10 lets you lift aproximatly 1 (real world inch) off the ground and stagger around a bit, not quite the same as running out of a burning building with IMO.

 

I disagree with the comment that it is breaking down, just that I am making it poorly, yes I am saying that all Primary Characteristics (With the exception of COM, a rant for another day) are a type of frameworks, I am also saying Martial Arts is another, as are skill enhancers, etc... and that to say "Well character B can take this kind as well" is equal to saying that a character can take more strength.

 

On Arnold, I suspect that the str 13 argument is based on a misconception of what Str represents (The 1" and stagger over something more like a bench press or something), but even so I would point out that you are talking about the actor instead of the character, it's not arnorld, but Conan I want to play.

 

For what world, that would be the Champions Universe, based off of the book by the same name, see page 28 of said book. The same world all of the characters on the list are from. Wether or not it is either realistic, or the setting someone wants to use, is entirely different, but that is what the guidelines say

 

Do I realise I am making there argument, no I'm not, I was trying (and obviously failing) to point out that if one character is saving points one way, and another is not they will not balance. To put it another way, IF I am making a flying Energy projector with telekineses, Force Field, and Force Wall. If one character uses an EC, the other does not, will they cost the same, OF COURSE NOT, but that is what buying every figured characteristic up to "Balance" vs Str is doing (One is using FC type of cost saver, vs no cost saver)

 

As to why pay points, well points are a tool to help balance things, while not perfect, they are useful

[Hugh Neilson]

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Or you could buy CON and also have a higher END, and ED instead of PD.

 

The answer here, in my view, is to lower the cost of STUN END and REC and rejig the Figured calcs so that STR gets a -1/2 for "no figured" because it grants about 1/3 of its cost in Figured's. I've posted the theory before.

 

Submission: If the problem is Figured's, it's a problem for more than STR. It is best fixed by adjusting the cost of the Figured characteristics. Then we might see characters lacking high STR/CON:

 

- buy up their STUN and REC instead of their defenses to last longer in combat.

 

- buy up END and REC instead of buying reduced END to last longer without becoming exhausted.

 

At this point, no one takes these approaches. That leads me to believe STUN, REC and END are overpriced.

 

The minimum disruption approach to increasing the cost of strength might be to simply remove the ability to do direct damage with strength' date=' and do direct damage with HtH attack, which can go in frameworks etc, So 50 STR Woman would cost the same, and be able to do the same stuff but would heve to buy +8d6 HtH attack. Moreover, it means that the cost of low END punching would not be increased i.e. you are buying lowered END cost for a power that still costs basically 5 points per 1d6 (Active). Of course it wuill cost more to buy lowered END cost for your punching AND lifting strength. My heart bleeds.[/quote']

 

So my character can lift sevral hundred tons, but can't do damage with that STR. What happens when he throws that several hundred tons at you, or drops it on you from a height?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I note that only Markdoc has replied to the "balance" of the STR 2:1 character vs the EP. And his comments basically said "slap some limitations on the Brick". If we had initially presented a plain vanilla Brick and an EP with OIHID and/or foci, I doubt they would have been viewed as comparable.

 

Show me two comparable characters, one reliant on STR and the other on something else, when STR costs 2:1.

 

That means both lack limitatins, or both have limitations of about equal value and they are competetive when neither of them has their limitations in play.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

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

 

I've already commented on the inappropriateness of allowing thrown objects as 0 cost weapons of opportunity making STR ranged at no cost to OCV. I've also commented on the lack of comparability with source material when we give AoE for free, and that also worsens the balance situation.

 

You want to pick up a car and throw it at your opponents? OK, proceed as follows:

 

1. Grab the car - this is an attack action which ends your phase (you can Throw immediately but, as the FAQ notes, not at any specific target).

 

2. Next phase, you can throw the car. Do you have WF: Thrown Car? No? That's -3 OCV for nonproficiency. Is it balanced and aerodynamic? Likely not. That's further penalties. It's also quite bulky, justifying further penalties (unless you have Growth - then it's easier to weild).

 

3. Is it AoE? No. It will bounce. An agile character can leap through the windsheild or windows to avoid taking damage. A large object may justify an OCV bonus for its size, however.

 

4. Don't forget to compare its BOD/DEF to your STR damage. I would likely change this rule as well - an object commensurate with the power of the Brick should add a bit of damage, not max out at the weilder's damage, so maybe you get another die or two. But your OCV will suffer.

 

Yes, if you give STR enough extra freebies, it becomes too cheap. If FireLad constantly has a convenient fuel truck nearby, his powers seem to looks undercosted as well.

 

Sweep; multiple targets no reduction in damage.

 

Those targets must be adjacent to you, you require a full phase so you can't close with them and you lose both OCV and DCV. BTW, ranged attackers can use Rapid Attack for the same effect, if desired.

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

You point out very well what could be done in a rather complicated way to 'nerf' strength.

 

- Do not allow things to be thrown. (or make it not easy)

- Do not allow bricks to drown people by removing lakes of opportunity.

- Only 1 figured stat can be sold.

- HKAs can only go to twice base damage with str.

- HA is a messy construct.

- Ranged can not be bought for str.

- Use telekinesis instead of stretching.

 

the list goes on and on, nearly every single thing that can be done with str must be controlled. The alternative:

 

- Str costs 2 points.

 

That has the same effect. Instead of preventing people from getting free stuff, just tack a price on these things. Now they can rampage freely, throw cars at anyone and drown as many people as fit into their bathtub, and theoretically (if one changed con too) could even sell back multiple figureds. It's the simpler solution. If you buy str, you pay a rather steep price, but you get a huge bunch of things for it., easily comparable to an Attack MP. The Attack MP is probably cheaper too (afterall, we still get figureds for free), but then, everyone and their mom knows how str works and can prepare against it. And even campaign DC/AP limits are no problem: 45 str (70 AP, 9DC) + 3x HA (15 AP, 3 DC) gives you back your normal 12 dice and doesnt break the usual 75 AP limit on a single power.

[GamePhil]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

My attitude towards all of this is, primarily, it ain't broke. However...

 

My problem with almost all the "solutions" except making STR 2/1 ( which would cause its own problems) Is they make it tougher and more confusing to design what should be a simple character , a basic brick. Can you iimagine explaining to someone new to the system. , buying up your STR doesn't let you hit harder and/or lift,crush etc. kind of would validate lots of the ant-HERO rants about needless and confusing complexity.

Well, in general any more complex approach to "fixing" this "problem" would also require the creation of packages to help with the building of characters, much like Powers are done currently. And explaining to someone that buying up STR doesn't let you hit harder shouldn't be any different than explaining that Energy Blasts can be thrown clubs: it's just the name for a generic Power.

I also completely resist getting rid of figured characteristics. They work so elegantly and logically to me if they ever are dropped I'll stick with the previous edition of HERO. Getting rid of them destroys so much of the logical results of a characteristic that it makes no sense to me from any practical and not esoteric or purist standpoint.

 

Whereas I completely resist that having a high STR *necessarily* means that you have the fixed set of stats that we have now, so I have no problem with removing them if and only if a suitable and more flexible means of adding them back in is included. Basically, if what was described earlier in the thread as a "black box framework" is opened up for us to tinker with, I'm all for it. Otherwise, yes, I like it fine as it is.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Tangent

 

I wonder what the statistical corelation to this issue and some of the NCM issues are...

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

You point out very well what could be done in a rather complicated way to 'nerf' strength.

 

- Do not allow things to be thrown. (or make it not easy)

- Do not allow bricks to drown people by removing lakes of opportunity.

- Only 1 figured stat can be sold.

- HKAs can only go to twice base damage with str.

- HA is a messy construct.

- Ranged can not be bought for str.

- Use telekinesis instead of stretching.

 

I dont think that Hugh is suggesting that you 'nerf' STR but pointing out that as GMs we often allow STR to be used more easily and more widely than the mechanics of the system would suggest. That exacerbates the issue with the costing as the stat becomes more valuable.

 

I think that Hugh's points are just as valuable as your own have been - no point in pointing out how useful and valuable STR is if you include things that the system actually mitigates against.

 

Doc

[jtelson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

You want to pick up a car and throw it at your opponents? OK, proceed as follows:

 

1. Grab the car - this is an attack action which ends your phase (you can Throw immediately but, as the FAQ notes, not at any specific target).

 

2. Next phase, you can throw the car. Do you have WF: Thrown Car? No? That's -3 OCV for nonproficiency. Is it balanced and aerodynamic? Likely not. That's further penalties. It's also quite bulky, justifying further penalties (unless you have Growth - then it's easier to weild).

 

3. Is it AoE? No. It will bounce. An agile character can leap through the windsheild or windows to avoid taking damage. A large object may justify an OCV bonus for its size, however.

 

4. Don't forget to compare its BOD/DEF to your STR damage. I would likely change this rule as well - an object commensurate with the power of the Brick should add a bit of damage, not max out at the weilder's damage, so maybe you get another die or two. But your OCV will suffer.

 

Yes, if you give STR enough extra freebies, it becomes too cheap. If FireLad constantly has a convenient fuel truck nearby, his powers seem to looks undercosted as well.

 

1. This I think falls into a grey area, does equiping an impromptu weapon require an attack roll, thus making it a terminal action. I'd tend to agree with you on this one.

 

2. WFs are usually only used in Heroic level games [pg382]. Also I've seen no indication that WF Thrown Car either exists or would be required. It should recieve the penalty for being unbal/nonaero, however.

 

3. Yes is the default. The GM can opt to use alternative methods of course.

 

Yes, If you opt to change rules or use alt rules you certainly can reduce the value of STR to where it is 1:1. Although, even if you removed the throwing component completely I don't believe you'd be close to making it worth less than 2:1.

 

Those targets must be adjacent to you, you require a full phase so you can't close with them and you lose both OCV and DCV. BTW, ranged attackers can use Rapid Attack for the same effect, if desired.

 

Sweep is a maneuver that has costs associated with it, that they are different costs than spread doesn't remove the maneuver from play. Swinging a car or a telephone pole like a cllub will also allow the Brick to affect multiple targets. BTW if we're using Rapid Attack, you can half move and sweep.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

My attitude towards all of this is, primarily, it ain't broke. However...

 

 

Well, in general any more complex approach to "fixing" this "problem" would also require the creation of packages to help with the building of characters, much like Powers are done currently. And explaining to someone that buying up STR doesn't let you hit harder shouldn't be any different than explaining that Energy Blasts can be thrown clubs: it's just the name for a generic Power.

 

 

.

 

I agree with you it ain't broke however I got to completely disagree with you on your 2nd point. people can get that special effects can vary with a power but become annoyed if you have to make sure you go buy separately things that logically should be included in something basic. STR is not a complex power construct. Anyway STR works fine for me as is. I've never had any of the balance issues in this thread. In fact , some of the most bad ass characters in the game are fast agile, low defense energy blasters.

[Fedifensor]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I dont think that Hugh is suggesting that you 'nerf' STR but pointing out that as GMs we often allow STR to be used more easily and more widely than the mechanics of the system would suggest. That exacerbates the issue with the costing as the stat becomes more valuable.

 

Um, can you name me a game system where you buy Strength but have to buy the ability to use that Strength separately? Grabbing, lifting, and throwing should all be part of what you can do with the stat...because that's what Strength does.