fair cost for strength that isn't strong

[bigbywolfe]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Your last point undermines your supposed agreement with Hugh in your first point.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Your last point undermines your supposed agreement with Hugh in your first point.

Only if you think "agreement" means "100% black and white with no shades of grey or exceptions ever".

 

Things are sometimes not that simple.

 

NND MA is one of them.

The game mechanics we have to simulate them break down in some fairly common contexts in a supers game.

 

Fixing them so they retain logical consistency with what we as players would expect given ITRW experience and knowledge requires playing with the toolkit we've been given to some extent.

[prestidigitator]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Oh, come now. We ALL house rule things to make them work as we think they should at some point.

 

However, I do think there is some value in thinking ahead and building things "correctly" where you can foresee an issue. We have ways of building NND attacks that do Body, or that even include Str damage if you want. 6E is quite open to that now, in fact. And building them with things like the Does Body Advantage does give a standard structure to the build and a fair appraisal of the cost/value of the power (at least one that those of us used to the system can understand anyway). So you might want to do that rather than just hand waving Body damage back into all NND attacks. You can certainly deny a NND build if it doesn't do Body and that's not appropriate to your campaign, too.

 

If there IS a way to build something already in the standard system, why not use it? You certainly don't have to, but it'll keep things closer to the standard rules, and that can help in collaborative efforts here, with your players, or whatever. **shrug**

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Oh, come now. We ALL house rule things to make them work as we think they should at some point.

 

However, I do think there is some value in thinking ahead and building things "correctly" where you can foresee an issue. We have ways of building NND attacks that do Body, or that even include Str damage if you want. 6E is quite open to that now, in fact. And building them with things like the Does Body Advantage does give a standard structure to the build and a fair appraisal of the cost/value of the power (at least one that those of us used to the system can understand anyway). So you might want to do that rather than just hand waving Body damage back into all NND attacks. You can certainly deny a NND build if it doesn't do Body and that's not appropriate to your campaign, too.

 

If there IS a way to build something already in the standard system, why not use it? You certainly don't have to, but it'll keep things closer to the standard rules, and that can help in collaborative efforts here, with your players, or whatever. **shrug**

Ah, but you see the problem is that HERO does not offer an easy way to simulate what I've been talking about.

 

NNDAs are supposed to simulate an attack that can -never- do BODY. Never ever.

 

Problem is that both myself and some of my players have too much ITRW experience with some of the IRL attacks these NNDAs are supposed to simulate.

We -know- that one of the IRL issues with all of the attacks I'm describing is the DisAd that if you put too much power into them they can, will, and do cripple or kill.

 

One of the meta rules of HERO is that an attack can never be bought with more than one type of damage. An attack can do ND, or KD, or NND, but

ONE CAN NEVER BUILD AN ATTACK THAT USES MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF DAMAGE DICE IN HERO SYSTEM.

 

So if I want to simulate an effect with enough accuracy to overcome the lack of said that sometimes bothers the heck out of both me and others in our group, I need to find a way to simulate this reality that is NOT

a= "building an attack that does more than one type of damage" and

b= the same thing all the time just bigger or smaller.

 

The critical facts here are that IRL,

1= under certain circumstances these effects transition from what is best modeled by one kind of HERO damage to something that is best modeled by a different kind of HERO damage; and

2= that it is always a Bad Thing if it happens.

 

So I've done the best I can to simulate these attacks realistically while staying as close as I could to the RAW and the meta rules of HERO.

 

HERO started off simulating the unrealistic 4 color comics where people simply do not die except for purposes of dramatic license.

That bias is so deeply embedded in the system that some RW effects are nigh unto impossible to model well within HERO w/o tweaking the system toolkit.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

The Hero System is not a reality simulator. It's a roleplaying toolkit.

 

Back to your original post.

 

If one attempts to build a highly effective HTH combat character w/o high STR, it ends up being more expensive points-wise. Sometime much more.

 

Your argument against using Martial Damage Classes in lieu of some 'house-ruled limited STR that adds to Martial Maneuvers just like Martial Damage Classes' seems to boil down to this.

 

It is a premise that many board members probably disagree with.

 

It also seems like a munchkiny complaint too.

[Trebuchet]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Ah, but you see the problem is that HERO does not offer an easy way to simulate what I've been talking about.

 

NNDAs are supposed to simulate an attack that can -never- do BODY. Never ever.

Wrong. They're designed to simulate attacks for which there is no normal defense - hence the name of the Advantage. It is entirely possible and legal to build NND attacks that do BODY.

 

One of the meta rules of HERO is that an attack can never be bought with more than one type of damage. An attack can do ND, or KD, or NND, but ONE CAN NEVER BUILD AN ATTACK THAT USES MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF DAMAGE DICE IN HERO SYSTEM.

It seems to me that this is exactly why there are Combination Powers. A quick reading of the 5ER metarules shows no such prohibition against using two or more types of attacks. Could you provide a reference and/or quote the relevant sentence(s) in the rules?

[ghost-angel]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

It seems to me that this is exactly why there are Combination Powers. A quick reading of the 5ER metarules shows no such prohibition against using two or more types of attacks. Could you provide a reference and/or quote the relevant sentence(s) in the rules?

 

Ki-rin can't cite a reference for that, because it doesn't exist in the book anywhere at a MetaRule.

 

in fact, Ki-Rin seems fundamentally unaware of what the Meta Rules of the system actually are, as outlined on 5th Edition Revised p558-559.

 

Particularly Meta-Rule #7: Powers and other Game Elements are "Generic"

 

Which is why I Kill-Filed them after the discussion on NCM became futile. Good luck here. In fact, have Rep just for posting in this thread.

[ghost-angel]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Oh, for the record - Linked is the most common construct used to build a single Attack that does more than one type of Damage. What I believe Trebuchet was referring to when he said Combination Powers, yes?

[tarragon]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

1= under certain circumstances these effects transition from what is best modeled by one kind of HERO damage to something that is best modeled by a different kind of HERO damage;

 

[blocks of text reordered for emphasis]

 

One of the meta rules of HERO is that an attack can never be bought with more than one type of damage. An attack can do ND, or KD, or NND, but

ONE CAN NEVER BUILD AN ATTACK THAT USES MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF DAMAGE DICE IN HERO SYSTEM.

 

...

 

Easy

 

24 Killer Choke Hold: Multipower, 60-point reserve, (60 Active Points); all slots Gestures, Requires Gestures throughout (-1/2), No Range (-1/2), Lockout (-1/2)

2u 1) Initial Choke: Energy Blast 4d6, No Normal Defense ([standard]; Rigid neck armor or no need to breathe; +1), Continuous (+1) (60 Active Points); Gestures, Requires Gestures throughout (-1/2), No Range (-1/2), Lockout (-1/2); Only on conscious targets (-0)

2u 2) Finishing: Energy Blast 3d6, No Normal Defense ([standard]; Rigid neck armor or no need to breathe; +1), Continuous (+1), Does BODY (+1) (60 Active Points); Gestures, Requires Gestures throughout (-1/2), No Range (-1/2), Lockout (-1/2); Only on unconscious targets (-0)

 

Total Powers Cost: 28

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

The Hero System is not a reality simulator. It's a roleplaying toolkit.

Every RPG is a reality simulator...

 

Your argument against using Martial Damage Classes in lieu of some 'house-ruled limited STR that adds to Martial Maneuvers just like Martial Damage Classes' seems to boil down to this:

"If one attempts to build a highly effective HTH combat character w/o high STR, it ends up being more expensive points-wise. Sometime much more. "

 

It is a premise that many board members probably disagree with.

 

It also seems like a munchkiny complaint too.

The quoted prinicple is a very inaccurate over generalization of a complex problem. MA have always been a complex and imperfect part of HERO.

 

For many years, the most point effective way to build a combat specialist in HERO was to to build a Brick.

 

Then things changed so that building Bricks was merely the most point effective to build a HTH combat specialist.

 

Then people started tweaking the rule kit to allow MA as a different way to build equally point effective HTH combat specialists.

 

The pendulum swung too far at one point (Paek-Tu MA in Aaron Allston's _Strike Force_ which he himself said, in the original _Ninja Hero_ IIRC, was found to be game imbalancing upon further play test.) and MA sort of got "frozen" at a certain point of effectiveness and, far more importantly in my PoV, overall approach.

 

Simulating MA well in HERO is complex enough given that the assumed reality of the base damage system is 4 color comics. It gets worse when attempting to merge them in a game balanced way into a reality that includes beings who can lift jumbo jets and throw tanks.

 

But the fundamental principle must be that if a Brick and a MA both spend the same amount of CP on being good at HTH combat, they should be equally effective. DIFFERENT, most certainly. But equally effective.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Wrong. They're designed to simulate attacks for which there is no normal defense - hence the name of the Advantage. It is entirely possible and legal to build NND attacks that do BODY.

...and I quote

"No Normal Attacks are STUN only; they can do BODY only if the character also buys the Does BODY Advantage; which requires the GM's permission" 5ER p265 description of NND.

 

A NNDA that routinely does BODY is a bigger deal than a Stop! power.

That's extra-legal enough for me.

 

It seems to me that this is exactly why there are Combination Powers. A quick reading of the 5ER metarules shows no such prohibition against using two or more types of attacks. Could you provide a reference and/or quote the relevant sentence(s) in the rules?

I know I've seen the prohibition against building an effect with more than one kind of damage dice. I'll try to find it.

 

In the meantime I invite you and everyone else who jumped on this point to find me a single official HERO Games published source with an attack in it that uses more than one kind of damage dice simultaneously. Just one.

[jtelson]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

In the meantime I invite you and everyone else who jumped on this point to find me a single official HERO Games published attack that uses more than one kind of damage dice simultaneously. Just one.

 

Saphire pg 189 Champions Genre book - EB and Flash combination bolt?

[ghost-angel]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

5ER p300 Sidebar; 2 Attack Powers listed:

 

Mace Of Blinding: HKA + Sight Flash

Poison Knife: HKA + RKA NND Does Body

 

Using Linked Powers (5ER p300 right column);

"When a Character uses two (or more) Linked powers, he activates and uses them simultaneously. If the lesser and greater powers are both Attack Powers, he must use them against the same target. He onkly makes one Attack Roll . . ."

 

Looks like a single Attack using more than one type of damage simultaneously. The word Simultaneously is even used in the Rules Description.

 

Again you have failed to show an understanding of the rules while telling us what the "core tennants" are.

 

I appreciate that you have altered the rules to fit your game style, it's a proper use of the book. But don't pass them off as Actual Rules backed by "core tennants." They are House Rules and Altered Rules to fit your game style only.

 

As for "All RPGs are Reality Simulators": Toon. not a reality simulator.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Guys, those examples are TWO powers Linked to work together simultaneously. They are not ONE power that uses multiple types of damage dice simultaneously.

 

And for combat maneuvers, which is what all MA attacks are, I'm even more sure there is a specific prohibition against a single maneuver using more than one kind of damage dice simultaneously.

 

..and since the whole point of this sub-thread is MA, I apologize for inappropriately broadening it's scope beyond that.

 

Let's stop talking about powers in general and stay focused on MA please?

[ghost-angel]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Linked powers are treated as one power, it uses the word Simultaneously in the description of Linked.

 

How much friggin clearer does it have to be made?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

If you think I am advocating "Pick the right SFX and get a package of free bonuses", you and I are having a serious misunderstanding.

 

If anything I'm =more= draconian than the RAW.

 

It doesn't matter if the bonuses are in addition to RAW or are in addition to something more draconian. When some SFX gain an advantage against others, and that advantage is not set off against drawbacks of similar weight, you favour one SFX over another.

 

Any benefit sufficient to support a +1/4 advantage, and any drawback sufficient to warrant a -1/4 limitation, should be paid for. SFX provide minor benefits and drawbacks of too little value to stat out into the mechanics.

 

Ah, but you see the problem is that HERO does not offer an easy way to simulate what I've been talking about.

 

NNDAs are supposed to simulate an attack that can -never- do BODY. Never ever.

 

Problem is that both myself and some of my players have too much ITRW experience with some of the IRL attacks these NNDAs are supposed to simulate.

We -know- that one of the IRL issues with all of the attacks I'm describing is the DisAd that if you put too much power into them they can, will, and do cripple or kill.

 

Then they should not be purchased as NND's that do not do BOD. You are not reasoning from effect if you use NND to purchase an ability that can and will cripple or kill. You mention metarules below. To most Hero Gamers "Reason from Effect" is the UberRule. One rule to rule them all.

 

One of the meta rules of HERO is that an attack can never be bought with more than one type of damage. An attack can do ND, or KD, or NND, but

ONE CAN NEVER BUILD AN ATTACK THAT USES MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF DAMAGE DICE IN HERO SYSTEM.

 

You started a flurry with this misstatement. I believe the rule you were looking for is that no Martial Art maneuver can do more than one type of damage, which I believe is explicitly stated in the maneuver construction rules.

 

But I do have to ask why, when you are willing to override numerous other rules, that is the one rule you are unwilling to override.

 

And choke holds do BOD if they are continuously applied once the target is KO'd, so it seems to me that this specific concern has been addressed in RAW.

Your argument against using Martial Damage Classes in lieu of some 'house-ruled limited STR that adds to Martial Maneuvers just like Martial Damage Classes' seems to boil down to this.

 

It is a premise that many board members probably disagree with.

 

It also seems like a munchkiny complaint too.

 

I agree with this. "I want my STR to add to these martial maneuvers". My answer is "tough - you want more DC's, pay for more DC's", not "OK, let's make STR even more useful with no increase in cost".

 

"STR that's not really STR -1/4" overriding the rule for limitations affecting Figureds would also be considered munchkin by many.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

STR RAW gives you certain benefits. Prior to 6E, it was in fact one of the most point effective purchases in the game due to the "STR and CON pump" that made building Bricks so efficient over the years.

 

STR that does not allow you to actually -be- strong is obviously STR that is Limited.

 

My question at the start of this thread was how large or small should that Limitation be.

The (-1/4) that came back was in line with my original suspicions for 5ER or earlier, but I wanted some other opinions.

 

I can't discuss 6E STR responsibly yet because I do not have 6E yet.

 

Everything else that has been discussed in this thread has been OT. Interesting stuff, but OT. I'd be well within my rights and the rules of civility to simply refuse to discuss the OT stuff. But I'm trying to be nice.

 

Some folks are doing their best to make me sorry I ever asked their opinion.

...and some folks are doing their best to make me sorry I ever came on this board.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

It doesn't matter if the bonuses are in addition to RAW or are in addition to something more draconian. When some SFX gain an advantage against others, and that advantage is not set off against drawbacks of similar weight, you favour one SFX over another.

 

Any benefit sufficient to support a +1/4 advantage, and any drawback sufficient to warrant a -1/4 limitation, should be paid for. SFX provide minor benefits and drawbacks of too little value to stat out into the mechanics.

Agreed. Nothing I've said violates any of this.

 

Then they should not be purchased as NND's that do not do BOD. You are not reasoning from effect if you use NND to purchase an ability that can and will cripple or kill. You mention metarules below. To most Hero Gamers "Reason from Effect" is the UberRule. One rule to rule them all.

I am reasoning from effect. I am not allowing NNDs that do BODY in their normal operation. I am not doing the players any favors. It is in fact a Bad Thing if an NND is Too Big and therefore risks doing BODY.

 

 

I believe the rule you were looking for is that no Martial Art maneuver can do more than one type of damage, which I believe is explicitly stated in the maneuver construction rules.

It's certainly what I'm focusing on in a sub thread on MAM's and their damage.

 

I've already apologized for allowing this subthread to inappropriately widen in scope beyond that.

[jtelson]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

STR RAW gives you certain benefits. Prior to 6E, it was in fact one of the most point effective purchases in the game due to the "STR and CON pump" that made building Bricks so efficient over the years.

 

STR that does not allow you to actually -be- strong is obviously STR that is Limited.

 

My question at the start of this thread was how large or small should that Limitation be.

The (-1/4) that came back was in line with my original suspicions for 5ER or earlier, but I wanted some other opinions.

 

I can't discuss 6E STR responsibly yet because I do not have 6E yet.

 

Everything else that has been discussed in this thread has been OT. Interesting stuff, but OT. I'd be well within my rights and the rules of civility to simply refuse to discuss the OT stuff. But I'm trying to be nice.

 

Some folks are doing their best to make me sorry I ever asked their opinion.

...and some folks are doing their best to make me sorry I ever came on this board.

 

Applying a limit to a Primary Characteristic that does not also limit its Figured Characteristics - automatically removes the limited portion of the Primary's effect from the Figureds. So Limited Str doesn't work to create the efficiency you desire. Damage Classes, however, will create the effect you seem to be after.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Applying a limit to a Primary Characteristic that does not also limit its Figured Characteristics - automatically removes the limited portion of the Primary's effect from the Figureds. So Limited Str doesn't work to create the efficiency you desire. Damage Classes' date=' however, will create the effect you seem to be after.[/quote']

Bear in mind that all of what follows is for 5ER or before.

 

-Nothing- RAW will fairly create the effect my player is after in 5ER or before.

 

Each +5 STR is +1d6 ND and 2x more lifting, carrying, etc "feats of STR".

In addition, each 1 CP spent on STR buys 1 STR + 1/5 PD + 1/5 REC + 1/2 STUN= 1.9

Bought separately 1 CP=> 1 PD, 2 CP=> 1 REC, 1 CP=> 1 STUN

 

So 5d6 ND + 5 PD + 7 REC + 28 STUN

a= STR 25 => 15 CP

b= STR 10 => 17 CP on stats + 4 CP for +1 HTH DC= 21 CP

(I'm not including the +3 to +5 CP to buy a Strike.)

 

TBF to the player, I need a way to do things close to as efficiently as the STR pump. Certainly better than RAW.

 

15/21= .7143 or darn close, but still better, than what a "you get 4 points for every 3 you spend for taking this Limitation" bonus to CP spent will result in.

 

Result: the standard character concept of the Brick still comes out on top, but the other concept is not nearly as punished for wanting to play a particular concept of a HTH specialist who is not a Brick.

[jtelson]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Bear in mind that all of what follows is for 5ER or before.

 

-Nothing- RAW will fairly create the effect my player is after in 5ER or before.

 

Each +5 STR is +1d6 ND and 2x more lifting, carrying, etc "feats of STR".

In addition, each 1 CP spent on STR buys 1 STR + 1/5 PD + 1/5 REC + 1/2 STUN= 1.9

Bought separately 1 CP=> 1 PD, 2 CP=> 1 REC, 1 CP=> 1 STUN

 

So 5d6 ND + 5 PD + 7 REC + 28 STUN

a= STR 25 => 15 CP

b= STR 10 => 17 CP on stats + 4 CP for +1 HTH DC= 21 CP

(I'm not including the +3 to +5 CP to buy a Strike.)

 

TBF to the player, I need a way to do things close to as efficiently as the STR pump. Certainly better than RAW.

 

15/21= .7143 or darn close, but still better, than what a "you get 4 points for every 3 you spend for taking this Limitation" bonus to CP spent will result in.

 

Result: the standard character concept of the Brick still comes out on top, but the other concept is not nearly as punished for wanting to play a particular concept of a HTH specialist who is not a Brick.

 

Fair is an interesting term here - I would tend to say that the advantage provided by the STR pump is what's not fair in this situation.

 

If your principle concern is points then set the cost at whatever you feel like.

[Ki-rin]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Fair is an interesting term here - I would tend to say that the advantage provided by the STR pump is what's not fair in this situation.

 

If your principle concern is points then set the cost at whatever you feel like.

Until 6E, the STR pump was considered fair.

 

In addition changing things so this character concept comes closer to matching the efficiency of the STR pump has far fewer ripples than changing the far greater number of characters based on the STR pump.

 

HERO Games gets to cause major trouble like that. Not me.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

I am reasoning from effect. I am not allowing NNDs that do BODY in their normal operation. I am not doing the players any favors. It is in fact a Bad Thing if an NND is Too Big and therefore risks doing BODY.

 

Regardless of whether the possibility of doing BOD is a GOOD THING or a BAD THING, placing it on some NND's and not others, with no change in cost, means some SFX's get a benefit other SFX's don't.

 

Bear in mind that all of what follows is for 5ER or before.

 

-Nothing- RAW will fairly create the effect my player is after in 5ER or before.

 

Each +5 STR is +1d6 ND and 2x more lifting, carrying, etc "feats of STR".

In addition, each 1 CP spent on STR buys 1 STR + 1/5 PD + 1/5 REC + 1/2 STUN= 1.9

Bought separately 1 CP=> 1 PD, 2 CP=> 1 REC, 1 CP=> 1 STUN

 

But, until you varied the rules to provide even more value to STR, it did not increase martial attacks' damage other than normal damage and the usual, restricted to double, enhancement of HKA's. Prior to you beefing up STR, martial artists got benefits from 4 point martial damage classes that STR did not provide.

 

STR does not lift is no different from having martial DC's enhance Figured Characteristics. In your game, the two would be exactly equivalent. In a RAW game, each has benefits the other lacks. But you have added all the benefits from martial DC's to also be enjoyed by STR, and then you act surprised that players want the ability to have all of those benefits when they are out of character.

 

Regardless of whether RAW was in balance, adding damage to all forms of martial attacks to STR threw the balance out further in favour of STR, to the detriment of MA DC's.

 

So 5d6 ND + 5 PD + 7 REC + 28 STUN

a= STR 25 => 15 CP

b= STR 10 => 17 CP on stats + 4 CP for +1 HTH DC= 21 CP

(I'm not including the +3 to +5 CP to buy a Strike.)

 

Rec and STUN are overpriced in 5e, a situation that was rectified in 6e. And they're more overpriced for the typical martal artist than for most characters, as the MA tends to avoid damage and spend limited END, which makes both STUN and REC less valuable.

 

TBF to the player' date=' I need a way to do things close to as efficiently as the STR pump. Certainly better than RAW.[/quote']

 

In RAW, he would get the benefit of enhanced NND and KA damage. You took that away when you allowed high STR to get the same benefits.

 

In my games, MA's have never inferior to Bricks. They had different strengths and weaknesses, but one did not overshadow the other. But then, I didn't beef up STR by adding more benefits without adding any drawbacks, or beefing up martial arts DC's.

[Trebuchet]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Oh' date=' for the record - Linked is the most common construct used to build a single Attack that does more than one type of Damage. What I believe Trebuchet was referring to when he said Combination Powers, yes?[/quote']I actually should have used the term Compound Power, but IDHMBIFOM.

[jtelson]

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

 

Until 6E, the STR pump was considered fair.

 

In addition changing things so this character concept comes closer to matching the efficiency of the STR pump has far fewer ripples than changing the far greater number of characters based on the STR pump.

 

HERO Games gets to cause major trouble like that. Not me.

 

You described what you're group considered an inequity between the Brick build and the Martial Artist Build - so either the Brick Build is unfair or the Martial Artist Build is unfair. I could easily see an Energy Projector going "Hey, I'll buy my strength like that as well since I should be healthy and tough with maybe some leapiness, plus what can I get for doesn't add to damage?" in the environment you seem to be describing. So what do you fix, one build or all but one build?