Advantages and the Active Point Cap

[Mister E]

[bigdamnhero]

I like AP caps and generally think they solve more problems than they cause. But [pirate voice] "they're more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules." [/pirate voice] If someone has a good idea that won't unbalance the game but it exceeds the cap due to Advantages that don't directly affect damage, that's open for discussion. 

It's also worth noting that if you use Power Frameworks (which I do - a lot), then you run into the same issue, and there's no easy way around it. 

[bigdamnhero]

[sidebar]

In the case of the double KB attack, the defence is KNB resistance (which is so rare in most games that we can probably safely ignore it)

Really? It's pretty common in my supers games; I'd say 1/3 to 1/2 of PCs take at least some KBR, and I don't think they ever feel like the points are wasted. Granted, it's pretty rare in heroic games, but then so is Knockback...

[Markdoc]

[sidebar]

Really? It's pretty common in my supers games; I'd say 1/3 to 1/2 of PCs take at least some KBR, and I don't think they ever feel like the points are wasted. Granted, it's pretty rare in heroic games, but then so is Knockback...

 

 Just goes to show there's a lot of table variation. I've never seen a character in one of our games who bought KNB, so it was restricted to those who got it as part of the Density Increase or Growth deals.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

I like AP caps and generally think they solve more problems than they cause. But [pirate voice] "they're more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules." [/pirate voice] If someone has a good idea that won't unbalance the game but it exceeds the cap due to Advantages that don't directly affect damage, that's open for discussion. 

 

It's also worth noting that if you use Power Frameworks (which I do - a lot), then you run into the same issue, and there's no easy way around it. 

 

 

The fact that caps are often a problem, I think is neatly illustrated by the fact that even the people who have posted in support of them in this thread have pretty much all also noted that ... ahem .. that personally, they don't actually use caps, but instead have a general guideline in mind ....

 

As far as I can see Hero GMs are divided almost evenly among those who don't think caps are a good idea, and those who think they are a good idea but don't use them.

 

cheers, Mark

[Altair]

The fact that caps are often a problem, I think is neatly illustrated by the fact that even the people who have posted in support of them in this thread have pretty much all also noted that ... ahem .. that personally, they don't actually use caps, but instead have a general guideline in mind ....

 

As far as I can see Hero GMs are divided almost evenly among those who don't think caps are a good idea, and those who think they are a good idea but don't use them.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I think, and I could be wrong here, that that would be true in the case of absolute/hard caps vs. no caps, which may not be representative of what's going on. Soft caps are a real thing, and distinct from no caps, yes?

 

"Make whatever the heck you like" is clearly different from "These are the caps, and they shall not be exceeded." I humbly submit that it is also very different from "Here are the caps, let's talk if you want to do something outside of that."

 

No rules, Absolute rules and Guidelines are each useful, at least to my experience.

[Markdoc]

I think, and I could be wrong here, that that would be true in the case of absolute/hard caps vs. no caps, which may not be representative of what's going on. Soft caps are a real thing, and distinct from no caps, yes?

 

Soft caps are a thing - but of course a cap that doesn't necessarily cap powers isn't really a cap, is it? "Soft caps" is just another name for guidelines, and I haven't seen anybody suggesting that guidelines are a bad idea.

 

If we loop back to the original post, the problem with the suggested power is that it was a few points over the cap. There's general agreement that the power itself wasn't abusive, so the only problem was the cap.

 

cheers, Mark

[bigdamnhero]

As far as I can see Hero GMs are divided almost evenly among those who don't think caps are a good idea, and those who think they are a good idea but don't use them.

Neither of those describes me at all. I think they're a great idea, and I use them most/all the time. I do sometimes allow exceptions, but all exceptions are treated as Stop Sign builds up front. 

 

Soft caps are a thing - but of course a cap that doesn't necessarily cap powers isn't really a cap, is it? "Soft caps" is just another name for guidelines, and I haven't seen anybody suggesting that guidelines are a bad idea.

You're being too binary. It's a rule until the GM allows an exception. ...Kinda like everything else in Hero. I can think of a dozen rules that I allow exceptions to more often than I do AP Caps. Does that mean the whole system is "only guidelines?" Arguably yes, but then what's your point? 

 

If we loop back to the original post, the problem with the suggested power is that it was a few points over the cap. There's general agreement that the power itself wasn't abusive, so the only problem was the cap.

Personally I'm not at all sure I would allow an exception to that. As other posters pointed out, I mainly allow exceptions for things that don't directly add damage. Double Knockback *does* increase damage. A 12d6 Blast that does x2 KB is by definition more damaging than a 12d6 Blast. (Now personally I've always thought Double Knockback was overpriced at x1/2, but that's a different conversation.) 

[bigdamnhero]

Here are a few examples that more closely describe how I use AP Caps. Say we’ve established a 60 AP Cap for this campaign:

·       A player wants a 65 AP Multipower. The answer’s going to be no. [Honestly, this example alone is 90% of what I want AP caps to do for me.]

·       A player wants a Multipower of 60-point powers, but to make their concept work they want to put ½ END as a common modifier, which means the MP itself is 75 AP. I’d be open for discussing that. My first question would be why they can’t just buy up their END or END Reserve, but if it fits the concept I might allow it.

·       A player has a 60-pt MP, but wants to have a Naked Advantage that only applies to that slot that makes it Sticky (or whatever) under certain circumstances. Depending on how common those circumstances are going to be, maybe. 

·       Outside of Frameworks: a player wants a 13d6 Blast. Probably not.

·       A player wants 8d6 with 5x Autofire (60 AP), but they don’t have enough END to handle 5 shots, so they want to throw 1/2 END on it. Again, we’d have the “let’s look at other options” talk, but I wouldn’t rule it out.

·       A player wants a 12d6 Blast that Affects Desolid, or some other Advantage that makes the power more versatile, but not more damaging per se. I might allow that in certain cases, particularly if Desolid is going to be pretty rare in this game. But it’s a clear Stop Sign.

·       A player wants a 16d6 Blast. Hell no.

·       A player wants a 16d6 Blast that only affects certain defenses/targets that aren’t likely to come up very often, but based on their character concept they should be able to pwen them on the rare times it does happen. (Like Magneto having an RKA, only vs targets with metal grafted to their skeletons. Or having a stronger Dispel only vs. a certain rare type of creature that’s part of your backstory.) Stop Sign flashing, but open to discussion.

·       A player wants a 16d6 Blast they can only use once per session/episode, only when “dramatically appropriate,” and leaves them 0 END & powerless afterwards? Sounds cinematic as hell!  If it fits the character concept, and I trust the player not to abuse it? Sure.

·       Etc. 

[Hugh Neilson]

Here are a few examples that more closely describe how I use AP Caps. Say we’ve established a 60 AP Cap for this campaign:

·       A player wants a 65 AP Multipower. The answer’s going to be no. [Honestly, this example alone is 90% of what I want AP caps to do for me.]

·       A player wants a Multipower of 60-point powers, but to make their concept work they want to put ½ END as a common modifier, which means the MP itself is 75 AP. I’d be open for discussing that. My first question would be why they can’t just buy up their END or END Reserve, but if it fits the concept I might allow it.

 

So you would never allow a 65 AP multipower, but might allow what is, in effect, a 75 AP multipower. As well, you are not opposed to the effect if the player can wiggle it into the 60 AP limit somehow. How about, instead of more END, my character buys a Triggered Heal for END with reduced reuse and auto trigger reset, so every time he uses the MP, he heals half the END cost back?

 

To me, the effect is far more important than the AP cost.

 

·       A player has a 60-pt MP, but wants to have a Naked Advantage that only applies to that slot that makes it Sticky (or whatever) under certain circumstances. Depending on how common those circumstances are going to be, maybe.

So, again, we are back to "maybe the AP cap applies and maybe not".

 

·       Outside of Frameworks: wants a 13d6 Blast. Probably not.

What if he wants a 55 STR and a 2 1/2 d6 HKA with Range? Both fall under 60 AP. He should be doing 5d6 HKA with range. Both your example and mine violate a DC cap, and do not require an AP cap to be dealt with. Mine isn't caught by the AP cap.

 

·       A player wants 8d6 with 5x Autofire (60 AP), but they don’t have enough END to handle 5 shots, so they want to throw 1/2 END on it. Again, we’d have the “let’s look at other options” talk, but I wouldn’t rule it out.

·       A player wants a 12d6 Blast that Affects Desolid, or some other Advantage that makes the power more versatile, but not more damaging per se. I might allow that in certain cases, particularly if Desolid is going to be pretty rare in this game. But it’s a clear Stop Sign.

So, we are back to "maybe there is an AP cap and maybe there isn't"

 

·       A player wants a 16d6 Blast. Hell no.

Back to DC cap

 

·       A player wants a 16d6 Blast that only affects certain defenses/targets that aren’t likely to come up very often, but based on their character concept they should be able to pwen them on the rare times it does happen. (Like Magneto having an RKA, only vs targets with metal grafted to their skeletons. Or having a stronger Dispel only vs. a certain rare type of creature that’s part of your backstory.) Stop Sign flashing, but open to discussion.

·       A player wants a 16d6 Blast they can only use once per session/episode, only when “dramatically appropriate,” and leaves them 0 END & powerless afterwards? Sounds cinematic as hell!  If it fits the character concept, and I trust the player not to abuse it? Sure.

So, again, maybe there is a cap (on AP or DC) and maybe there isn't.

 

Sounds a lot like standards rather than caps.

 

Which, really, is how even hard caps tend to go. When you set the DC cap at 12 DC, how many characters limited to 10 or less DC are submitted?

[Lucius]

 

I think we have a case here of everyone agreeing in what they mean, but disagreeing in how to say it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Can we agree on a palindromedary tagline here?

[bigdamnhero]

So, again, we are back to "maybe the AP cap applies and maybe not".

No, we are back to "The cap applies, unless the GM grants an exception." Just like every other rule of Hero character creation. I sometimes use DC caps too and - guess what? - I'll occasionally allow exceptions to them if it fits the character concept and won't unbalance the game. Does that mean DC caps are meaningless? Several examples I listed above would exceed an equivalent DC cap; how is that any different?

 

To me, the effect is far more important than the AP cost.

[blink] Well...yeah. Obviously. AP caps are just a means to an end, one way to help maintain balance, not an end in themselves. Again: just like every other character creation rule.

 

So you would never allow a 65 AP multipower, but might allow what is, in effect, a 75 AP multipower.

Yes, precisely because I agree the effect is what's important here. A MP of 60 AP powers that all cost 1/2 END has a different game effect than an MP full of 65 AP powers.

 

 

As well, you are not opposed to the effect if the player can wiggle it into the 60 AP limit somehow.

Now you're just being argumentative and frankly insulting. Please point to where I or anyone said/implied AP Caps mean any power that doesn't exceed the cap is automatically approved without regard to effect, game balance, or character concept?

 

Seriously, I am mystified why so many Hero System gamers (of all people!) suddenly go full-on Lawful Neutral whenever the subject of AP caps come up: "Rules must be enforced 100% of the time or else there's no point having them!" That never comes up when someone suggests letting a gadgeteer build nightvision goggles with their VPP. Or altering the way Indirect interacts with Damage Shield based on the sfx of a specific Stretching power. Or applying the Impairing/Disabling penalties to a character at Negative BODY based on the type of injury. Or any of dozens of other recent discussions I could link to where someone says "RAW says no, but I'd allow it here based on reasons." People will debate whether or not this specific exception to that specific rule makes sense in that specific case, but no one ever says that allowing an exception invalidates the rule altogether.

 

Look, if it makes you feel better to call them "AP Guidelines" instead of Caps, go for it. How about if I said "Any build that exceeds the AP Cap is treated as an automatic Stop Sign"? Or if I said "I have a House Rule where I cap how many AP characters can put into a power, and exceeding that cap requires express GM approval; YMMV..."? Or if you still don't like AP caps and don't want to use them, fine - no one is saying you have to use them! But stop telling me I'm Hero-ing wrong because I sometimes allow exceptions to a rule you don't even use.

[Hugh Neilson]

No, we are back to "The cap applies, unless the GM grants an exception."

I'm back to Lucius' statement that this is a question of terminology. To me, a cap is a maximum. A guideline is not a maximum, it's a "exceeding this is an exception" guideline. The OP issue was that a cap of 60 AP means 61 AP or more is not permitted, not that it's an "ask the GM" moment.

 

Just like every other rule of Hero character creation. I sometimes use DC caps too and - guess what? - I'll occasionally allow exceptions to them if it fits the character concept and won't unbalance the game. Does that mean DC caps are meaningless? Several examples I listed above would exceed an equivalent DC cap; how is that any different?

Practically, it's not. It comes back to terminology, and what we think a "cap" versus a "guideline" is.

 

Yes, precisely because I agree the effect is what's important here. A MP of 60 AP powers that all cost 1/2 END has a different game effect than an MP full of 65 AP powers.

I don't find an MP full of 65 AP powers any more automatically unbalancing than an MP of 75 AP powers, simply because they all share "reduced END". Nor do I find that MP any more inherently unbalanced than a 60 AP multipower with a huge END reserve that comes to the same practical result in play.

 

Seriously, I am mystified why so many Hero System gamers (of all people!) suddenly go full-on Lawful Neutral whenever the subject of AP caps come up: "Rules must be enforced 100% of the time or else there's no point having them!" That never comes up when someone suggests letting a gadgeteer build nightvision goggles with their VPP. Or altering the way Indirect interacts with Damage Shield based on the sfx of a specific Stretching power. Or applying the Impairing/Disabling penalties to a character at Negative BODY based on the type of injury. Or any of dozens of other recent discussions I could link to where someone says "RAW says no, but I'd allow it here based on reasons." People will debate whether or not this specific exception to that specific rule makes sense in that specific case, but no one ever says that allowing an exception invalidates the rule altogether.

Clearly I pushed a button. Not my intention, so sorry to have offended.

 

All the examples above, to me at least, address guidelines. When the RAW says "unless the GM rules otherwise", this is a guideline rather than a rule, at least to me. Perhaps "default" is a better term. Examples of a rule, rather than a guideline? You don't get a PS12 recovery at -45 STUN. STR provides 1d6 damage per 5 STR. Powers cost END equal to 1/10 of their active points.

 

How about if I said "Any build that exceeds the AP Cap is treated as an automatic Stop Sign"? Or if I said "I have a House Rule where I cap how many AP characters can put into a power, and exceeding that cap requires express GM approval; YMMV..."?

Before that would make common ground, we'd need to agree on what a Stop Sign means. I find it difficult to consider "all characters require GM approval" to be a house rule, which means that all powers, regardless of AP, require GM approval. I can say up front that any attack with more than 12 DCs will not be approved. That's a cap. Or I can say that attacks with more than 12 DC's will be approved only in special cases (with greater or lesser definition of the special circumstances where that approval may be more, or less, likely) - that would be a guideline.

 

In providing these, I have likely also strongly suggested the characters will have 12 DC attacks - again, I rarely see a character with attacks well below the "DC Cap/Guideline". One aspect that seldom gets addressed is raw power versus versatility. You can have a single attack with a 12 DC maximum, or a Swiss Army Multipower of 12 DC attacks. Maybe more versatility should carry a cost in terms of raw power. Or maybe better attacks should mean lower SPD, less mobility or poorer defenses.

 

I find defining balance in abstract challenging - "zen GM approval" might be a closer description of my model.

 

And I'm not sure where you see yourself being accused of "badwrongfun", but wherever it is, sorry for pushing a button.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yes, precisely because I agree the effect is what's important here. A MP of 60 AP powers that all cost 1/2 END has a different game effect than an MP full of 65 AP powers.

 

 

Reduced END Cost wayy back in the day was a "modifier" not an advantage or limitation, and did not add to active cost.  I think that is a good rule and ought to be applied to some other instances as well at least with GM approval.  In fact, in some instances, limitations probably ought to reduce active cost because they are reducing the overall power of the, uh, power.

[Hyper-Man]

Reduced END Cost wayy back in the day was a "modifier" not an advantage or limitation, and did not add to active cost.  I think that is a good rule and ought to be applied to some other instances as well at least with GM approval.  In fact, in some instances, limitations probably ought to reduce active cost because they are reducing the overall power of the, uh, power.

 

Alas, while I no longer own a copy of 1st or 2nd edition Champions I do own a copy of 3rd Edition.  In it, Reduced Endurance is (unnecessarily imo) referred to as a Modifier separate from Advantages but the rules for its application still state that it increases Active Cost the same way as Advantages.

[Tasha]

Alas, while I no longer own a copy of 1st or 2nd edition Champions I do own a copy of 3rd Edition.  In it, Reduced Endurance is (unnecessarily imo) referred to as a Modifier separate from Advantages but the rules for its application still state that it increases Active Cost the same way as Advantages.

 

Reduced End added to the Active cost of powers in 2nd edition (and probably 1st ed).  Like many others we usually don't count 1/2 End on Attack powers as adding to my DC Cap. It does count toward my Active Points cap. (usually DC 12/ 75pts). I call it a cap as I like to give most players hard limits on what they can do. Players who understand balance and can be trusted I will allow to sometime exceed the caps on certain powers. Also if a player comes to me with a build that just can't fit under the cap, and I don't believe that it is unbalancing. I will allow it. Some players I will never allow to go beyond the cap. They create characters in the cap that are overpowered in the limits.

[Markdoc]

I think we are going around in circles here. To me, saying "I use hard caps, except sometimes, and not for these things" is pretty much saying "Actually, I don't use caps". To me a cap is just that - a limit you can't go over - and of course, the post that started this thread, had a problem, precisely because of a power - not obviously abusive - that would go slightly above the cap.

 

To me, the obvious answer is to pop the cap. Simply use guidelines instead, and this particular problem disappears. Guidelines are not a euphemism for cap, since as eloquently illustrated (by everyone on this thread) that we are prepared to accept powers that blow right through both AP and DC caps (30% over, in one case!) on the GM's assessment that the power isn't likely to be a problem, and I think we have all encountered powers that are below a certain AP or DC cap but still as abusive as heck.

 

To me, guidelines - in contrast to caps - are not about active points, but about playability and feel. A power can be over a cap and OK, or under a cap and still unsuitable. Guidelines encompass not only how much of a given power a player can purchase, but whether a power or a build is suitable for a given game at all. As an example, Nightmare Master, a shadowy detective who tracks down evildoers and punishes them with nightmares until they repent or turn themselves in, might be a viable PC in a 4 colour game, if he's built around stealth, skills, martial arts and some minor telepathy-related powers .... but probably not if he's built around Mindscan and a continuous mental blast that does BOD (“If you die in the Nightmare you die for REAL! Bwahahahaha!"), even if that's under the AP and DC caps.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Ninja-Bear]

I think we have a case here of everyone agreeing in what they mean, but disagreeing in how to say it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Can we agree on a palindromedary tagline here?

Im thinking that this is the same fun of explaining characteristica maxima.

[bigdamnhero]

Clearly I pushed a button. Not my intention, so sorry to have offended.

No offense taken, and my apologies if I came across as thin-skinned. I forgot my cardinal rule against posting while cranky. 

 

 

I don't find an MP full of 65 AP powers any more automatically unbalancing than an MP of 75 AP powers, simply because they all share "reduced END". 

Not automatically so, no; hence GM review. In that specific case, the player could've accomplished the same thing by buying extra END or a Reserve tied to just that MP. But that didn't quite fit with the rest of the character concept, and the (new-ish) player didn't want to have both an END and an END Reserve, so it seemed simpler and cleaner to let them tack it onto the MP itself. That's a far cry from a player who just *has* to do more damage than anyone else. 

 

All the examples above, to me at least, address guidelines. When the RAW says "unless the GM rules otherwise", this is a guideline rather than a rule, at least to me. 

Perhaps that's where we're coming at this from different directions, because to me, by that definition, the whole rulebook is just guidelines. I like the way Derek said it in Champions Complete: 

 

You won’t find many phrases in this book like “at the GM’s discretion” or “if the GM allows” or “with special permission from the GM” because all of those are assumed at all times. For example, the rules just state that Special Powers can’t be bought in a Power Framework. They don’t add “unless the GM gives special permission” or the like, because it’s assumed; the GM can always give special permission. [CC p6]

Steve phrased it differently in 6e1, but the idea's the same. The "no Special Powers in Frameworks" rule is a perennial example: it's a good rule, there for a valid reason, and ignoring it can cause problems especially if you're new. But if Gadget Guy wants to put nightvision goggles in his Gadget MP, I'll probably approve it. I see caps (AP or DC) the exact same way: this is the rule, but I reserve the right to make exceptions. (I have no problem with DC caps BTW, except that by definition they only work on powers that cause damage.) 

 

Sorry for getting worked up over what's essentially a semantics question. I'm just genuinely mystified why, when pretty much any other topic comes up, the discussion goes "Well RAW says X, but if you think an exception makes sense for your game, go for it." But when I say "I use caps, but I sometimes allow exceptions" I feel like I get jumped on and told I'm not really using caps. But if you hear "guidelines" when I say "caps" and vice-versa, then I think we're cool. 

[bigdamnhero]

To me, saying "I use hard caps, except sometimes, and not for these things" is pretty much saying "Actually, I don't use caps".

See, this is why I get frustrated, because whenever I say "caps" you immediately insert the word "hard" in there, and then argue against that position rather than what I'm actually saying. If you'd rather call those "soft caps" or "guidelines" or whatever, knock yourself out. But please stop putting words in my mouth. 

[Markdoc]

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. But almost everyone I know uses the word cap to mean hard cap. Indeed, this entire thread was started because of that assumption!

 

I understand that you don't use the word cap that way and that's cool. But you shouldn't get cranky when people assume you are using a word in the way that most people use it.

 

Edit: I'm genuinely not trying to be argumentative here, because this looks to me like a semantics issue. But you comment a couple of posts up that you are mystified that you always get jumped on, when this topic comes up. Could it just possibly be that it isn't that *everybody else* is offbase on this issue? That when you say "cap" meaning a soft cap or guidenline, that people in general take cap to mean a hard limit?

 

The only reason that this is worth any discusion at all is because of the issue that sparked this thread (and the many threads just like it on these boards) regarding powers that are not obviously abusive but which edge up over the cap (hard cap, if you prefer). The simplest solution is simply to ignore the cap, and it seems that as GMs we all do that (at least sometimes). But the fact that we keep getting this exact same question over and over suggests that there's a problem here.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Tech]

There's a couple of points to consider.

 

First, when we look at attacks, there is a tendency to look at the damage without considering defence. In the case of the double KB attack, the defence is KNB resistance (which is so rare in most games that we can probably safely ignore it) and the 2d6 that we roll to decrease KNB (or 1d6 if flying).

 

When people start making blanket remarks like this ("...so rare in most games..."), I'm always curious how they know this. For myself at least, the campaign I'm in has plenty of knockback resistance around.

[Hugh Neilson]

It's pretty clear "caps" vs "hard caps, soft caps, guideline caps" is a semantic issue. To me, "cap" is a fixed limit not to be violated, and "guideline" is a general limit which might see exceptions on occasion.

 

I am confused by one issue. I'm reprinting the history so no one has to go back through all the posts - maybe I missed something, in which case apologies, and point it out so I can edit.

 

A player wants a 65 AP Multipower. The answer’s going to be no. [Honestly, this example alone is 90% of what I want AP caps to do for me.]

  

I don't find an MP full of 65 AP powers any more automatically unbalancing than an MP of 75 AP powers, simply because they all share "reduced END". Nor do I find that MP any more inherently unbalanced than a 60 AP multipower with a huge END reserve that comes to the same practical result in play.

 

Not automatically so, no; hence GM review.

Maybe my comment was misunderstood - my read was that you are prepared to consider a 75 AP multipower provided part of that 75 AP is reduced END for every slot, but are not prepared to consider a 65 AP multipower. I do not find the 65 AP multipower any more "automatically unbalanced" than the 75 AP reduced END MP.

 

In fact, if I am prepared to consider exceptions to a 60 AP cap, it seems a reasonable expectation a MP might include more than one "exception" power at 61-65 AP, making the 65 AP MP permissible.

 

To exceptions to RAW, I find a lot of "rules waffling" in the books. I don't see a ton of difference between:

 

- this is the general rule, but the GM may wish to make exceptions favouring the character in some instances;

 

- this is the general rule, but the GM may wish to make exceptions that do not favour the character in some instances;

 

- a stop or yield sign indicating the GM should consider these builds more carefully, another form of exceptions that do not favour the character.

 

I do see a lot of difference between allowing a special power in a framework or disallowing Telepathy in a mystery-focused campaign (which I would call guidelines) and changing the price of Blast to 4 points per 1d6 (which I would call a rule).

[Markdoc]

When people start making blanket remarks like this ("...so rare in most games..."), I'm always curious how they know this. For myself at least, the campaign I'm in has plenty of knockback resistance around.

It's a fair question. The basis for it is that I've been playing Hero System for about 30 years, in multiple different campaigns, with multiple different GMs, and can't recall a single PC ever buying KBR, out of what must be 50-60 superheroic characters. As I noted, the only characters I recall with any form of KBR are those who had it in earlier editions as part of the package deal with growth and density increase. It's also pretty rare among the published characters. So I think it's fair to call it a rare defence: the game defines Flash defence and Power defence as rare, and I have seen them on characters a lot more than Knockback defence.

 

That doesn't invalidate your experience, of course. There's a lot of table to table variation, and some groups like particular powers or strategies. The first group I played Champions with had virtually no killing attacks among PCs (they were considered "unheroic") and had plenty of heroes with little or no rDEF. The third group I played with, virtually every PC had a killing attack and 15+ rDEF was practically de rigeur.

 

Cheers, Mark

[bigdamnhero]

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. But almost everyone I know uses the word cap to mean hard cap. Indeed, this entire thread was started because of that assumption!

The thread was started because someone assumed caps had to be hard caps. Multiple people said otherwise, suggesting various types of what you call soft caps. For that matter, 6e2 spends the better part of two pages on how to use caps/ceilings and when it's appropriate to allow exceptions or tailor them to your game & characters (p283-285). Yet you have repeatedly claimed no one does that. You even used fake-quotes to literally put words in our mouths. (At least when you claimed no one uses KBR, you threw in an "in my experience.")

 

That's not arguing in good faith. See y'all on other threads.