Use of the Hero System's Older Editions

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yet a Brick with a 18-20 DEX is slow and clumsy compared to other Supers, but Olympic level gymnast level when benchmarked against our "real world" standards. 

Yeah I'll typically build the slower or less agile sort with 14 or so dexterity: enough to move reasonably well but not particularly exceptional.  Unless the character is modeled on The Blob, they're going to be reasonably athletic despite being big and strong.

 

 

Also GM's understanding the numbers can do a better job setting campaign limits for combat.

 

This is important.  A GM is best served if they are comfortable enough with character design and combat that they have a gut level or instinctual feel for how characters match up.  It helps when setting up combat and building bad guys, it helps when assessing challenges, etc.

[zslane]

As for the Myth of Points Bloat, there were NO character generation guidelines in the first two editions of Champions.

I guess it depends on what you consider to be "guidelines".

 

You're right that there was no chart in the earlier editions. However, every edition explicitly stated that characters started with 100 points to spend, plus Disadvantage points. In 1E, you only had the example characters to go by, and except for Mechanon and Pulsar, all characters were built on 225 or fewer points. That established a sort of de facto "guideline" for players to go by. In 2E, page 71 under the section "Notes on Playing" provided concrete guidelines. In 3E, the first paragraph of page 51 says, "In most campaigns, heroes will probably take 100 to 150 points in Disadvantages."

 

I think it is fair to say that anyone who played the first three editions of Champions understood 200-250 points to be the intended "starting character" point standard. As someone who played a lot of Champions 2E back in the day, I can attest that 200-250 points was clearly understood as "the guideline".

 

Starting point inflation is anything but a myth to those of us who have been with the game for over 30 years.

[Tasha]

I guess it depends on what you consider to be "guidelines".

Starting point inflation is anything but a myth to those of us who have been with the game for over 30 years.

 

So you said that 250pts were established as early as 2nd edition as a guideline (I'll have to look, I don't remember ever seeing that. I was young an impatient when we were playing 2e so I probably missed that). 250pt characters were the norm until 5e, when Steve did increase the point limits to allow for the creation of more rounded characters. That's a pretty long run at one power level. Far from the rampant point inflation that people go on and on about. 6e is based on more points 400, but with characteristics being more expensive, I would say that a 400pt 6e character is about equal a 300pt character from an earlier edition.

 

Oh, and I have been playing for as long as you have.

[zslane]

Right. Well going from 250 to 350 to 400+ is an upward trajectory (from 4E to 6E) that I regard as starting point inflation. Inflation that you didn't really have through the first four editions.

 

The reasons for it are varied, but the result is the same (as is the design source behind it). You can't reasonably compare a 400 point character from 2E to a 400 point character from 6E. However, there isn't that much difference between a 250 point 2E character and a 250 point 4E character. In fact, the biggest and most meaningful difference will likely be in END costs, but not much else.

[Vondy]

Most characters in editions 1-3 were 100 base points and weighed in +/- 225 points. DCs and defenses also tended to be lower. This wasn't explicitly spelled out, but it was implicit in the materials you were presented with. In 4th edition, 250 (total) points became an explicit starting baseline for "average" campaigns and the sample characters were built to it. While many villains were more expensive, they still used the same base points with assorted "villain bonuses" to round out the math. Those guidelines did creep upward in 5th and 6th editions, as did the DC/DEF guidelines.

[Tasha]

Right. Well going from 250 to 350 to 400+ is an upward trajectory (from 4E to 6E) that I regard as starting point inflation. Inflation that you didn't really have through the first four editions.

 

The reasons for it are varied, but the result is the same (as is the design source behind it). You can't reasonably compare a 400 point character from 2E to a 400 point character from 6E. However, there isn't that much difference between a 250 point 2E character and a 250 point 4E character. In fact, the biggest and most meaningful difference will likely be in END costs, but not much else.

 

A 400pt character in 1-5th edition is a far more powerful character than the same character in 6e. This is due to the way that secondary Characteristics are now totally paid for with points with no boosts for high Primaries (ie figured characteristics are now paid for characteristics). So NO I wasn't comparing a 400pt 2e character to a 400pt 6e character. I was comparing a 300pt 4e-5er character to a 400pt 6e character with the differing costs they are equivalent characters in power.

 

I believe that a 250pt 1e-3e character is about equal to a 300pt 4e-5er character. This is approximate depending on how much the Player took advantage of the flawed Elemental Control, Endurance Reserve and other things that were highly exploitable in 3e and earlier.

 

So looking back at the 2nd ed rule book(I don't own 1st edition). They recommend to start with lower points for a beginning GM 200-225 pts total. mentioning that a 275pt game has a far different feel. Example character Crusader is built on 200pts.

 

in 3rd edition the same paragraph is there but this time recommending a beginning Gm start at between 200-250pts. Also mentioning that a 275pt game feels far different from a lower powered game. The Example Character Crusader is built on 243pts. The characters at the back of the book (mostly villains) were built with 250-275pts DC10 with 20-30def (most with def ~27 or so)

 

4th Edition the source book says "Nowadays, the average comic book character is built on 300 or more points. -Champions source book pgS7  Then Pg s20 gives us the first version of the table with different levels of PC with Base and Disad points listed. There it lists standard Supers as 100base + 150 disads. It also for the first time explicitly recommends Damage Class, Defenses, and Skill roll levels. both as average and maximum. The very next page s22 goes into how the numbers work and how to set powerlevels for your game (ie DC, Defense etc). This is the page that lists the Averages based on an informal survey they ran. Average DC 11, Def 25, Dex 23, Spd 5.5  I believe those numbers influenced the powerlevel of pretty much everything produced for 4e Champions. The Champions were all built with DC10 average, Def 20-25 average Dex ranging from 18-28, Spd 5 for all but Seeker (6)

 

Like I said earlier, the group that I started to play Champions went from Free for all powerlevels. In the beginning the adventures were all pickup games on an epic scale. Then as one GM asserted his regular campaign we started playing with 250pt Characters. All of the other groups I played with at the time were also using similar power levels. Some were even playing with much more powerful characters. The amount of cheesy Limitations and disadvantages was staggering. My main group played with dc 10-12ish. This was in the days of 2nd edition, though with the differences between 1st and 2nd being so minor we mixed editions freely. By the time 4e came out our characters had 120exp or more so we were already firmly in DC 12 and never looked back. 

[zslane]

A 400pt character in 1-5th edition is a far more powerful character than the same character in 6e.

We seem to agree on the facts, but not the implications?

[Tasha]

We seem to agree on the facts, but not the implications?

That 6e characters take more points to build than the equivalent character in the earlier editions? That's old news. It also has little to do with the idea that there has been point inflation. Which most people seem to equate to power inflation.

 

6e characters cost more to build than characters from earlier editions. Because you have to pay for everything. Which makes for a more balanced game for all character types. It also tends to discourage things like the Dex/Spd wars from previous editions because Dex isn't the super deal that came with 5 different functions/free stats (OCV, DCV, SPD, Dex Roll, and goes first).

 

AKA a 250point 6e character is way less powerful than a 5e and earlier character of the same amount of points.

 

So perhaps I am missing what you mean about the "Implications" of 6e characters costing more points to build. Heck 4e characters cost more to build than 3e and earlier characters. It happens as the rules become more defined and loopholes that are causing imbalances are closed.

[Hugh Neilson]

Tasha, I agree with your general overview - points have increased, in large part, as the game became more granular. However, with that granularilty, the price of building the "same character" has also grown, so power inflation has not kept the same pace.

 

I think there has been power inflation. I'd call 1e/2e the same game. I think it was looking for 8 - 10 DC starting Supers - the Geodesics in an early Enemies book was a good example. Thesample characters seemed more powerful, but to some extent I think because they were intended as "solo villains" against a team of a few heroes.

 

But no one said so. And I think a lot of gamers looked at the sample characters (other than Mechanon) as "here is what a starting PC might look like". So we got a bit of inflation there. By 5e, things had ramped up a bit to a 12 DC norm, so there was some inflation there.

 

My "stat inflation" term is probably imprecise. It's been there from the start and never changed much. DEX of 18 - 30 was my recollection of the sample rules characters. We soon started seeing 35 DEX for top end published characters. SPD started out 4-5 with an occasional 6, became topped out at 7. I'd say within the 1e/2e run, we reached "slow, poky characters has 18-20 DEX and 4 SPD; the norm is 23 - 26 DEX, 5 SPD, any self-respecting MA/Weapon Master will have 29-30 DEX and 6 SPD and the good ones will have 33 - 35 DEX and 7 SPD"

 

So, slow-poky Super = top of human range DEX and SPD, and it went up from there. To me, DEX and SPD are inflated, and have been since 1e (which is not much different from 2e - you didn't miss much). Changing that now would mean a massive mindset change for existing Hero gamers, and a loss of backward compatibility with published supplements, both of which are almost certainly too big a drawback for any benefit.

 

If 6e had suggested that, with the decoupling of DEX (and DEX no longer being the bargain stat)that we move from a Supers norm of 23 DEX, 5 SPD, 8 CV's (cost 39 + 17 = 56 points) to a new norm of 11 DEX (2 point) + 5 CVs (20 points) + 4 SPD (20 points), starting Supers could have cost 14 points less for DEX, CV and SPD. 13 DEX and 6 CV's would have been break even. Keeping the old norm means they needed 106 points, a 50 point increase. Of course, that is before accounting for CON and STR, but DEX was the real bargain.

[Ninja-Bear]

Only if you incent building that way. Example: Professor Xavier certainly is NOT DEX 23 -- and I doubt he's SPD5. He's probably closer to DEX 8 (tops), and SPD 3 (perhaps 4). What he lacks in the DEX/SPD race he more than makes up for with other capabilities.

 

My point is this -- the DEX/SPD race need only be played if one chooses to do so. People insisting on certain averages for supers drives me nuts because of this -- since the comic books show us plenty of superheroic examples that are NOT beyond human averages, at all, when it comes to DEX and SPD. Mentalists, bricks, spellcasters who are otherwise normal humans, and the like are all good examples.

 

 

 

Why? Some character concepts may entail being KO'd in one punch. (Example: Professor X, again.) So the point of that exercise was what, exactly? To work out the numbers for how to build a character for a certain damage level regardless of character concept ... in a game where character concept should drive the build and not the other way around???

Except that this can be a disconnect to a game being played. I've made characters based on bench marks and its not always fun to play. I now build characters that are balanced between concept and playability.

[Surrealone]

Except that this can be a disconnect to a game being played. I've made characters based on bench marks and its not always fun to play. I now build characters that are balanced between concept and playability.

 

It's only a disconnect if a GM allows it to be one -- and basically any/all possibility of a disconnect on such an issue resides with the GM since the GM is responsible for providing final approval on characters.

​

As an example:

If someone builds around 'average human' characteristics of 8 but the GM runs his/her average humans with 14's ... then the cause of the disconnect was not the player, it was the GM -- specifically the GM's failure to communicate that fact to the player so that the player could build for the GM's notion of 'average' rather than the RAW notion of average.  This is something that should be caught when going over the character; and if it's missed because the GM didn't go over the character with the player, well, that fault is with the GM, too.

 

With a good GM, I've never had a problem building for concept and having it be playable.  Good GM's make sure the kinds of disconnects you're underscoring ... don't happen.  And bad GM's, well, why would you play in one's game???

[Tasha]

Tasha, I agree with your general overview - points have increased, in large part, as the game became more granular. However, with that granularilty, the price of building the "same character" has also grown, so power inflation has not kept the same pace.

 

I think there has been power inflation. I'd call 1e/2e the same game. I think it was looking for 8 - 10 DC starting Supers - the Geodesics in an early Enemies book was a good example. Thesample characters seemed more powerful, but to some extent I think because they were intended as "solo villains" against a team of a few heroes.

 

But no one said so. And I think a lot of gamers looked at the sample characters (other than Mechanon) as "here is what a starting PC might look like". So we got a bit of inflation there. By 5e, things had ramped up a bit to a 12 DC norm, so there was some inflation there.

 

My "stat inflation" term is probably imprecise. It's been there from the start and never changed much. DEX of 18 - 30 was my recollection of the sample rules characters. We soon started seeing 35 DEX for top end published characters. SPD started out 4-5 with an occasional 6, became topped out at 7. I'd say within the 1e/2e run, we reached "slow, poky characters has 18-20 DEX and 4 SPD; the norm is 23 - 26 DEX, 5 SPD, any self-respecting MA/Weapon Master will have 29-30 DEX and 6 SPD and the good ones will have 33 - 35 DEX and 7 SPD"

 

So, slow-poky Super = top of human range DEX and SPD, and it went up from there. To me, DEX and SPD are inflated, and have been since 1e (which is not much different from 2e - you didn't miss much). Changing that now would mean a massive mindset change for existing Hero gamers, and a loss of backward compatibility with published supplements, both of which are almost certainly too big a drawback for any benefit.

 

If 6e had suggested that, with the decoupling of DEX (and DEX no longer being the bargain stat)that we move from a Supers norm of 23 DEX, 5 SPD, 8 CV's (cost 39 + 17 = 56 points) to a new norm of 11 DEX (2 point) + 5 CVs (20 points) + 4 SPD (20 points), starting Supers could have cost 14 points less for DEX, CV and SPD. 13 DEX and 6 CV's would have been break even. Keeping the old norm means they needed 106 points, a 50 point increase. Of course, that is before accounting for CON and STR, but DEX was the real bargain.

That was NEVER going to happen. For one there's the weight of years of Dex 23 SPD 5 being Superheroic Average. Also by moving the Average Dex down to 11 the Average Super is only slightly quicker to react than a Normal person. I know that you seem to like Supers that are in Heroic Dex and SPD. I am not really sure that the average Champions player does.

 

The Dex/SPD inflation upper range inflation started with Enemies III which had characters like Rainbow Archer which had 45dex and spd 7+ IIRC. 

[Tasha]

It's only a disconnect if a GM allows it to be one -- and basically any/all possibility of a disconnect on such an issue resides with the GM since the GM is responsible for providing final approval on characters.

​

As an example:

If someone builds around 'average human' characteristics of 8 but the GM runs his/her average humans with 14's ... then the cause of the disconnect was not the player, it was the GM -- specifically the GM's failure to communicate that fact to the player so that the player could build for the GM's notion of 'average' rather than the RAW notion of average.  This is something that should be caught when going over the character; and if it's missed because the GM didn't go over the character with the player, well, that fault is with the GM, too.

 

With a good GM, I've never had a problem building for concept and having it be playable.  Good GM's make sure the kinds of disconnects you're underscoring ... don't happen.  And bad GM's, well, why would you play in one's game???

 

So IF the GM says that Average Dex is 23 and average SPD is 5. Then you make a character that is dex 11 spd 2 that of course doesn't perform very well in combat. That's somehow the GM's fault? Or is it really your fault for making a PC that was so behind the curve?

[IndianaJoe3]

I think there has been power inflation. I'd call 1e/2e the same game. I think it was looking for 8 - 10 DC starting Supers - the Geodesics in an early Enemies book was a good example. The sample characters seemed more powerful, but to some extent I think because they were intended as "solo villains" against a team of a few heroes.

 

But no one said so. And I think a lot of gamers looked at the sample characters (other than Mechanon) as "here is what a starting PC might look like". So we got a bit of inflation there. By 5e, things had ramped up a bit to a 12 DC norm, so there was some inflation there.

 

I agree that there has been some power level creep, but it's conceptual. As late as 4e (IIRC), the default PC was a, "novice" superhero. They were supposed to be simple, straightforward builds that didn't have a lot of flashy power tricks because they were still learning how to use their powers. (Those powers would be bought later with XP.) In 5e, the default became an, "experienced" superhero. They had more powers, at a slightly higher level because they had been fighting crime for a while. (The higher power level also made it easier to use popular characters from the comics as starting PCs.)

[Ninja-Bear]

Hugh if iirc in the original Enemies books, the villains with Dex above 30 were "normal" heroes like Frisbee. Lol.

[Tholomyes]

If someone builds around 'average human' characteristics of 8 but the GM runs his/her average humans with 14's ... then the cause of the disconnect was not the player, it was the GM -- specifically the GM's failure to communicate that fact to the player so that the player could build for the GM's notion of 'average' rather than the RAW notion of average.  This is something that should be caught when going over the character; and if it's missed because the GM didn't go over the character with the player, well, that fault is with the GM, too.

 

I don't think the primary characteristics, that your example is mostly addressing, are the issues here. Besides DEX inflation, where your point is valid, the other characteristics (besides CON, which I'll get into) function fairly well from the range of normal human to superhuman, depending on other factors that aren't really dependent on GM-Player expectation mismatch.

 

It's the other characteristics where the issues come up. A character who gets KO'd in one punch, for example, is likely not going to be the result of player-GM disconnect, but rather the result of someone sticking to "normal human" benchmarks on CON or STUN, rather than conceding to playability. Character concept or not, there are some aspects perfectly acceptable in other types of fiction, where there's only one author controlling things, that are not going to work when you have multiple authors and a system of resolution mechanics. Call the fact that they're a normal human, but who has nigh-superhuman SPD, or CON or STUN or CVs, an aspect of "plot armor" that is a concession to playability*. Or accept that part of playing a supers game, and the comics Genre that it entails means that your stats will be scaled in the range of the threats you expect. When in the Justice League, Batman can go toe to toe with Justice League level threats. When in his solo books, his threats are much smaller scale, and so his combat stats are similarly not at the same JL-scale.

 

*And, as an aside, these concepts tend to actually be fairly few and far between in comics, and when they are there, their threats are usually scaled to match, or they have a way to counteract this [a good example being Doug Ramsey in New Mutants; as much as was made out of him being useless in combat, there weren't that many times where combat was important until the age of 80s X-crossovers came into full swing, and when it was, he'd merge with Warlock, to form a battlesuit. I'd even say in HERO system, it's likely one player would be playing both Doug and Warlock, with one as a Follower, and merging during combat, not to drag out his own phases too long]. Even characters who have "glass cannon" powersets, like Cyclops, tend to be "peak human" physically, justifying how they don't simply get KOed in one punch. Other Characters, like the Charles Xavier example, tend not to be PCs.

 

That was NEVER going to happen. For one there's the weight of years of Dex 23 SPD 5 being Superheroic Average. Also by moving the Average Dex down to 11 the Average Super is only slightly quicker to react than a Normal person. I know that you seem to like Supers that are in Heroic Dex and SPD. I am not really sure that the average Champions player does.

 

I'd disagree on that. As far as the "weight of years", I think the removal of figured characteristics would have been the perfect opportunity to drop DEX to a reasonable level, and it could have been easily done by just making a few conscious choices when writing up things for the book. When talking about the differences between 5e and 6e, they could have added a line in the characteristics paragraph about how characters tend to have lower primary characteristics, with the removal of figured chars, which would clue in players to notice that example DEXes tend to be lower. In the sample characters in 6e1 18 and 6e2 220-227, subtract 10 from their DEX, unless there's a reason for them to have it higher. Eagle-Eye is a skilled martial artist, with lots of agility skills, so maybe an 18-23 is reasonable there, for example, but otherwise, showing that DEX isn't going to be inherently higher than the other Characteristics, by having Heroes where high DEX isn't their Schtick just have moderately above average DEX. Or, in the section in 6e2, describing character archetypes for supers games, the same way it talks about a Brick having high STR, it could talk about a Martial artist, with something like "Most martial artists tend to have high DEX, often as high as 20 or more, [etc]", and the fact that 20 is considered by the game to be "high" dex, should clue players in on the differences in expectations.

 

As for only being "moderately quicker to react than the average person" that difference in SPD is still going to be a pretty big factor. Maybe a skilled agent gets a shot off before the heroes can react, but if the heroes have 1.25-1.5x or so  more phases than that agent, then they'll still feel more superheroic than that agent. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Here's the thing: a character in 4th edition at 250 points in a literal translation power for power to 6th edition ends up only 50-75 points more expensive, not 150 points more.  I know this, because I've done exactly that on this board with hundreds of 2-4th edition characters.  There's a real increase in power over the editions beyond increased cost.  Nothing in 5th edition made characters have to cost more than 4th, people just wanted more points.  So the base points for the character went up.

 

There's nothing compelling people to use the suggested starting points, of course.  I don't.  But its false that the point total or power total hasn't gone up over editions.

[Surrealone]

I don't think the primary characteristics, that your example is mostly addressing, are the issues here. Besides DEX inflation, where your point is valid, the other characteristics (besides CON, which I'll get into) function fairly well from the range of normal human to superhuman, depending on other factors that aren't really dependent on GM-Player expectation mismatch.

 

It's the other characteristics where the issues come up. A character who gets KO'd in one punch, for example, is likely not going to be the result of player-GM disconnect, but rather the result of someone sticking to "normal human" benchmarks on CON or STUN, rather than conceding to playability.

 

<SNIP1>

 

Even characters who have "glass cannon" powersets, like Cyclops, tend to be "peak human" physically, justifying how they don't simply get KOed in one punch. Other Characters, like the Charles Xavier example, tend not to be PCs.

In the first section before <SNIP1>, above -- you seem to suggest that one cannot build around normal human characteristics and still have playability.  One can certainly build a glass cannon type who is either a force to be reckoned with ... or is in deep, deep trouble after suffering a hit.  When done, the character should absolutely expect to be hit, get hurt, and be out of game play for a while ... and the player of such a character must employ cautious, strategic/tactical play to help avoid it.

 

Some glass cannons off the top of my head: Professor X, Cyclops, Storm, Prism, The Human Torch, Dr. Octopus. Caught off guard, any one one of them can be cold-cocked and rendered unconscious fairly easily.  If the Hulk were to hit any one of them at full force, they'd all be in the ICU -- if not flat-out dead.  Suggesting that players don't build any of these types of characters ... and that they 'tend not to be PCs' ... seems pretty absurd to me, as I've seen some rendition of each one of them played as PC's across my years of gaming.

[ghost-angel]

It's true that the suggested point increase from 4th to 5th Editions was mostly just to provide more points, but not more power. The suggested power levels really didn't go up, but the suggested spread of points across a character's abilities did change, and character's started to pay for more abilities... the point increase from 5th to 6th was specifically to cover the removal of Figured Characteristics, however.

[Tholomyes]

In the first section before <SNIP1>, above -- you seem to suggest that one cannot build around normal human characteristics and still have playability.  One can certainly build a glass cannon type who is either a force to be reckoned with ... or is in deep, deep trouble after suffering a hit.  When done, the character should absolutely expect to be hit, get hurt, and be out of game play for a while ... and the player of such a character must employ cautious, strategic/tactical play to help avoid it.

 

Some glass cannons off the top of my head: Professor X, Cyclops, Storm, Prism, The Human Torch, Dr. Octopus. Caught off guard, any one one of them can be cold-cocked and rendered unconscious fairly easily.  If the Hulk were to hit any one of them at full force, they'd all be in the ICU -- if not flat-out dead.  Suggesting that players don't build any of these types of characters ... and that they 'tend not to be PCs' ... seems pretty absurd to me, as I've seen some rendition of each one of them played as PC's across my years of gaming.

 

I'm not saying you can't have those characters. I'm saying (like Ninja-Bear was) that they're probably not going to be all that fun. Moreover, I'd rank your metrics pretty poor on judging glass cannons, I'll reiterate (since you so conveniently <Snip>ed the parts where I talked about the differences between comics, with a sole author, and RPGs with multiple authors and the whole fact that very few comics character are actually baseline normals), Characters are often described as glass cannons, and even in universe may make note of this, but if you pay attention in panels, this isn't really the case. You mention the Hulk, which is a bit of a cop-out, since he's not really a 400-point DC12 character the same way that other characters are (and even when he is in that context, his strength is often inflated due to extra lifting strength plus some informed ability). But instead of the Hulk, let's take Juggernaut as an example. He's more akin to the type of villains a typical Champions hero would be fighting. However plenty of your "glass cannons" have taken a hit from him, and continued fighting. Usually, they're heavily bruised and beaten in the process, and would be toast in a 1-on-1 fight, but they're not out of the fight or even injured more long-term than the end of the issue just from taking a hit from him. 

 

As for your list itself: Professor X is not a PC. Cyclops would have reasonably high CON, STUN, CVs and probably Combat Luck (note the number of times he's taken lumps from heavy hitters and not been taken out of the fight). Storm would absolutely​ have high CON, STUN, CVs, Combat Luck, and would be one of the few characters that I wouldn't at all feel wrong about giving incredibly high DEX, Prism is also not a PC (and if your character concept involves being so brittle that you die from blunt impact, then you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to prove your point). The Human Torch would have "plot armor" variety of combat stats, and probably the same with Doc Ock (neither actually gets knocked out easily, even when tangling with decently strong foes, despite the fact that they're not much more physically fit compared to baseline human).

 

The thing I try to note is in actual fights, in the comics, can characters like them take a hit and keep going? Most of the time this is yes. The times that it's not it's usually a character who's more of an NPC or Plot Device than what would be a PC (The other times it's usually silver age Hal Jordan, and I'd certainly recommend never using silver age Hal Jordan as your character concept)

[Surrealone]

The thing I try to note is in actual fights, in the comics, can characters like them take a hit and keep going? Most of the time this is yes. The times that it's not it's usually a character who's more of an NPC or Plot Device than what would be a PC (The other times it's usually silver age Hal Jordan, and I'd certainly recommend never using silver age Hal Jordan as your character concept)

Note that I used the Hulk as an extreme example ... and intentionally so.  That said, a rendition of him can be built on 250 pts to good effect, so I don't know why you discounted him.  And I wasn't giving 'metrics' as you called them, I was giving examples of characters that are basically normals with powers .... as opposed to supers that can be thrown from and through buildings without harm.  That said, I read all of your post, but I'm going to fixate on this quoted part with my response that follows.  (I spelled this out so that you didn't erroneously assume I was ignoring parts of your post, again.)

 

By assigning 'plot armor' or saying a character is 'more of an NPC' ... what you're basically saying is that GM fiat should force a player to build a character a certain way (i.e. "you must have 'plot armor'") ... or not permit a specific build (i.e. "sorry, you're not allowed to build/play a Professor X type; he's more of a NPC").  I don't know how that sounds to other players, but to me that sounds like a lazy/poor GM's attitude -- i.e. like the attitude of a GM who just wants to throw what s/he throws at the players without regard for diversity  and resiliency/fragility of the various players' builds or capabilities.

 

It seems like it really says:

"Build this way or avoid builds that require the GM, to put thought into how s/he attacks and/or challenges the players ... so that s/he can just thoughtlessly throw things at the group without worry of breaking players' feelers."  If that's what's being advocated ... I personally think it's lame.  I figure if a player builds a glass cannon and gets hammered so deeply into unconsciousness that his/her character is unconscious for a month while recovering in the ICU, that's PART of playing a glass cannon.  The player KNEW it (assuming s/he was dealing with a good GM who warned him/her prior to approving the character).  It happens ... and should happen from time to time.  The candle that burns twice as bright should burn half as long, after all.

 

Heck, such occurrences may well give a different player whose character has healing powers a good reason to use them.  But it seems that people in this thread would rather advocate a homogenous approach to building characters (so that everyone's characters can soak some amount of hits) rather than encouraging a heterogeneous and diverse mix where some can soak damage and some can't.  I don't know about others reading, here, but I find it MUCH more interesting to see a normal with powers get cold-cocked, fall unconscious, and then be healed while being defended .... than for that same character to be blandly built to soak the hits and throw some back.  It gives the tank/brick something to defend.  It gives the healer something to heal.  It gives the unconscious player's character something to consider before the next fight (i.e. a lesson learned).

 

Teetering on the edge is fun.  Tactical scenarios (e.g. defense of comrades and the fallen) are fun!  Being bailed out by your buds is fun (in moderation, of course)!  Bailing out your buds is fun!  Standing there and soaking damage ad nauseum while spending a good portion of your points basically being built just like the player that's next to you in terms of capability (i.e. to be able to soak hits) .... isn't ... and is actually damn bland and boring ... unless you're a brick or scrapper whose specialty is soaking hits, of course.

[Tholomyes]

The point I'm trying to make is that if you pay attention to comics, Glass cannons don't really exist among main characters. It's not that Professor X is a telepath or whatever that makes him not a PC, but his role in the story (and consequently what the authors can do with his character). He's a contact (probably bought at 8-, since he's always faking his death or in space). Take Psylocke (pre body-swap with Kwannon): she's a telepath, with no real defensive abilities, and no telekinesis. But she's a PC. Before even officially becoming an X-man (so no danger room training or anything like that; while she had been Captain Britain for a bit, she wasn't for very long, and she no longer had those powers) she managed to take hits from Sabretooth, noted as probably the most dangerous Marauder during the mutant massacre, before any of the X-men got there to help her and after she and the X-men (well, mostly Wolverine) beat him, she ended up not too much worse for wear. Scratched, Bruised and probably more than a bit tired, but otherwise fine. This is not because she's superhumanly durable or anything, but because she and Professor X have different roles in the story, and her role, like those of PCs, necessitates that type of survivability.

 

In fact, I'd almost argue that in comics, the same type of concessions to playability are in effect, replacing playability with "the ability to keep a character active in a fight"

[Christopher R Taylor]

It's true that the suggested point increase from 4th to 5th Editions was mostly just to provide more points, but not more power. The suggested power levels really didn't go up, but the suggested spread of points across a character's abilities did change, and character's started to pay for more abilities

 

Well I guess it depends on definition again.  The 12 damage class/60 active point level didn't change, but in Hero, more points = more power.  If you get 50 more points for stuff, that's 50 points more powerful than the guy who didn't spend that.

 

Moving to 6th required more points to pay for characteristics, but not as much more as 400 points gives.

[Ninja-Bear]

Surrealone Glass canons are definately something that a Gm should give a player a heads up about. Not forbid mind you. The reason is to make sure that everyone has the same expectation of what can happen with this type of character. There is nothing wrong with playing one if you know how a glass canon works. But again I've built characters that were within the "norm" based on character descriptions but in play were not remarkable at all.

[Surrealone]

The point I'm trying to make is that if you pay attention to comics, Glass cannons don't really exist among main characters. It's not that Professor X is a telepath or whatever that makes him not a PC, but his role in the story (and consequently what the authors can do with his character). He's a contact (probably bought at 8-, since he's always faking his death or in space). Take Psylocke (pre body-swap with Kwannon): she's a telepath, with no real defensive abilities, and no telekinesis. But she's a PC. Before even officially becoming an X-man (so no danger room training or anything like that; while she had been Captain Britain for a bit, she wasn't for very long, and she no longer had those powers) she managed to take hits from Sabretooth, noted as probably the most dangerous Marauder during the mutant massacre, before any of the X-men got there to help her and after she and the X-men (well, mostly Wolverine) beat him, she ended up not too much worse for wear. Scratched, Bruised and probably more than a bit tired, but otherwise fine. This is not because she's superhumanly durable or anything, but because she and Professor X have different roles in the story, and her role, like those of PCs, necessitates that type of survivability.

 

In fact, I'd almost argue that in comics, the same type of concessions to playability are in effect, replacing playability with "the ability to keep a character active in a fight"

Apparently you feel that a comic character has to be the main character/focal point (or one of several) of a comic for it to be a 'PC'?  I ask this because you seem to have some divine knowledge about which characters are and aren't PC's within the comics...

 

I, on the other hand, feel that any character portrayed in the comics is fair game for being a PC... even support characters.  This probably drives our philosophical differences ... and also drives why I see little point in requiring a bland, homogenized approach to player builds for pure GM convenience.

 

 

Surrealone Glass canons are definately something that a Gm should give a player a heads up about. Not forbid mind you. The reason is to make sure that everyone has the same expectation of what can happen with this type of character. There is nothing wrong with playing one if you know how a glass canon works. But again I've built characters that were within the "norm" based on character descriptions but in play were not remarkable at all.

Aye -- we're on the same page, here.