Multipowers

[Hugh Neilson]

14 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Duke what I remeber of that game with Shotgun, the Enemies weren’t necessarily point effiecent, but I was totally inefficient in the sense that I didn’t even pay the tax (as some have coined it) to be  in the league so to speak. I’ve often remarked that point totals are only so useful in assessing how powerful/useful a character is.  The trick is in my mind is not abandoning campaign guidelines. (Hats off to KS since he is able to make it work) but to use them as guidance not a straight jacket. 

 

Something as simple as building a "not very tough" concept who is stunned by an average attack (and lacks compensations like high DCV so he is  not often hit) or ignoring PRE because he's pretty nondescript, then discovering that most combats in this game/group start with a 6d6+ PRE attack, can crater a character pretty easily.

 

The build needs to meet group standards to be effective, and stay within them to not be inordinately effective.

 

Different groups also have different tolerances for variance in power level.  I see comments on line about "PC X has ability Y and the other players are griping that he is 'too effective".  In my group, the players would more likely look at Player X and note "ability Y is really effective - what can the rest of us do to help Player X do that more often, and synergise with it?", as they tend to play a team game, not a bunch of little solo games.  Simple example - first 3e d20 game, it took a bit to realize that new Sneak Attack was pretty effective.  At about L5 or L6, the fighter realized his job was to move around, suck up some hits if needed, but get the Rogue into flanking position.  Those "character tax" combat expertise, mobility and spring attack feats on the way to Whirlwind Attack were actually way more useful than expected...

[Ninja-Bear]

I just want to point out that Build to Concept can be a very nebulous concept.

[Doc Democracy]

You know, when I started this I had two questions, one about efficiency and one about what role the MP plays in the toolbox.

 

There has been a pretty thorough discussion of effectiveness and even a meta-discussion on the desirability of effectiveness.  

 

I think that it is safe to say that MPs provide value and that many characters will take them to broaden out their power base.  

 

What I have not seen is any real discussion of what a MP is actually for in terms of the toolbox.  If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  Are we in possession of a hammer?  Does every requirement to broaden a character mean we immediately reach for a MP?

 

Is this broadening out the reason we would keep it, or is it only the cheapest tool to do that?  Does it provide something that we would not be able to do otherwise??  

[Doc Democracy]

I think the whole value of the multipower in the toolbox might be more aptly aimed at Duke.

 

You are saying that you are building to concept rather than for value, so any multipower you use must be because it is hitting a concept value rather than a point value, no?  So when do you reach for a multipower?  

 

Doc

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The few sample characters in the back of Champions 1e set the tone.  DEX was used for CV.  Pretty high DEX out of the gate, with 23 looking like a typical Super.

 

Well sleep isn't going to happen....

 

To explain: not often, but occasionally, I suffer from bouts of insomnia.  It's usually when I try to cram too much into my day by creeping back the time I go to bed to get in more work.  Do it often enough, and bam-- can't go to sleep.  For those of you who do _not_ suffer from insomnia, I would like to note that this is _not_ the same as "being awake."  It's more like "zombie-with-a-pulse," and neither the brain nor the body works particularly well until you get can back into a rhythm.

 

For those who are not familiar with older works, this a list of all the DEX scores from the first edition book to which Hugh is referring (without names or anything else, because I don't know the finite limits of "Fair use," so why take a chance?) :

 

25  [notation next to it:   "Very high DEX, gives a good CV"]

18  [notation next to it: "a medium DEX"]

20  [notation next to it: "A good DEX, Starburst is quick."]

15

18

26

30

21

20

23

23

21

14

 

 

That's all of them.  As Hugh notes, 23 seems about "typical" for a super.  Just to have some fun with it:

 

274/13 = 21.0769, giving an average DEX across the book of 29, making Hugh's estimate kindly generous.  Noting that the 15 and the 14 score belong to sample "agents," we can remove them and refigure, getting :

 

245/11 = 22.27r for an average "super DEX" of 22.  Again, Hugh's estimate is kindly generous, but extremely accurate for "eyeball work."  (For those who are just curious, that's also a mean of 21).

 

 

And that's pretty much what we took away from it, years ago:  a Super would likely have a DEX around 23, so say typically between 20 and 25.

 

Perhaps the strongest influence on us were the explanatory notations (remember this was when we were attempting to learn the game from the ground-up: we took such "suggestions" as being of extreme importance to our understanding) beside the first three examples of characters being built.  The note that 25 was "very high" and that 20 was "good" and that 18, at "average," was acceptable was far more important to us at the time than figuring out how to, if you'll pardon the expression, "game the system."

 

There's more of that in the fog of my head right now, but I can't get it out, so let me move forward.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Slow Super = SPD 4, 5 looks typical and 6 was in the realm of possibility.  CON ended in 3 or 8, or occasionally 5 or 10.  Were there CONs ending in other numbers, even in those halcyon days?  1e did not last that long,  but the same published characters were in the 2e you began with, I believe. 

 

I appreciate that you remember that about me, Sir, but there is a very small error, likely because of my preference for 2e.  I started with first edition, under my first Champions / HERO GM.  I fell in love, but was never able to find another copy at our local game.... "Store" seems like such a strong word for what we had: 

 

There was a very nice elderly lady who rented a tiny storefront next to the only grocery store in town (at that time).  She sold sewing, knitting, and crochet supplies and her little sign out front called her shop "The Craft Corner."  She had a grandson who had discovered gaming in college, and talked her into letting him put five small shelves in the corner of her store, the topmost of which was packed full of D&D stuff.  The next two he kept stocked with a truly random assortment of games and supplemental material (presumably determined by what he could afford to purchase), one with maps, fantasy, mech, and space ship minis, and one with dice, gaming magazines (Dragon, of course, White Dwarf, and one that I remember being dedicated to Sci-Fi, but I can't remember what it was) and a few other random things, including his receipt book so that his grandmother could collect sales in his absence.  He worked there on weekends and on breaks from school.  This was part "I love gaming and want to share it with the world" and part "a few dollars to help me get through school."  When he finished his education, he moved, and the gaming shelves disappeared, forcing us to trek --- ah, it doesn't matter now.

 

At any rate, he never got another first edition Champions.   He _did_ get a second edition, and that is the first set that I owned personally.  I loaned it to my GM after I devoured it, and he agreed that we should switch as soon as he could find a copy  (which he did, by staking out the Craft Corner until he could catch the "game guy" in the building and paying up-front to get him to order one).

 

In the words of the late Paul Harvey Aurandt: "and now you know.... the rest of the story...."  

 

(for what it's worth, thanks to the recent Bundle of Holding and someone named " Jason Frediani," I now at least have a readable scan of the book I fell in love with.   )

 

Getting back on track:

 

Cons from the 1e book:

 

20  [a good CON]

30  [A high CON]

20

15  *

28

25

15

25

20

40

23

20

13  *

 

* denotes that the character is listed as an agent.

 

 

Hugh, I,m going to have to cut this short; I've got to get a quick shower to get more alert, then be somewhere in under an hour.  If I'm still awake, I'll try to get back to it.  If not, I don't know when I will.  

 

There is one thing I want to answer, at least briefly, before going, though:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

What we did not have, in 1e, was a "normal human" measure.  We had the base/average NPC, and we had the "trained goon" in the VIPER agent.  When 20 became the breakpoint for "not legendary", that was a change.  But if you read no published materials for many years, I'm not sure why you would be using that benchmark.

 

Because we wondered that on _Day 1_ of reading the rules, and it was pretty easy to devise method to determine it:

 

We looked at the STR Chart.  The GM's kid brother was huge in the Guiness book of world records.   Every year they'd get those little Scholastic Book Club flyers in school, and every year, regardless of what else he got, he got a GBWR.  In 1981, the world record for dead lift (just get it off the floor and hold it there a couple of seconds) was set by a man named Bill something-- I know his nickname was "Kaz" and he was from Wisconsin, but I can't remember his last name.  Kazmien, maybe?  Memory's pretty bad when I'm in this shape; full apologies.  At any rate, we figured "World record" and "maximum possible for a real human" would be pretty close.  It was right around (just over, just under) the 400 kg listed (after we looked up the weight of a kilogram in the dictionary because the record was listed in pounds.  To make sure we understand each other, we went with 2.2 lbs/kg)

 

As a blank character sheet was presented as "the basic character," we assumed 10 to be "normal human guy" and 20 to be "best there is outside of comic books".  As Con, Dex, etc are a bit more esoteric, and we had no reason to assume that the designer's hadn't scaled the Primaries similarly, we took it as given that this was normal straight down the board.

 

On the other hand, where did this idea come from in general?   I'm pretty certain I'd heard it from other groups before there was a BBB laying it straight out.  I don't know if it was in other HERO games prior to BBB, but even then:  someone had the idea, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't particularly insightful or gifted.  I think it's one of those fairly obvious things that is evident to a lot of folks.  It would have to be, because there's nothing particularly special about my own abilities in that regard.

 

 

 

Anyway, gotta run.

 

 

 

Have fun!

 

 

Duke

 

 

 

 

[JmOz]

I touched on how I view it as a tool.  As a tool it is basically a multitool (aka craftsman).  It represents a set of tools that are placed together because you can only use one at a time.  

 

Captain Wonderful is able to focus her energy powers into an effective Force Field, the ability to propel herself in unaided flight, and shoot a variety of energy blasts.  However as it is all from her energy powers she must weaken some of her abilities to use multiple abilities.  If she needs one power it is more power than if she is channeling it into other abilities.  

 

So

 

75mp

7m:  Flight 75"

7m Blast 15d6

5m : Resistant Protection 30pd/30 ed costs END

[Doc Democracy]

7 minutes ago, JmOz said:

It represents a set of tools that are placed together because you can only use one at a time.  

 

I think that one at a time is what people often say but not what lots of MPs demonstrate....

 

7 minutes ago, JmOz said:

75mp

7m:  Flight 75"

7m Blast 15d6

5m : Resistant Protection 30pd/30 ed costs END

 

Like this.  And I think this easy adjustment with variable slots are the unique element of the MP, but this is actually a limited form of VPP.

[RDU Neil]

On 2/15/2019 at 7:53 PM, Duke Bushido said:

In answer to your question, NB: right there.  When we started judging the relative worth of a character by how well the designer of the character could min-max.  That's when MP became nigh-mandatory

 

Exactly. It has always been a fine balance between "min-max" and "bad build." Everyone has a different line between the two. I just figure I'd do what I could to encourage "build to concept" over "build efficiency" by doing three things... 1) relax point total controls, 2) set a campaign average standard to judge build effectiveness, and 3) group character building. The main player gets to do the first draft, but the entire play group (GM included) have a say in how the character is finalized. 

IMO, the single worst perpetrator of broken character builds is not any one mechanic (though things like MP use are an indicator of "look closer")... it isn't the mechanics, but the underlying assumption that the player builds "their character" to their own expectations and not as part of the group. The player has a lot of say in their character, but the group has input. Ultimately the more that prep AND actual play are group activities (or at least group input) the better.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

On the other hand, where did this idea come from in general?   I'm pretty certain I'd heard it from other groups before there was a BBB laying it straight out.  I don't know if it was in other HERO games prior to BBB, but even then:  someone had the idea, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't particularly insightful or gifted.  I think it's one of those fairly obvious things that is evident to a lot of folks.  It would have to be, because there's nothing particularly special about my own abilities in that regard.

 

I expect it came from Danger International, Justice Inc. and Fantasy Hero, all of which, I think,  started with "10 = normal" and used NCM for stats above 20.  It likely helped that 3 - 18 was the human range in a lot of other games.  BBB just brought "normal human" in from those other games/genres.  It may have been in Champions 3e as well - I never read that closely.

 

2 hours ago, JmOz said:

Captain Wonderful is able to focus her energy powers into an effective Force Field, the ability to propel herself in unaided flight, and shoot a variety of energy blasts.  However as it is all from her energy powers she must weaken some of her abilities to use multiple abilities.  If she needs one power it is more power than if she is channeling it into other abilities.  

 

So

 

75mp

7m:  Flight 75"

7m Blast 15d6

5m : Resistant Protection 30pd/30 ed costs END

 

Other than Stanburst, did any published character ever use this model?  Starburst being the prototype suggests this intention, but if so it evolved from there pretty fast.

[RDU Neil]

11 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Other than Stanburst, did any published character ever use this model? 

 

HAHAH! I can't stop laughing. I don't know why... but the mental image of STANburst shooting these flailing figures of a guy named Stan at people just won't leave me, and I find it absurdly funny.

 

Ah... thanks for the laugh!??

[RDU Neil]

5 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I think that it is safe to say that MPs provide value and that many characters will take them to broaden out their power base.  

 

What I have not seen is any real discussion of what a MP is actually for in terms of the toolbox. 

 

To this point, and a it is a very good summation, I've always looked at MP as similar to VPP, but you get more limited selection for less cost as more ease of use. I personally don't like VPPs simply because I have no desire to have anyone at the table constantly looking up rules and powers and such to figure out what their next configuration is going to be. That may be what some consider fun, but that is not a play environment I want to be in. Not because their can't be a character concept for it, but those aren't concepts I want to be in/run a game with.  (i.e. A Dr. Strange or Dr. Fate type of character who always seems to have just the spell for the situation... certainly in-genre, but absolutely horrible in actual play, unless maybe in a solo game.)   Personally, I really LIKE MPs with lots of slots to mimic that kind of character, but with boundaries.

 

Now, I'd have to check, but if I was to look at all the PCs in my current game, I'd need to check and see, but maybe all of them have a MP... but the funny thing is, they all "feel" different in play, but the fact that every PC has their "pool of points that expand my options" may actually be a given. We've never discussed it as a "Must have because of efficiency" probably because we've never had any sense that it was abusive.

 

So... anecdotally, perhaps we are one more data point for "MP have become the default mechanic for supers to go wide, and nearly everyone has one"... but again, I don't think we've ever noticed this as a problem. I think it is because it tended to make characters more interesting to play if they had some breadth, not that players were trying to min-max and cover every base. (Again, our experience only, here)

 

I certainly wouldn't want VPP to be the default "options" mechanic, that's for sure..

[Ninja-Bear]

An example I used MPs for ease was writing up weapons like spears. I made the spear slot had Stretching for length and one slot for HKA and one slot for HA. If you made the pool big enough, you could use either attack slot with the Stretching slot.

[Ninja-Bear]

To answer you OP Doc,

 

1) I’ve used MP for multiple powers such as a Ninja gadget gear and I’ve used them for singular sfx like various types of Theowing Stars to one weapon like the Spear.

 

2) Are they too cheap? I don’t know not a mathy guy! ?

 

I want to add  (no pun), though that I think we should be less concern about the be cheap and more on how it’s spent and what do you spend the savings on.

[Duke Bushido]

5 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I think the whole value of the multipower in the toolbox might be more aptly aimed at Duke.

 

You are saying that you are building to concept rather than for value, so any multipower you use must be because it is hitting a concept value rather than a point value, no?  So when do you reach for a multipower?  

 

Doc

 

Okay, that's done with, and this thread is already staggering my current faculties.

 

I want to tackle this while I'm still _relatively_ cogent.

 

Pretty much, yes: we have an interpret on multipower that, as Hugh suggested with rounding to get freebies, we took from our first game experiences.  I guess it wasn't this thread, but just in the past couple days I pointed out that multipower is pretty is, well, mostly perfect for replicating someone who's power is a single element thing, manifested in multiple ways.  I used the example, I think, of a psi-based character who was able to produce only X amount of mental power at one time, and therefore had to reallocate constantly between her needs.  Starburst, from the first and second edition (and possibly third; I don't know) was the only example of multipower in the 1e rules, and we took that as an example of a typical multipower.  Combine the fact that multipower itself, at that time, was listed not as a framework, but as an actual Power, it was a lead pipe cinch that the idea was (again, as we took it.  Apparently we were supposed to pick up the mandate for rounding to get a free point here and there, yet ignore the only example of Multipower, while feeling free to use it as a method to make things cheaper just because you weren't likely to use them both at once anyway.  Strange nitpick, but here we are) that "Multipower" was one single power with multiple aspects, just like the psi character I mentioned earlier.

 

As another example of that, let's say that Latex Lad, the Prince of Pliability, has _one_ essential power: he's really, really stretchy.  Pop in a few Characteristics to represent how this has made him much more durable than the average bear (you know: made him "super" ).

 

Let's give him the powers of Superleap, Entangle, Extra Limb, Force Wall, Gliding ,Stretching, a PD-based Energy Blast (literally spring-loaded fist), and a second PD-based energy blast with an AOE: another fist launch, but this time it's a really, really big first.

 

 

Now there is a vague idea that he can only stretch "so much" without hurting himself.  Well that makes Multipower a great choice: it is, from the only known example (at that time) precisely the Power (again, at that time) to demonstrate this very condition.  The character puts his powers in a Multipower with variable slots, we run through two sessions and the GM says "Hey, Lucas, after the game session, let's come up with a short list of maybe ten or twelve "pre-shifted" allocations until we all get a little better at doing this on the fly"  (true story, if you were wondering) and everything is hunky-dory.  We play a few more sessions and soon Lucas and the GM both are shifting on the fly,  and aren't using the-- 

 

well that's gone on too far.    Sorry about that.

 

At any rate, that was (and still sort of is) the primary use of Multipower-- again, _as we understood it_.  (For the record, shifting around a rather nebulous Power like Gliding is kind of a pain in the butt, what with your top speed going up and down and up and down, yet having to drop 1" to maintain it regardless of what it actually is.  Unless 6 has somehow changed that, mind you.  Rather than being Batman, you end up more like a bit of paper trapped in a wind vortex in an alley behind the mall.)

 

But you also asked "when do you reach for a Multipower.  

 

In truth, in supers, pretty damned rarely.  Not because there is a lot of math I can avoid by saying "No;" not because they are particularly difficult to use.  Simply because I learned Multipower to mean something a bit different than, apparently, main-stream-- no; perhaps not.  Perhaps it's more accurate to say that I learned multi-power before there was a Harbinger of Bullets, using an example that suggested it was an ideal way to deal with -- -well, I don't know exactly what single word would accurately pigeonhole the concept above, but that.  That's the thing.

 

In heroic, fairly regularly.

 

There was no (that I had access to or had even heard of, anyway) published material showing that "this is okay, too."  However, we took it as a logical extrapolation from the "single power with multiple expressions" idea that ultra slots were a pretty good way to model certain kinds of equipment.  Arrows are a good example: razor tips, target tips, shock tips, stick of dynamite-- whatever; you could only use one at a time anyway.  Same with cannons (balls, chain, grapeshot, etc) and other weapons, they were also handy for "secret spy equipment" that, for reasons of limited power capacity or the requirement for some sort of re-configuration, whatever, could only be used in one mode at a time.

 

Another true story:

 

Jim's game room had been plagued for years with two flickering lamps.  It was a single-car carport (not garage) conversion (so it was extremely tight, nine of us crowded around that big table in there), and there was no telling what was going on inside the walls or even the ceiling, as the original carport, judging front he brick portions of the outer walls, had been mostly open, and in this area, at that time, meant it likely never had electricity at all.

 

After about a year of gaming at his place, I offered to diagnose and potentially repair the problem.  The next time our days off overlapped, I came by with my multi-meter.  Jim had never used one, and was curious as to what I was doing (probing for continuity (mostly resistance in particular), voltage, and amperage drops.  I explained to him what the settings were for and how they were used.  He laughed it off as a being "like a multipower full of N-Ray visions (1e had no "Detect" as such, but we had created a cobble using N-ray vision as the base: rather than "seeing through," you could "see specifically" .  Of course, that changed when he and I both bought Fantasy HERO some years later)" and as he said it, it kind of struck both of us: multipower can model gadgets, too!

 

(for what it's worth, the short was caused by an over-tightened wire nut that had split and been taped over.  As the wires in the junction heated and expanded, the connection became loose, and the wire feeding that wall wasn't properly twisted into the bundle to begin with.  Always, always, _always_ use the correctly-sized wire nut, people: that could have easily been a house fire)

 

So we use it for gadgets that have specific settings for specific functions, and prefer it for those that take a bit more reconfiguring that just twisting a dial: things like having to swap antennae or relocate the device, whatever.

 

 

short version (yeah, way too late    ): we use a traditional multi for one power with multiple aspects to simulate a limit to the amount of power that can be manipulated at once, and we use Ultras for certain weapon and gadget concepts, but we don't use them in supers anywhere near as much as we use them otherwise.  We once did use them in Supers as ultras to represent, like Latex Lad's two different "springy fist" attacks with different power advantages: one slot with advantage; one slot without.  Sometimes (rarely) a third slot with a different advantage.

 

That died off shortly into 2e, not because of any rules changes, but because we noticed that we using it primarily to create two Ultra slots for the same power, and that was that.  So we created instead an Advantage Adder (yes; an Adder Specifically for an Advantage): "Selectable: +1/4.  It Allowed a Character to toggle any Selectable Advantage on or off as he saw fit.   Multipowers in Supers almost completely disappeared after that.

 

Again, all of this-- a couple of years of play time-- were based on the one example in the book from which we originally learned to play (the thing I am being told made points-effectiveness so brutally obvious, yet somehow didn't make the intent of multipower anywhere near as obvious).  Going forward, like most anyone else, I expect, I taught what learned.

 

 

If you just want straight-out points efficiency, dump everything you've got into  a Pool.  It's the multipower of everything, at below Elemental Control prices.  I bring them up to demonstrate that _this_ is when we usually see Multis in our supers games: the player wants a pool initially, and we talk about it long and hard.  I don't disallow Pools, but I make them Holy by regulating the Hell out of them.  In most of the cases we encounter in our Supers game, considering the regulating I do to Pools, the multi becomes the more appealing choice.  Sometimes it doesn't: skills is such a case, as are most _small_ pools.

 

 

6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I just want to point out that Build to Concept can be a very nebulous concept.

 

There is absolutely no doubt about that, NB: this thread demonstrates that.  For some, certain shortcuts are acceptable, for others, all shortcuts are acceptable, for others no shortcuts are acceptable, and for still others, a perceived mandate to use shortcuts makes building to concept impossible.

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Something as simple as building a "not very tough" concept who is stunned by an average attack (and lacks compensations like high DCV so he is  not often hit) or ignoring PRE because he's pretty nondescript, then discovering that most combats in this game/group start with a 6d6+ PRE attack, can crater a character pretty easily.

 

It certainly can.  But it requires a lot of things for that to happen:   A GM who hasn't given a hint about what he's looking for, a GM who hasn't reviewed the character with an eye toward the other PCs, the NPCs, or sneaky things he has in store, and an entire table of people who somehow did get all that info and built accordingly.  There are exceptions to this: NB's Shotgun got GM approval (I assume) and didn't work out well as a straight-up combatant, but evidently still became a reasonable combatant by working with the team, and he says that the GM made adjustments to correct what was, in my own opinion, squarely on him to begin with.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The build needs to meet group standards to be effective, and stay within them to not be inordinately effective.

 

Bingo!

 

It's just getting really difficult to discuss groups like mine without being told precisely how wrongly-standardized we are in the eyes of the more vocal people that aren't running my games.

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Different groups also have different tolerances for variance in power level.  I see comments on line about "PC X has ability Y and the other players are griping that he is 'too effective".  In my group, the players would more likely look at Player X and note "ability Y is really effective - what can the rest of us do to help Player X do that more often, and synergise with it?", as they tend to play a team game, not a bunch of little solo games. 

 

And that, my friend, is how it's done!

 

 

 

 

 

On February 15, 2019 at 8:13 PM, Doc Democracy said:

 I am wondering if it should be limited such that it can only take one of any class of power, so one attack power, one body affecting power, one defence power etc.  

 

That's more or less the way we've taken it to mean, based on the first and only example we saw for a couple of years.  I say "more or less" because we felt that the extension of "one primary power with different expressions" would include the same essential power with different special effects:

 

A jet of fire is, essentially, a scaled-down cone of fire, which is simply a long-term constantly-refreshed fireball.  Did that make sense?  Anyway, same power with different expressions, like Latex Lad or the psi example I gave earlier.

 

 

On February 15, 2019 at 8:13 PM, Doc Democracy said:

It begs the question of how you do the archer type,

 

I don't.  I mean, I do for Westerns and Fantasy and other "semi-historical" settings, but I can't do it in supers and keep a straight face.  Sorry.   

 

 

 

On February 15, 2019 at 8:13 PM, Doc Democracy said:

several ways to achieve a similar end that is not too much more expensive...

 

Doc

 

Well if I'm wrong for not instinctively realizing that the name of the game was points-effectiveness, then this can't be much more right.  Sorry, Shrike, but it's this whole "right way to do something means changes have to be made" without any sort of hard justification of what the right way is that's driving me nuts.  We can look at examples if we want, but even they aren't all done to a similar level of "mandatory points effectiveness," and the only thing i've ever seen in print was back in the BBB, where it was explicitly stated that if there are two ways to do something, the more expensive is the right way.  I don't play true 4e (but I'd really like to try it, at least for one campaign), but that is the _only_ hard rules comment on "points-effectiveness" I've ever seen in print, and kicks a lot of this argument about a mandate to buy up one stat because it's cheaper than buying up three others right in the teeth.  

 

Now I will be completely fair:  after the printing of Dark Champions (which I still don't yet own in paper, but have the PDF from BOH), I will totally believe that there was a hard recant on that rule.  I would like to see it, though.

 

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I did not ask about buying up some Figured.  I asked specifically about buying up two or all three of REC, END and STUN (beyond simple rounding - we all had to find a use for those last 2 or 3 CP when the character was largely complete - I know I tended to round to COM, but others rounded to END or STUN).

 

See?

 

This why we can't discuss this without a couple of years of conversation on fundamental understandings of the game!

 

I will not kid you: earlier today, when I began replying, I thought I had mis-read that because of my insomnia-induced stupor.  This is, without a doubt, the first time I have seen the suggestion of the idea that we _must_ spend all of our points.  I can't give you any hard numbers as too many years have gone by, but the vast majority of my characters over the years have never even met the "limit" on Disadvantages, simply because they didn't have to: I had the concept modeled as far as I wanted to go for the "starting level" of this character, and maybe tweaked per GM request a bit more, but did not commonly hit the points limit for starting the campaign.  Given the intro page to the book I learned from and the intro article from the book I use the most both specify "it's okay not to be able to start where you want; it's okay to grow your character to where you want to go using XP,"  I took that to heart, and again: it's what I learned, and so it's what I teach.  I find an acceptable starting level, then enjoy the growing the character into concept, or watching that concept change as a result of the story, just as much as any other part of the game.  

 

Perhaps, going forward, I should max my Disads, spend everything, pick smaller concepts that I can complete entirely in the first go, and buy a damned Tamagotchi.  Or maybe a Fitbit.  Then the dumb animal I'm trying to keep alive is _me_.

 

On the plus side, I finally get what you were talking about a couple of weeks ago during the COM flare-up when you mentioned it being a "point sink."  You came up with a Disadvantage to get points you didn't need and spent them on something you didn't want?

 

 

That's ---

 

well, I really do like you, and I _love_ discussing things with you in most cases, and accordingly, I try to make that respect come across when I post to your conversations.  Given my current condition, I can only hope that these things are coming across (I keep forgetting to Smilie) as I intend them to, and to help ensure that no negative comes out on this comment, I will simply state it thusly:

 

That is so foreign to my take and technique of character design-- the mandate to take it all and spend it all, every time-- that I am really going to have to think on it a bit (when I'm more clear-headed) before I can form a reasonably-objective opinion on it.

 

 

Just for curiosity, if no one else minds:

 

Who else builds characters that way?  Serious question, folks; no sarcasm or disdain or anything negative.  Just looking for a quick tally.  Thanks to any who reply, as always.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I pull two key elements from Ninja-Bear's comments.

 

The first is that "efficient character" is a very relative term.  An efficient character in one gaming group may be a wimp not worthy of carrying the PCs' torch in another, and a munchkin nightmare in a third.  This is especially so in Hero, where there can be so much variance in so many different areas.

 

Agreed, and the only rules changes I have ever wanted mandated (beyond dropping the price of Skill Levels) is to see that addressed.  Not necessarily moderated or regulated, but addressed: there are enough folks out there that treat RAW as Holy that anything they perceive as a variation is wrong, period.  (not most of you folks here: I think I've seen house rules from just about every one of you; clearly you have no major issues with making the changes you think need to be made.  Just want to be clear there).  I would really like to see power level and varying methodologies addressed a bit more concretely than "if this adventure is too hard for your group, then reduce X's power level and trade these two villains for this weaker one; if you're group would treat this adventure like a cakewalk, add Mechanonand the Seven Lords of Hell."

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The second, which seems to be overlooked a lot, is that "Concept" and "Efficiency" are not mutually exclusive.

 

 

Agreed; they are not mutually exclusive.  We understand points efficiency.  we take advantage of it when it does not significantly violate the core concept of the character.  What bugs me is the claim that it is not possible to stay on concept _because_ of Efficiency, or that doing so _in spite_ of Efficiency are somehow wrong-headed.  Moreover, the  driving idea-- that the goal should ultimately _be_ Efficiency-- I can't disagree enough.  The goal is to have a good time with friends, in whatever manner suits you and your friends.  Sounds like a cop-out, but it's the truth.  It's a _game_.  We don't play it because we are evil and must be punished with math.  Because I truly believe that this _is_ the goal, I can't stand being told that, working completely within the rules, I or my people are "doing it wrong" because we are not doing it the way that someone else-- who is _also_ completely within the rules-- is doing it.

 

It's rather like saying "the speed limit is 60.  That means you must go 60."

 

I'm pretty sure doing 58 still gets you there, and it's well-within the rules.

 

Doing 55 will still get you there, and save you some gas,  Bonus: you're still within the rules.

 

But if I want to go ahead and do 60, and lose a little extra gas, so what?

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

"Trained Normals" took to high DEX because that was the efficient way to build such a character.  It was there from the very beginning.  Crusader and the 1e Martial Artist both showed that this was the way the authors and game designers would construct a "Trained Normal" with no inkling of superhuman abilities.

 

 

Crusader's DEX was 25.  We had no real hard understanding of what was "Super" and what was "impossible" for a normal human under 1e.  Hell, we _still_ don't, and entire library of books later.  As you yourself pointed out in a recent thread, the latest rules totally permit even Characters operating under NCM to just pay a little extra and still be normal humans with really high stats.  You can be a perfectly normal human with a 60 STR if you want to shell out the points for it (I wouldn't, but you could).  back in the pre-4 days, we (our table, I mean; I have no way of knowing what you folks did) really had no idea what was "human range."  (as an aside: I like your "3-18" comparison; that was inspired)  All we had a rough idea that we based on a comparison to a real-world record and the only truly-measurable characteristic in the game.  The rest was an abstracted assumption we drew from the fact that a blank sheet had straight 10s in the other Primaries, too.  We put a nice doily on it and patted it flat because, as you recall from most games of that era, it didn't really matter because there probably wasn't any great deal of thought put into it since it was only so you could compare one guy against another in a slightly-more-tangible way.

 

 

Green Dragon's DEX was 30.

 

Also in there from the beginning was that Martial Arts was an abstract damage multiplier, the buying of which unlocked five pre-ordained maneuvers.  So from this shows us the way the authors and game designers would construct a "martial Artist," with no need for additional books, rules, etc, all of which combined represent a large investment of time, drag combat down even slower by adding new elements to cypher on, all for a net gain of...  4 dice or so?     The chart was printed right on the sheet, without any fill-in-the-blank or "change this" options; there is little _doubt_ that this was the clearly designed "Martial Arts" they envisioned at that time.  You'd get laughed away from most anyone's table trying that today.  After all, there's a book.  Buy that, because unless you're using this totally optional rule set, you're doing it wrong.

 

You want points effectiveness?  Buy Martial Arts the way if was from the very beginning: pay your STR; roll double-damage for kicks, or x1.5 for punches / strikes.

 

separate topic: over-priced, since we all know that +STR, only for adding Damage, is more points effective.  Then you just make a Martial Arts Skill, if you want to look all showy or represent your martial arts knowledge. If that chart is not sufficiently complex, buy a few Skill Levels to represent unique---

 

oh; sorry.  That's the way _we_ do it.  Of course, we do it based off of those original examples.  At any rate, "Martial Arts" becomes as simple as "name your maneuver" or how many skill level and how many dice are you going to add?" and grants essentially infinite cool new moves.  Like any other brawler, actually.  You just declare it as martial arts.  I mean, the look of your moves is pretty much special effects, is it not?

 

 

Also from those early books:

 

In 2e, Green Dragon retained his 30 DEX, but he also added two Skill levels with martial arts.

 

Crusader retained his 25 DEX, but he, too, added two Skill Levels with martial arts.

 

Pretty sure both those editions were by the exact same team (except maybe the layout guy).  Does this mean that they are demonstrating that trained humans are static and can only be advanced with Skill Levels?  Rhetorical.  I have to at least try to go to bed again; I have work in the morning, and I can hear beard growing....

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Of course, we would not have criticized such a build in Champions 1e, because Stan's point whoring munchkin character had a decade or two of publication history behind him by then.

 

Actually, we did.  Well, I didn't; Jim did (I wasn't the GM at that time).  I can't remember the name of the character, but it was so clearly a spiderman rip-off / homage that it should have just said Spiderman, right down to the danger sense.

 

Jim shot it down.  He let him have STR, Leaping, and Clinging under "Spider Powers."  Swinging and Entangle he allowed a multipower for, but not in the EC.  His rebuttal was "Spiders make webs, but they don't shoot them.  You want to stick your butt to a wall and repel down suspended by your own biological products, I'll allow it."  Danger Sense was bought as a separate power.

 

I don't know why---

 

holy crap; I think i just got it. 

 

I think I know why people complain about EC abuse in spite of the GM being able to say no.

 

 

It's the published characters, isn't it?  They don't have GMs; they are just thrown together to fill books.  Are there boatloads of published characters with abusive ECs?   Again, serious question: most of what I have in published support books at this point are 4e genre books and the Almanacs, with a smattering of 5e setting books (and Lucha HERO, of course  ).  I have read a couple of Enemies books over the years, but do not own any (other than the PDFs from the BOH, but I've been too busy to really look at them).  European Enemies stands out in my mind as a low-water mark for a product of dubious need to begin with, but I couldn't tell you what characters were in it or what their constructs were.

 

And of course:  if so; why do we care?  It doesn't mean you have to allow it in your games.

[Chris Goodwin]

I regret that I can only "like" your post once, Duke.  

 

50 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Who else builds characters that way?  Serious question, folks; no sarcasm or disdain or anything negative.  Just looking for a quick tally.  Thanks to any who reply, as always.  

 

4th edition and later?  Always, always, always.  Every player in every game.  We'd hit 250 points and want more.  If there were Active Point and DC caps, every player in every game built to them.  

 

In 3rd edition and prior?  Almost never.  They might not have been "pinch a penny until it screams" builds but we had fun with them.  We stopped taking Disadvantages when we felt like we had enough of them.  Usually below whatever the GM had set the max at. 

[Duke Bushido]

Thanks, Chris.

 

Who else?

 

(Never having played a genuine 4e game, I can't say that I wouldn't do it.  All I can say is that with our 2e mix, it happens once in a while, but not very often)

 

 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Who else builds characters that way? 

Builds characters which way? 

 

I don't obsessively powergame for maximum impact within a set of constraints (at least if I'm submitting the character for a game, theoretical optimization isn't practical optimization) if that's what you're asking. 

I do spend all my points, take all my disads, and ask the GM for a rough idea of how combat capable a character should be.  My GM doesn't do hard caps, so I can't say I buy up to them but I can say I don't leave gaping weaknesses or seriously underbuy anything. 

 

I've had a few games where someone brought a complete mechanical trainwreck to a 4-man game where the GM was running a module intended for 4 PCs.  The result of the party effectively being down a man was generally a ruined game, anger, and accusations of incompetence and/or powergaming.  This has utterly soured me on the idea of deliberate under-performance.  A character who's too bad can be as disruptive as a character who's too good. 

[Hugh Neilson]

I think "build to point max" came in at 4e.  Before that, there was no disad cap, just diminishing returns.

 

As to rounding with COM, I meant exactly that.  Never played with a group lacking enough in OCD not to balance the points :), so with 2 or 3 left (since disads always came in 5's,) put the excess in COM and call it a day.

[Duke Bushido]

Thank, Hugh.

 

21 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I think "build to point max" came in at 4e. 

 

Been a while since I read through 4, and it'll be a while yet before I can do so again.  Was that spelled out, or was it suggested through example?  I really don't remember it being spelled out, but like I said: it's been a while.

 

I know it wasn't in 1 or 2, though I've never read 3, in spite of owning two print copies.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

 

Before that, there was no disad cap, just diminishing returns.

 

 

There sort of was.  1 and 2 specified no points for any Disads after 6 in a given type.  The rules suggested / specified (yeah; they were a little wishy-washy) characters be built on 250 total points.  So there was an effective cap in effect, and of course, the GM can set whatever limits he wants for his game.

[Hugh Neilson]

43 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Been a while since I read through 4, and it'll be a while yet before I can do so again.  Was that spelled out, or was it suggested through example?  I really don't remember it being spelled out, but like I said: it's been a while.

 

I know it wasn't in 1 or 2, though I've never read 3, in spite of owning two print copies.

 

1/2 and I think 3 simply allowed disadvantages to  be taken, with diminishing returns (another "get what you pay for" gap, I suppose).  4e was the first version to simply say "you get up to X disadvantages".  Or, practically, you get Y points to spend.  You can spend some to "buy off" Z points of disadvantage requirements.  e.g. you are 350 point Supers with 150 points of disadvantages,  You can buy down those 150 disadvantage points by purchasing "reduced disadvantages".

 

I prefer the 6e nomenclature of Complications.  I never felt "punished" by disadvantages - they were and are another important means of defining your character.  I do like the reduced Complications points in 6e - you don't automatically take a couple of Hunteds, but only those complications that are truly defining for the character.   I have definitely "overspent" on disad's/complications in the past, simply because that was how the character was going to be played.

[Ninja-Bear]

Duke back when I learned Champions in 4th ed. I thought every had to be 250 pts. I should’ve asked my GM at the time. I really didn’t grind Base + Disadvantages relationship.  And even if I did? I still would’ve built them at 250 because everyone else did. (And scramble like Heck to come up with 150 in Disadvantages).

[Ninja-Bear]

Duke I’ve heard the the original Enemies book was a contest so the authors that have their villains published are from their home games. It would be interesting to see how they compare to the sample characters of 1e. My gut feeling is that they would show how other people took  what the vague values meant and what multiples at that. My gut feeling is that it would show a pattern that Hugh has been talking about.

[Duke Bushido]

Thanks, NB! 

 

Now I've got to track down Enemies for 1e....

 

Ive got 2e (revised for new ruled) and 3e (2e book reissued with a butt ugly cover), but not 1e.

[Hugh Neilson]

Duke, I think the only difference between 1e and 2e is minor tweaks for the few rule changes.  The notable change was the cap on STR adders for KA's so a lot of high STR Enemies have 1d6 HKA (2d6 w/ STR).  That really changed the Monster, as I recall.

 

I recall thinking the Geodesics were supposed to reflect starting characters - they were very low-powered compared to the rest of the teams.  Players built to the higher power standards, though.

[Chris Goodwin]

In the BoH PDFs (and the DrivethruRPG ones) I think 1e and 2e are reversed.  The one they have as being 1e has the black and white cover, but is called "Revised Edition" and is copyright 1982.  It's fairly similar to 3e.  The one they list as 2e is quite a bit different; it has no edition marking of any kind and lists its copyright date as 1981.