An Energy Blast That Gets More Powerful With Distance

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, Christopher said:

In that case the existince of PSL on the same sheet increases the Advantage/Decreases the Limitation cost. Up to +2 or -0.

 

The limitation should never be -0.  Even if the attack has no range modifiers, it is still more limiting to do full damage only at the maximum range increment than to do full damage anywhere within the attack's total range.

[Christopher]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The limitation should never be -0.  Even if the attack has no range modifiers, it is still more limiting to do full damage only at the maximum range increment than to do full damage anywhere within the attack's total range.

It depends on teh other Circumstances.

If the attack is on the normal DC amount? Sure. But that scenario is also somewhat unlikely.

Just having a blast - even just a large enough Multipower to fit a blast - is a huge cost investment. Limiting it down seems counter-productive.

 

If however it is build that way to allow exceed the campaign limits (with GM Permission), then having the limitation might be mandatory to even have that much attack power.

 

So I can not agree that it should never be -0. I can easily think of cases for even that extreme.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Any power that is limited to be less powerful than it's original purchase is by definition limited and should get something off.  No matter what the campaign power level is.  A 60d6 blast may be way past the campaign's power levels but if its only usable once a day, its still worth a -2 limitation.  The campaign limits have nothing whatsoever to do with whether a power is limited or not.

[Christopher]

18 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

A 60d6 blast may be way past the campaign's power levels but if its only usable once a day, its still worth a -2 limitation.

For me at least, you would need to take the Mechanical Equivalent of a -2 Limitation without getting a -2 Limitation to even have this power.

The Limitation is the price you pay to even have something that far beyond the limits. That you have this power at all, is the "bonus" you get for what would normally be a -2 Limitation. You do not also get reduced costs.

 

All that asuming I would allow a 60DC power even with such a Limitation. I mean that is so widely above Standart Superheroic Level, it can kill a Brick with Normal Body Damage.

In a game of 12-14 DC, 16 DC with a -1 Limitation would be a more apropirate example.

[Christopher R Taylor]

See you're not thinking in Hero terms.  I mean if you want to have a house rule where powers are limited by the campaign structure rather than actual limits on powers, that's up to you, but that's not how the rules work.

In hero terms the powers are limited by how much a given effect limits them, no matter what the campaign is like.  One use per day is still one use no mater how many dice the power is.

[Hugh Neilson]

21 hours ago, Christopher said:

For me at least, you would need to take the Mechanical Equivalent of a -2 Limitation without getting a -2 Limitation to even have this power.

The Limitation is the price you pay to even have something that far beyond the limits. That you have this power at all, is the "bonus" you get for what would normally be a -2 Limitation. You do not also get reduced costs.

 

For me, either 60d6 is acceptable within the campaign parameters, or it is not. 

 

If it is, then it is costed in the same manner as any other ability in the game.  That means 60d6 x 5 points = 300 points.  That is the price for a standard 60d6b Blast, usable as you see fit, costing 30 END per use.   1 charge is a -2 limitation.  That means it costs no END, can only be used once a day, and costs 100 real points instead of 300 real points.

 

If it is not, then it simply is not permitted in the game.  You don't get to pay extra to bypass the campaign limitations.  60d6 is unbalancing in a standard Supers game, at any cost, so it is not going to be allowed in the game.

 

21 hours ago, Christopher said:

All that asuming I would allow a 60DC power even with such a Limitation. I mean that is so widely above Standart Superheroic Level, it can kill a Brick with Normal Body Damage.

In a game of 12-14 DC, 16 DC with a -1 Limitation would be a more apropirate example.

 

OK - assuming I allow it at all, that would be 16d6 with 4 charges which costs 40 points.  Or, alternatively, it might be +4d6 to the standard 12d6 Blast which can only be used 4 times per day (so 10 points) for the Human Scorch's NovaBlast.

 

If 16d6 will be unbalanced regardless of how limited it is, then it is not allowed - periood, done, end of story.  Perhaps I think it is unbalanced to be able to toss out 16d6 whenever you want, for 2 more END, but it will not be unbalanced if it can only be used 4 times a day.  Then it costs 10 points, as described above.  Maybe I consider that a "SuperPush", so you have to limit it with x6 END (a -3 limitation) and that +4d6 costs 20/3.5 = 6 points.

 

I won't let you buy a 10d6 Blast for 40, instead of 50, points because it is less than the campaign norm.  You don't get free advantages either.  The same logic means you pay the standard cost for any ability that exceeds the campaign limits, assuming I allow it at all.

 

Or, put more succinctly,

 

On 3/12/2019 at 6:20 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

The campaign limits have nothing whatsoever to do with whether a power is limited or not.

 

They also have nothing to do with the cost of any ability, whether within or outside campaign norms or limits.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I should note here that there are exceptions as always.  A limitation might be worth no points if it doesn't actually limit you because of the campaign boundaries.  For example, a limit that says you cannot do more than 8d6 damage with your fists no matter how many maneuvers and pushing you stack on it is worth nothing in a campaign where the maximum absolute cap to damage is 8d6.

[massey]

Just spitballing here, but what about a custom Advantage?  I'm thinking +3/4 off the top of my head.  The logic is that if you gain 2D6 at each range increment, you could spread that to cancel out the OCV penalty.  That's functionally the same as No Range Penalty (+1/2).  Except you don't have to spread to hit, you could keep the extra damage, so it's worth more.  However it's not worth a whole lot more, because to get that bonus you've got to eat a big OCV minus.

[Christopher]

On 3/14/2019 at 5:14 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

See you're not thinking in Hero terms.  I mean if you want to have a house rule where powers are limited by the campaign structure rather than actual limits on powers, that's up to you, but that's not how the rules work.

In hero terms the powers are limited by how much a given effect limits them, no matter what the campaign is like.  One use per day is still one use no mater how many dice the power is. 

Actually I just have a different interpretation:

If a given Limitation allows the power to exist at all, it is not limiting it at all. If anything "this power is allowed despite Campaign Rules" is a Advantage.

 

For me that is why "Can be used from Desolid" is a +2 advantage:

+1/2 Real Advantage

+1 1/2 "you are allowed to do something as broken as this at all" Advantage

 

The Price of the Advantage is a huge warning Sign to me.

 

On 3/14/2019 at 5:49 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

OK - assuming I allow it at all, that would be 16d6 with 4 charges which costs 40 points. 

That could actually be too price effective. I mean seriously, you get a 16 DC attack in a 12-14 DC game. And for 40 Character Points? It just does not sound very you "Pay what you get" or "You get what you pay" for me.

 

I think a large reasaon you can not Stack Power Frameworks is that the cost reductions could become too effective. Wich is why my idea to combine them first cuts out that issue:

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 

Actually I just have a different interpretation

 

 

Sure, its just wrong, according to the rules.  Which is okay as a house rule, but you oughtn't insist upon it if you're discussing the rules.

[Christopher]

12 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Sure, its just wrong, according to the rules.  Which is okay as a house rule, but you oughtn't insist upon it if you're discussing the rules.

"A limitation that is not limiting is not worth any bonus".

That is what the book says. In extra large letters, different font and different color just so we can find it easily and are aware of the significance

 

At wich point I can only repeat:
"If a given Limitation allows the power to exist at all, it is not limiting it at all."

The Alternative is the me declaring with a very GM'i voice: "Nope. Erase that power from your sheet. It is invalid for the Rules of this campaign*".

I was trying to be a nice guy in your Hypothetical scenario. But if you do not want that I can stop at any moment. ?‍♂️

 

*Wich of course includes the DC limits I set before you even started writing up this Character. I am uncertain if I even need to explain that. Or why I need to explain it, if I do have to explain it.

 

 

I actually have a Character Concept floating around that would require a Skill VPP to work. One of those things that is explicitly forbidden by the Books.

I would put "Does not include skills that step on other players toes or break the story" limitation on it. I do not expect to get a single point back. I expect it to maybe allow the GM to allow this power in the game without breaking game balance.

[Hugh Neilson]

On 3/16/2019 at 6:10 AM, Christopher said:

Actually I just have a different interpretation:

If a given Limitation allows the power to exist at all, it is not limiting it at all. If anything "this power is allowed despite Campaign Rules" is a Advantage.

 

For me that is why "Can be used from Desolid" is a +2 advantage:

+1/2 Real Advantage

+1 1/2 "you are allowed to do something as broken as this at all" Advantage

 

 

Like Christopher R. Taylor, changing the pricing because "I would  not allow this at all without the limitation" is a different set of rules, not a different interpretation of the Hero rules.

 

I consider Affects Solid World a +2 advantage because it is extremely powerful.  The fact that it is priced at +2 reflects that it is powerful, and that you can do this, by the rules.  If I think it is so powerful it will unbalance my game, the answer is not to make it +3 instead - it is to disallow it.

 

Normally, you can't halve someone's defenses.  Armor Piercing allows you to halve someone's defenses.  Many attacks cannot harm Desolid targets.  A +1/2 advantage allows them to do so.  Most attacks must successfully hit the target's DCV, but a +1/2 advantage locks their DCV at 3.

 

And yes, a limitation that is mandatory IS STILL LIMITING.  If that were not the case then why would there be a point savings in Fantasy games from mandatory limitations on spells?  That is the only way the spell can exist at all in that campaign.

 

Your model effectively requires re-writing the rules for any "out of the box" ability for the campaign.  I think the existing 6e rules are lengthy enough without tacking on sliding scale costs that  vary by campaign, thanks.

 

Rather than paying extra points for the special dispensation to ignore the campaign limits, can I just spring for pizza for the GM on each game night  to be allowed to break the rules of the campaign?

 

On 3/16/2019 at 6:10 AM, Christopher said:

That could actually be too price effective. I mean seriously, you get a 16 DC attack in a 12-14 DC game. And for 40 Character Points? It just does not sound very you "Pay what you get" or "You get what you pay" for me.

 

The character is not getting a 16DC attack, they are getting a 16DC attack which can be used four times per day.  That is more powerful than a 14DC attack which can be used 4 times a day.  It is not, in my opinion, remotely as powerful as a 14 DC attack which can be used an unlimited number of times per day.  Practically, I would suggest the build is "+2 DC to existing attack, 4 times per day" for 5 points.  That is more powerful than never being able to add 2 DC, and less powerful than being able to add 2 DC whenever you want, or even being able to add 2 DC 6, or 8 times a day.  It is less powerful than being able to add 2 DC 1, 2, or 3 times a day.

 

A 14DC attack that has four charges would cost 35 points, and a 12 DC attack which has four charges costs 30.  Setting the price of 16 DC with four charges at 80 points is neither "Pay what you get" or "You get what you pay".  The price for +2d6 - an extra +7 STUN on average, or a total of 28 extra STUN per day - should be 45 points?  Sorry - THAT is where we need to get serious.

 

If 16DC will be overpowered in the game, the price paid for 16d6 is irrelevant - it will be overpowered, so it is not allowed in the game.  It does not matter what it costs - it will be unbalancing, so it is not allowed.  I would not allow a player in a mystery investigation focused game to pay extra to be allowed to have Telepathy, or Retrocognition - they are unbalancing in the game, and pricing them differently does not make them any less unbalancing, so they are not allowed in that game.  If an ability is not unbalancing - whether in its base form or because we apply limitations - then it is not unbalancing, can be allowed, and the game costs will do just fine, thank you very much.

 

The player could as easily buy +2DC to an existing 14 DC attack, with 4 charges a day - +5 points.  Either I am OK allowing him to exceed the campaign limits, provided it is limited to four times a day, or I am not.  Passive-aggressively requiring a different pricing structure - "you can't exceed the campaign limits, but OK if you pay the premium price I impose then you can exceed the campaign limits, but you really can't exceed the campaign limits" - is, in my view, wholly inferior to either "the campaign limit is 14DCs, no exceptions" or "the campaign limit is generally 14 DCs, but exceptions may be made, GM Judgement, for specific concepts".

 

There are lots of permutations. Maybe the cost of being allowed that 16 DC attack four times a day is that your normal attack is 12 DC instead of 14 DC.  You can spend an extra 10 points on +4DC, 4 charges.  You get 4 attacks a day that (if they hit) will average 7 more STUN than a normal campaign max attack, but the rest of your attacks will average 7 less STUN.

 

BTW, you started the 16 DC discussion telling someone else "well, 30 DC is just ludicrous in the context of a 12 - 14DC game - you should instead use a 16 DC example".  Now we're using a 16DC example, and you come back with "seriously, a 16 DC attack in a 12DC to 14DC game?"  You have clearly decided that, in the game you envision, 16 DC will be excessive, so just say so - ANY attack may be purchased up to 14 DC.  NO attack may exceed the 12 - 14 DC cap.  Don't apply passive-aggressive price hikes to allow, but discourage, abilities that exceed the cap.

 

This is not D&D, where higher stats cost progressively more in their point buy system (and even that system imposes a hard cap) .  It is Hero, where you get what you pay for, so costs increase arithmetically, not geometrically.

[massey]

I can see a perfectly rational argument for geometric price increases for stats.  But Hero doesn't use it.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I can see a perfectly rational argument for geometric price increases for stats.  But Hero doesn't use it.

 

The main reason is that it would make certain builds prohibitively expensive.  You want to lift a car?  OK where are you going to spend your remaining 3 points?

[massey]

4 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

The main reason is that it would make certain builds prohibitively expensive.  You want to lift a car?  OK where are you going to spend your remaining 3 points?

 

You'd have to refigure the costs of the entire game.  It wouldn't work anything like current Hero.

 

I have kicked around the idea of establishing a sort of "Heroic Characteristic Maximum", beyond which everything costs double.  And then maybe a few break points beyond that as well.  So let's say the GM set the campaign limit at 10 DCs.  You can exceed that, but it costs double for the first two DCs, and the costs keep going up by 5 pts per D6 per 2 DCs.

 

So a guy who wants a 17D6 Energy Blast can have it, but he's paying 50 (10D6) + 20 (+2D6) + 30 (+2D6) + 40 (+2D6) + 25 (+1D6) = 165 pts.

 

In the end I decided it was way way more work than it was worth.  I had been looking for a way to allow players to exceed campaign settings by paying a premium, thinking it would allow people to specialize in something they really wanted to do.  But in the end it was a giant mess, totally not worth it.

[Hugh Neilson]

The d20 result, which is a microcosm in that there is only one set of stats to point buy, is one trick ponies.  Take the least you can get away with in most stats to max out one or two key stats.  Wizard?  Who needs STR or CHA?  You can take an average WIS as you get good save bonuses, need a bit of DEX and CON, then pump INT as high as possible.  No strong or charming wizards- INT is too important to waste points on doing anything else.

 

In your example, I assume a similar progressive chart for defenses, so assuming a defense cap of 25 (which allows 10 damage from that 10d6 past defenses, and will not see many people stunned, so already seems high), our 17d6 Blaster will average 59.5, so 34.5 past defenses.  Maybe one other character pumps up the right defense, so now we have one guy who can one-shot stun everyone else, and one guy for the rest of the team to pile on until Master Blaster takes out everyone else.

 

Not to say it could not be made to balance but, as you note, it would be a completely different paradigm basically requiring writing a new game, not a simple tweak.

[massey]

Yeah, my thought was to have some break points on every stat, every power.  So defenses, movement, skills, everything would have a point at which it became more expensive to buy it up higher.  The problem is it just becomes too complex too quickly.  Then there's the fact that certain powers (desolid, invisibility) just don't scale that way.

 

Even with attack powers, not every D6 is created equal.  There are a few natural break points in the game, but it's going to vary based on each campaign.  If the GM goes and screws with the cost mechanic, there's zero guarantee that he'll take these into account (I sure hadn't when I started messing with it).  The complexity overwhelms you very quickly.

 

Low level attacks often struggle to overcome defenses.  A 4D6 normal attack is pathetically weak in most superhero games, you'll even have trouble dropping agents with it.  NND and other defense-bypassing Advantages are very useful at this tier.  High level attacks, on the other hand, basically get NND for free.  Once you've overcome their defenses, every additional D6 just goes straight to Stun.  At high levels, NND is a waste because you've already got past their PD/ED.

 

How powerful an attack will be in a game is based around several criteria.  Off the top of my head...

--Can it put Stun on an agent/weak super/average super/master villain?

--How many hits does it take to knock out an agent/weak super/average super/master villain?

--Will the average hit do enough Stun to pass the Con score of an agent/weak super/average super/master villain?

--Will an average hit do enough Stun to KO an agent/weak super/average super/master villain?

--Can it do Body to an opponent?

--Does it do enough damage that Knockback becomes an additional source of real damage?

--Is the attack highly random (like an RKA), so that it can roll really high or really low somewhat regularly?

 

Let's go back to our 17D6 example.  How much better is it than a 16D6 attack?  How much better is it really?  Well a 17D6 attack will do ~58 Stun and 17 Body.  A 16D6 blast will do ~54 Stun and 16 Body.  So let's go through the list.  We'll assume published 5th ed Champions universe.

--Each attack can put Stun on pretty much anybody it hits.

--Each attack will KO an agent or weak super in one shot, an average super in two, while most master villains will take four or more.

--Both powers will do enough to Con Stun agents, weak supers, and average supers.  Master villains will generally not be Con Stunned.

--Both powers have about the same chance of getting a one-shot KO on each tier of opponent.

--Neither attack will normally put Body on an opponent stronger than an agent.

--On average, each attack will do about 9-10" of knockback, which is enough to put a few more points of Stun on an average super.

--Neither attack is particularly streaky.  They have very similar damage curves.

 

Looking at that analysis, the 17D6 attack doesn't (normally) get you to the next big break point against most expected opponents.  It doesn't give you that extra little bit that you need to knock an opponent unconscious a round early, or to Con Stun an enemy.  Yeah, it might happen, but it won't happen often.  The extra D6 isn't that much at that tier.

 

On the other hand, going from a 12D6 attack to a 13D6 attack just might push you into that next bracket.  At some point the extra D6 is going to be enough that you start dropping opponents in two hits instead of three, or it'll be enough that you start Con Stunning your enemies much more frequently.  Once you can KO an agent with one shot, an extra D6 will let you spread and hit his buddy standing next to him.

 

Hero makes no effort to try and increase the cost of a power based on these effects, and for good reason.  It's just too damn complicated. 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

5 minutes ago, massey said:

Hero makes no effort to try and increase the cost of a power based on these effects, and for good reason.  It's just too damn complicated. 

And then you have to factor in the value of OCV and SPD and certain talents and other powers to determine further impacts on the performance of the power. 

 

Condensing the combat effectiveness of a power to a single number is doable, but it outright requires a computer program to crunch the numbers for you. 

[massey]

Yeah and even with a computer program, you'd have to figure out how to apply it to things like the Darkness power.  How does that scale?  No idea at all.  Are you taking into account a radius of 4" or more, which pushes people into the next range bracket?  I don't even know if you should consider that.  And if you did, how would that affect the pricing of range combat levels?  Should you increase their price?  I just don't know.

 

And here's a great example of simple Energy Blast break points.  Suppose you have a 10D6 attack, and your campaign's villains average 20 Def, 25 Con, and 40 Stun.  On average, you'll do 35 Stun to them, meaning they take 15.  They aren't Con Stunned, and it will take 3 attacks on average to KO them (dropping them to 25 Stun, then 10 Stun, then -5 Stun -- we'll leave out Speed and Recoveries for the moment).  Now go up to an 11D6 attack.  You'll average 18-19 Stun per hit, meaning they still won't be Con Stunned and it will still take 3 hits to KO them (though they'll be more susceptible to a two hit KO on a slightly above average roll, and they'll be more unconscious after 3 hits).  Go up to a 12D6 attack and you still aren't Con Stunning them (on average), but now you'll KO them after only 2 hits.  That's a much bigger improvement than the 11D6 was.  Going to 13D6 and now you'll Con Stun them more than half the time on an average roll (45.5).

 

What you're left with is that a single D6 improvement varies quite a bit in effect depending on what break point it pushes you past.  And while an improvement of 2D6 is a lot when going from 10 to 12, it's insane when you go from 11 to 13.  You're dropping somebody one hit faster, and they likely aren't even getting a response after that first blow.

 

So, knowing all that... how should this affect the pricing of Defenses or Constitution?  Should we change the pricing of Energy Blast when you hit those key break points, or should the price Def and Con be raised when you are no longer being Stunned by the average attack?  Should going from 20 Con to 25 cost significantly more???

 

These are the crazy problems you start encountering when you look at repricing everything.

[Christopher]

21 hours ago, massey said:

I can see a perfectly rational argument for geometric price increases for stats.  But Hero doesn't use it.

Êxcept when it does with the Optional Normal Characteristics Maxima

 

A softcap like NCM is a perfectly valid way to make certain builds:

a) Undesirable

b) easier balanced by design

c) but not impossible if a player really wants them

And all without needing the GM to check every single stat*.

 

*I asume you can trust the player to not actively fake the math on his sheet. If you can not, that is another problem altogether.

 

22 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Like Christopher R. Taylor, changing the pricing because "I would  not allow this at all without the limitation" is a different set of rules, not a different interpretation of the Hero rules.

"The GM should examine all Limitations

used in his campaign. It’s up to him to decide if
certain Limitations are worth more or less in his
campaign, and change their value accordingly. The
GM has the final say over whether a Limitation is
allowed in his campaign, and how much it’s worth."

6E1 364 So it is not a "Houserule". It is a base game rule.

 

Alternatively I can define it as a Campaign rule:
"16 DC attacks are allowed, but have to take the equivalent of a -1 Limitation without getting the benefit".

I can not find it on the spot, but I am 90% sure there is a part saying "the GM can define Campaign rules like 'healing and regeneration does not work against damage from Morngul Blades', and the Characters do not get a limitation from that"

 

If you came to me with a 16 DC attack in a 12-14 DC game, these are the options:

a) NO!

b) No. And I am seriously tired of you trying to pull *bleep* like that!

c) Lower it to 14 DC with the same limitation and we can talk.

d) new Campaing Rule: "16 DC attacks are allowed, but have to take the equivalent of a -1 Limitation without getting the benefit".

 

If you came to me with a 16 DC attack in a 12-14 DC game and are adamant agaisnt house and campaign rules, these are the options:

a) NO!

b) No. And I am seriously tired of you trying to pull *bleep* like that!

c) Lower it to 14 DC with the same limitation and we can talk.

[massey]

On 3/18/2019 at 8:14 AM, Christopher said:

Êxcept when it does with the Optional Normal Characteristics Maxima

 

 

Aha, very true.

 

Quote

snip rest

 

You are perfectly free to play the game however you want, and even to alter the limitations as you wish.  I'm not coming over to your house to tell you that you're doing it wrong.  Your group shouldn't worry about what I think (likewise, I don't pay a bit of attention to what many people here say  ).

 

As I said using way too many words up above, refiguring the cost of published limitations is probably going overboard.  There are exceptions of course.  "Only under a full moon" would probably be something like a -2.  However, if you are playing The Adventures of Captain Werewolf, and every game session is set at night during the full moon, then it may just be a -0.  It's not that the character can transform whenever he wants, it's just that the "camera" is never on him except during those times.  The player will never be affected by the limitation, because you skip over all the boring human parts.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah there's a big difference between "you can run your game however you want" and "this is the official rule book"

[Christopher]

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yeah there's a big difference between "you can run your game however you want" and "this is the official rule book"

To the best of my knowledge, this is the official rule book.

 

I really dislike the concept of a House Rule. Too many uncertainties with those. That is why I can not agree to it being called a House Rule.

 

At worst it is a campaign rule.

A best, it is RAW.

And in the middle it is a 4th option compared to:
"a) NO!

b) No. And I am seriously tired of you trying to pull *bleep* like that!

c) Lower it to 14 DC with the same limitation and we can talk."

 

And it is not like I hesitate to call something a House Rule, even when giving the option.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Christopher

[Hugh Neilson]

On 3/18/2019 at 7:14 AM, Christopher said:

Êxcept when it does with the Optional Normal Characteristics Maxima

 

 

I had deliberately not mentioned NCM, which became a clearly "optional rule that changes the game" in 6e anyway, since you and I have disagreed in detail on that issue before.  The 5e model was especially egregious when you realize a 30 DEX costs 90 points, and provides 30 DEX and 4 SPD, while a 20 DEX, +15 DEX No Figured, and +1 SPD cost 70 points.  When you get more and pay less, or get less and pay more, it is very easy to determine you are neither getting what you pay for nor paying for what you get.

 

On 3/18/2019 at 7:14 AM, Christopher said:

A softcap like NCM is a perfectly valid way to make certain builds:

a) Undesirable

b) easier balanced by design

c) but not impossible if a player really wants them

And all without needing the GM to check every single stat*.

 

*I asume you can trust the player to not actively fake the math on his sheet. If you can not, that is another problem altogether.

 

 

If it makes the ability undesirable, as compared to the same ability at a lower price, then it has not enhanced balance, it has reduced balance.  See my example above of buying unlimited DEX versus buying limited DEX.  When you add NCM, the RAW carries exactly that result.

 

I will further suggest that, the more you deviate from RAW, the more need there is to check the character sheets, as they may overlook one of your many changes, or interpret your description of the change differently from your intention (the latter also occurs with RAW if we read the rules differently).

 

On 3/18/2019 at 7:14 AM, Christopher said:

Alternatively I can define it as a Campaign rule:

"16 DC attacks are allowed, but have to take the equivalent of a -1 Limitation without getting the benefit".

I can not find it on the spot, but I am 90% sure there is a part saying "the GM can define Campaign rules like 'healing and regeneration does not work against damage from Morngul Blades', and the Characters do not get a limitation from that"

 

If you came to me with a 16 DC attack in a 12-14 DC game, these are the options:

a) NO!

b) No. And I am seriously tired of you trying to pull *bleep* like that!

c) Lower it to 14 DC with the same limitation and we can talk.

d) new Campaing Rule: "16 DC attacks are allowed, but have to take the equivalent of a -1 Limitation without getting the benefit".

 

"No" is fine.  The players can also get tired of your Bovine*Bleep* rule changes, especially if they are made on the fly.  Why do we need to discuss 14 DC with RAW limitations in a 14 DC game, when we need discuss nothing - you don't need to vet everything, or so you said above, as long as we are all following your campaign rules?

 

You can say that Blast costs 1 point per 1d6 and STR costs 5 points for +1 too.  It doesn't make the game balanced, it means Blasters become the build of choice and Bricks disappear.  Why not just require everyone to play a blaster instead of passively-aggressively discounting builds you like and pricing the ones you don't out of the market.

 

You can certainly define campaign rules - that is still a house rule, which applies to this campaign.  You can "campaign rule" that we use d20s, there are only 6 stats, Defenses are replaced with DCV bonuses, we roll high and character points, for both initial build and future growth, must be spent on specific package deals, some with and some without built-in choices, for various races and professions.  Seems like it would be easier to just play the D&D game you wanted in the first place, but you could certainly assert "we are still playing Hero, with campaign rules that make it play exactly like D&D.

 

It would probably be accepted as true by about as many people as are buying into your "take a -1 limitation with no point savings is RAW" assertions, but nothing stops you from asserting it.  

 

EDIT:  As I reflect, the choice of which system we will play the campaign with is one of the earliest campaign rule decisions we make, isn't it?  And we see posters tell us they are transplanting a game to Hero System pretty regularly, so it is one you  can change later.