Ki-rin

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong Yes, Plastic Man or Elastic Man or Reed Richards are very interesting characters to try and categorize their combat roles using the HERO stereotypes with. Tough? Absolutely. Bricks? I'm not sure because their combat role doesn't tend to fit the Brick stereotype except possibly in the "damage sponge" role. Iron Man is definitely a Brick/EP hybrid. Most PA supers are. That's kind of why "PA" is an archetype itself, yes?

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong Hugh has correctly noted that "play balanced" can be a complex calculation. The bottom line is that everyone playing should be able to enjoy themselves without damaging anyone else's right to do the same. "Interesting" and "Fair" are the key values. Since we are talking about combat centric efficiency, let's simplify the problem to "combat balanced". If multiple characters spend equal points on being good in combat, they should be equally good in combat overall. Clearly, they can have very different things they are good at. One might be faster. One might be tougher. One might be very accurate. One might dish out enormous amounts of damage. etc. But each of them should be ~ equivalent to their peers in "combat CP spent" in how long they can survive and how effective they can be while fighting. The first pass metric I use for offensive combat effectiveness is (chances to attack)*(chance to hit)*(damage dished out) All characters that have spent the same amount of CP on offensive combat effectiveness should be ~ equal by that equation. Bricks tend to maximize the last term of that equation. Which means that they need to have lower values in the other two catagories to be combat balanced compared to their peers. I have already repeatedly said I agree. But if the team's best brick is also the team's best MA, that kind of leaves the team's MA "out in the cold". Again, I have repeatedly said I agree with this.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong You know I was not being that shallow. Your claim was As they say in court, "Objection: assumes facts not in evidence" To provide evidence for your PoV, you have to provide 1= a character concept that everyone will agree has low STR yet is a Brick. 2= evidence how you will play balance a 60 STR EP in campaigns set at various CP levels. This may be ridiculously easy in a 1000 CP game, but can it be done for the default CP level HERO assumes? How small a CP budget can you still prove the concept is validly play balanced? Etc. EDIT: corrected typo below In most games with a 12 DC cap, an EP with 60 STR would at first blush appear to be a real threat to other characters roles and schticks.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong There's no fair way to evaluate the validity of claims like these without examples to back them up.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong If one follows canon as closely as possible... Wonder Woman is a demi-god 2nd in power only to Superman... Aquaman is more a Mentalist than a Brick... (60 STR ! When has Aquaman acted like he had a 60 STR?) (Of more concern is that you are giving Arthur/Orin a 60 STR in a campaign where Diana is only 65 STR ? and SUPERMAN has a 60 STR ?!?) Your JLA are clever builds. If they are intended to be homage builds, you and your GM need to have a talk to make sure character concept is staying true to the source material. You've got some interesting ways of min-maxing that probably need discussing as well. ...and the JLA are =not= play balanced with regards to each other. Case in point from your own set of examples. Folks like http://killershrike.com/MiscCharacters/Contributions/Hyper-Man/Supers/JLA/The%20Archer.HTML are on the same team as the above and http://killershrike.com/MiscCharacters/Contributions/Hyper-Man/Supers/JLA/The%20Dark%20Knight.HTML not to mention http://killershrike.com/MiscCharacters/Contributions/Hyper-Man/Supers/JLA/The%20Green%20Alien.HTML and (of course) http://killershrike.com/MiscCharacters/Contributions/Hyper-Man/Supers/JLA/The%20Man%20of%20Steel.HTML

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong 100% agree. And if you can come up with a 60 STR MA that is play balanced compared to the other PCs, you are welcome to play such in any supers campaign I ever run. The first statement is obvious. There are no DnD like character classes in HERO. The second is a bit tricky. After all, as you yourself say, high STR is the defining stat of a HERO system Brick. Prior to 6E, high STR and high CON were all but requirements for a Brick because of the Figureds involved. Even if we ignore that, the reality is that the tricks Bricks are known for are essentially feats of great STR. I'm not sure most would call a character a Brick if it conformed in every way to the Brick stereotype with the sole exception of much lower than Brick standard STR. I suspect that most would classify a character according to what it can =do=. "No Brick Tricks because the STR is not there" would imply "not a Brick" to those.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong Colossus did not become a circus capable acrobat. He learned some =basic= falling and tumbling techniques. Tony Stark learned =basic MA= from Cap =specifically= for when he was =not= Iron Man. (see below for some of the problem of a super strong brick doing MA precisely and controllably) In game terms, neither Colossus nor Tony spent nearly enough time at anywhere near the level of commitment needed to give them serious abilities in these areas. Such stuff takes intense, regular training over a period of months and years. And even after you get it, you have to maintain it or you will lose it. Picking up a few techniques to round yourself out is =not= the same as becoming an acrobat or a MA. Physics doesn't change just because one has not witnessed a specific example of a physical effect. A tree =does= make a sound if it falls in the forest regardless of whether anyone is there to hear it. If it takes 1% of your maximum STR to do something, it'll be easy to learn to do it precisely and correctly. If it takes 1/25600 or even less of your maxmium STR, your margin of error is very, very small. Doing something in a controlled and precise manner will be correspondingly more difficult. Some compromises are forced upon us by issues of playability or game balance. That does not mean we should just ignore opportunities to improve the system so we can reduce the need for those compromises . The in-game balance on this is that obviously punching holes through people puts you in a whole different catagory of "Bad" than just mixing it up every now and then. Even causing $millions in property damage is not going to p*ss people off as much as having a Rep for being a Casual Killer. Supers who act like villains or commit illegal acts get stopped. Supers who are Casual Killers make many more, much more ardent, enemies. Casual Killers are themselves =killed= ASAP. Using any means necessary. I never said anything to suggest that a villain would want to avoid inflicting non-ND. But see above and below for some serious provisos. ...and create other problems that my play group, which includes real MA, occasionally find too inconsistent or too illogical to ignore. Such over-simplification or inconsistent game mechanics to protect game balance because the underlying mechanics are broken is one reason why many of us who used to play games like DnD stopped and went looking for a better RPG system. Yep. And they will have the opportunity. Some will even take advantage of it to some extent. But character concept and game balance are going to trump everything else. Any real MA will tell you that studying a MA to the degree needed to get the benefits we model in HERO as MA skills, MA maneuvers, let alone MA +DC classes, requires regular, ongoing, and nontrivial commitment. Commitment that most can not keep up. Commitment that especially most Bricks are not going to see a need for or feel the desire to keep up. ("What do you mean, I have to learn to punch? *puts hole through steel plate with one swing* Looks like it works well enough to me. Can =you= do that, Mr 'sensei'?")

Re: "revised" hit location chart? Here's an idea that I think might add reasonable realisim while not slowing play much or be too hard to explain/understand. Unless you are using a Called Shot, you aim Low, Medium, or High intending to hit whatever opportunity presents in those areas. Hitting Low is a bell curve centered on the lower 1/3 of the body. Hitting Medium (the default if no intent is stated) is a bell curve centered on the center 1/3 of the body. Hitting High is a bell curve centered on the upper 1/3 of the body. For each +1 that you make your To Hit roll by you can adjust the randomly generated location of the hit by + or - 1. For further realism, one can take facing, height difference, etc into account when deciding which hit locations are in the Low, Medium, or High zones. I ?think? this will result in greater realism while being much faster than using a full blown set of custom Hit Location tables.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong I never said otherwise. But KD is more expensive than ND so +5 STR => +1d6 ND. +15 STR => +1d6 KD. The MA gets a bonus here since +1 MA DC => +5 STR or +1d6 ND but +2 MA DC => +1d6 KD. ??? MA DC add the same amount of damage dice to an attack regardless of damage type in 6ED!? I =can't= have read that correctly.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong Yep. Those inconsistencies bothered both myself and my gaming group enough that we started to look for ways to resolve them while still keeping HERO system balanced. I'm just doing the best I can to make HERO as good as it possibly can be.

Re: "revised" hit location chart? Ummm, No. 2d6 gives 6^2= 36 possible locations. Multiplying by a constant doesn't change the number of possible locations. Just changes their numbering from 3-18 to 3*(3,4,5,...,18)= 9-54. 3d6 gives 6^3= 216 possible locations. 4d6 gives 6^4= 1296 possible locations. 5d6 gives 6^5= 7776 possible locations. (Note also that the bell curve becomes more "spike like" as the number of dice increases.) If you want 1331 possible locations, then you need 3d11= 11^3= 1331.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong Every character concept has to be both interesting/fun to run while at the same time not ruining anyone else's interest/fun. That's ultimately what I mean by "play balance". As for pure Bricks learning MA, there's at least two in game controls on this: 1= Bricks and MA approach life and combat differently. Bricks who can do things like lift planes, throw tanks, and rip bank safe doors off their hinges are not usually of the mind set to be MA. 2= As someone else noted earlier, TOO MUCH STR GETS IN THE WAY OF DOING MA. Choke holds pop heads off. Grips Crush bones or destroy other structural components. Nerve strikes shatter things instead of numbing them. Precision of effect necessarily becomes more difficult as your margins of error shrink due to the amount of power you are used to using by default. (not to mention the problems of being precise when your attacks cover larger amounts of target area.) Meta-game, there are issues of play balance that must be enforced to avoid destroying the game for other players by stepping too much on their roles or schticks. Or by having a super munchkin so outclass others that the others cease to enjoy themselves.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong ...and in the Avenger's Cap's role is more as Team Leader and overall strategist and tactician for exactly the reason that Cap is not as useful in situations where the raw power of Iron Man, Thor, Vision, or Wonder Man is. OTOH, if you want something done =quietly= and as surgically as possible, you send Cap and the other non bricks instead. That's the way it should be. Each kind of character concept has a different role in which it shines; and having access to a wide variety of them is synergistically better than the sum of their individual roles as long as they work as a team. 100% agree. I spoke quite extensively with the player to make sure we both had the same understanding of the character concept before I started doing anything to model them using HERO game mechanics. I'm doing the exact opposite of trying to "shoehorn him into my views".

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong Actually, Mentalists and EPs tend to be even more dangerous than Bricks or MA. Particularly if they do not have to be physically within arms reach or have LOS to use their powers. ...and if they do not need to be =either= physically within arms reach or to have LOS, they can be downright ludicrously powerful. Mentalists and EP properly played tend to run all over Bricks and MA of the same CP build cost. Unless or until the Bircks or MA can successfully attack them. Then they tend to be toast.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong Find Weakness, like Missile Deflection/Reflection and any other (!) or (Stop!) Power, has always been something that a GM has to pay close attention to in order avoid damaging the play experience. Moderate amounts, IF IT IS IN LINE WITH THE CHARACTER CONCEPT, can enhance play by increasing the variety of things that can happen during play. Go overboard and you destroy the game balance and the play experience for at least someone in the room (including possibly the GM!). Bottom line: characters should be fun to play; and if conceived to be effective in combat they must be play balanced against their peers who have spent equal CP on being good in combat.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong Agreed.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong Yes, we agree that STR itself is a multi-tool.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong And again No. The issue is play balance. =Some= MA concepts do not need particularly high PD, REC, or STUN. The extreme is the "lightning fast egg shell". Good luck hitting him, but if you do even once, they are scrambled eggs. The above are representative of =some= MA concepts. Nice thing about HERO is that we've got the flexibility to explore others as well. At some point that smacks of too much min-maxing or of character concept abuse. 10 STR MA taking 6+ MA DCs so they can dish out Brick sized Strikes is abusive for more than one reason. Especially if they expect to also have the DEX, SPD, etc usually associated with a MA. Play balance requires that (chances to attack)*(chance to hit)*(damage done when you hit) is approximately constant for characters that have spent equal CP on the same category of attack. I gave the criterion for play balance in combat above. Giving a more dexterous, higher SPD, more skilled character the ability to do the same damage as one lesser in those categories is not fair. Nope. Not even close. We agree. Cap's physical stats are not as high as you are making them unless in your world stat inflation has resulted in "normal" Olympic athletes with stats of 30 if you are staying true to canon source material. If you are pushing Cap into physical stats +5 above what your game world's "normal" Olympic athletes have, you are indeed pushing him into being a Brick/MA. ...and making him nonhuman enough that his appeal to the Man On The Street will be significantly less. ...Then you haven't got Bricks that are being played well enough! Well played, Bricks are =very= versatile; and the higher their STR, the more versatile they become.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong I 100% agree. Of course he wouldn't be! But that is not this character. This is a MA with 10 STR. He gets things done MA wise using skill, not power. Brick/EP hybrids. The player came to me with a concept and asked me to build as best as I can for him. That's about as far from trying to meta-game or min-max as it gets. IMNSHO, it's in everyone's best interest to give that sort of player the best fair shake I can. The player never asked for STR with a Limitation on it. Or any other way of building this character for that matter. He left how to build this character completely up to me. I the GM decided that the most fair way to build this character concept was with that game mechanic. I'm allowing this character no more than 25 STR of this type in a campaign where the Bricks are often in the 50 STR range. The Limited STR and the Figureds from it represent a lifetime of developing those stats for specifically those purposes. He's a very narrow specialist while the average Brick has that STR multi-tool you spoke of earlier. I'll try to.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong =You= were the one who introduced the concept that Bricks and MA are both HTH specialists. I agree with your original statement. Bricks and MA approach HTH differently just as heavy cavalry and light cavalry approach that differently. But neither Bricks nor MA is going to be as useful in a ranged EP role as that character concept will. Just as cavalry can not do the job of polearms or archers. BINGO! Dead in the black. That's why "STR only for the purposes of figured characteristics and combat maneuvers but not for lifting or other feats of STR" is a legitimate (-1/4) Limitation to me as long as the math works. As for a Brick's "serious ranged attacks", for pure Bricks they are usually "Brick Tricks" based on opportunity. They don't come close to being able to keep up with ranged EBs (Nor should they.). Of course, just as there are Brick/MA hybrids, there are Brick/EB hybrids. Let's not forget overall power levels either. An accurate homage build of Thor involves building a =god=. 1000 CP is not unreasonable for such a character concept.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong =Trebuchet= is the one who first called both Bricks and MA "HTH specialists". I simply agreed with him on that point. I also agree with everything you and he have said since about the roles and schticks of Bricks and MAs. (there's nice literary consonance in the phrase "the roles and schticks of Bricks..." BTW)