Ki-rin

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Thank you for backing me up Hyper-Man.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

I don't see HtH as being a schtick. A schtick is something that defines the character's uniqueness within a team or campaign' date=' like "most agile" or "toughest woman" or "fastest flier." Characters do not share [i']schticks;[/i] each one - barring rivalry - is theirs alone.

 

HtH specialist, or ranged attacker, or other such things define characters' roles within the campaign, not their schticks. I would argue that martial artists and bricks don't even fill the same role: martial artists are HtH specialists; whereas bricks are actually damage sponges who have a secondary role in HTH combat because their toughness makes them reasonably good at mixing it up at close range. Perhaps that's the true source of your difficulty: you're try to merge roles with schticks?

"Houston, we have a nomenclature difference."

No problem. I'll adopt yours.

A Brick is a character whose -role- is being a HTH combat specialist based on a STR and/or CON + BODY -schtick-.

A MA is a character whose -role- is being a HTH combat specialist based on a MA + (DEX and/or CON) -schtick-.

Bricks are awesomely powerful blunt instruments. MAs are awesomely precise razors.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Yes' date=' there's an easy solution to address this "imbalance": Switch to 6E. No more Figured Characteristics; no more problems with Figured values one way or the other. Now the HTH characters will be balanced, and ranged combatants will hold the upper hand instead. Isn't that better? [/quote']

...and how much of a commission do =you= get on every copy of 6E sold?

Seriously, some of us ALREADY have $sizable $investments in HERO products. Mine is in the $four $digit territory.

I've done my bit to support HG and will continue to do so as I can afford it.

 

Check the economy lately? "just buy a better solution" is not always feasible; and I am -certainly- not attempting to force that on my players.

 

You are still, IMO, trying to fix a non-existent problem. No real problem, no satisfactory solution. I have to ask: Why did you even start this thread if you already had the answer and didn't want input?

Definitely a problem w/o an easy answer. As shown by the sheer furor ignited by the simple question.

 

I suspected I had the best answer that was going to be found, but I'm not arrogant enough to think others can't come up with better ideas. So I came here to check the price of the solution I had found and see if someone had a better idea.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

It's the idea that the Brick Cost Point (High Str) is a 'Fair Price' compared to the Martial Artist Cost Point (DC's plus Points in Figured Chars). It's cheaper for certain' date=' but is it fair?[/quote']

The Brick is THE fundamental character archetype of HERO.

 

Everything is costed relative to The Brick to see if it's fair.

 

Any mechanic that results in a HTH combat specialist or a "Brick Trick" that is cheaper than what it would cost a Brick is considered inherently unfair.

 

Any mechanic that results in a "Brick Trick" + something extra should cost more than what a Brick pays to build the analogous "Brick Trick".

 

Steve apparently has changed the basis of the fundamental HERO equation in 6E. Until I see it and study it, I can't comment on what the new basis is.

 

But for 5ER or before, the Brick is the standard by which all other HERO concepts are judged by.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

DC's do create the effect just not the cost desired. If you're assuming that the Brick cost point is the only correct one' date=' then you may eventually find yourself in the position of recosting all other Concept Cost Points.[/quote']

DCs add damage to MA. They do not help a low STR character HTH specialist get their needed PD, REC, and STUN at a fair price.

 

If the character concept did not need PD, REC, and STUN effects where I needed anything but DCs to keep things fair, I'd just be using DCs.

 

THIS CHARACTER IS NOT STRONG. But they are very effective at performing and surviving HTH combat.

 

The player should not be scrod for "daring" to design a HTH combat specialist that does not conform to HERO's ingrained stereotypes (not to mention that the player is something like a 4th Dan BB and therefore knows WTF they're talking about when discussing what a such a HTH combat specialist looks like in game terms.)

 

I've got a solution that passes multiple "is this fair" tests. It happens to not fit cleanly in the RAW. It's more fair and less messy than anything else I've seen or thought of.

Unless someone has better idea that achieves the same goals, It's a Done Deal and everyone please stop bothering me about it.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Originally Posted by jtelson

Applying a limit to a Primary Characteristic that does not also limit its Figured Characteristics - automatically removes the limited portion of the Primary's effect from the Figureds. So Limited Str doesn't work to create the efficiency you desire. Damage Classes, however, will create the effect you seem to be after.

Exactly!

 

This was already pointed out previously up thread and given no response.

It was responded to. It was rejected because DCs BY THEMSELVES DO NOT CREATE THE EFFECT NEEDED.

You seem to like point based examples. I gave one.

This perfectly valid and fair character concept costs 1.4x the CPs it should.

If the player had wanted to do something where using DCs were all that was needed to keep things fair, I would've used DCs.

I certainly did not want to have a F'ing target painted on my back by the more commonly participating members of these forums.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

You apparently have umpteen pages of house rules to correct (if I may be blunt) non-existent problems' date=' but can't see any possible case where you'd grant GM permission for an NND Does BODY attack? Granted they should be as rare as hen's teeth, but exceedingly rare and requiring GM's permission certainly does not equal no way to build them.[/quote']

Actually, I have very few House Rules. And I work like h&ll to keep it that way.

 

The RAW imply that NNDA that do BODY are a more serious danger to the system than Stop! powers in the opinion of the people who wrote the system. Therefore "rare as hen's teeth" doesn't come close to describing how rare an NNDA that routinely does BODY should be.

 

Equal points does not mean equally effective. They are different character concepts. IME neither brick nor MA have a significant advantage over the other. The sheer number of "Bricks are too powerful" and "Martial artists are too cost effective" threads over the years on these boards suggest that the line is nowhere near as clearly defined as you paint it or these players wouldn't be complaining that they're finding one or the other too effective against the other archetype. I've played both over the years; and I've fought both with both types and won and lost.

As you yourself have stated, both Bricks and MA are HTH combat specialists. That -is- their "schtick".

 

If one of them has to spend 1.4x as many CP to be equally good at being a HTH combat specialist, that's A Problem.

 

The irony in many of the "Brick vs MA" debates is that it is often exactly backwards- It's the -Bricks- that tend to be too cost effective.

 

If I had to call it for one or the other, I'd say bricks have a slight edge, maybe 45/55. That might be important in a tactical wargame, but it has no bearing in an RPG. One can roleplay well with either.

Bricks have an edge compared to any other HTH combat specialist in HERO.

 

How big that edge is depends on which character concepts you are comparing and what circumstances you are comparing effect for effect. Usually it can be ignored or lived with.

 

But when a player comes to me with a good, well thought out, and should be fair character concept that just happens not to fit cleanly into the stereotypes HERO is biased towards, part of my job as GM is to see they don't get F'd.

 

That's =more= important IMHO than even protecting the game from mini-maxing. IMNSHO, a GM's primary responsibilty is to make sure everyone can have fun in a fair way.

Re: What CV's (OCV & DCV) model in Heroic settings

BNakagawa makes goods points. Here's an expansion on them. Below is the 3d6 curve.

03.....1........1

04.....3........4

05.....6......10

06....10.....20

07....15.....35....-4

08....21.....56....-3

09....25.....81....-2

10....27...108....-1

11....27...135.....0

12....25...160....+1

13....21...181....+2

14....15...196....+3

15....10...206....+4

16.....6....212

17.....3....215

18.....1....216

As you can see from the above,

If someone is at -4 To Hit, they will hit 35/216. Less than 1/6.

At -4 or worse, To Hit chances are so low that you are mostly wasting your time rolling the dice.

If someone is at +4 To Hit, they will hit 206/216. More than 19/20.

At +4 or better, To Hit chances are so high that again you are mostly wasting your time rolling the dice.

The same effect occurs with stat rolls and skill rolls.

Just about everything interesting die roll wise in HERO happens in the -4 <= chance <= +4 region.

Thus HERO tends to encourage character concepts that get you into that range overall with things like CV that affect major portions of what a character can do and use levels as possible "icing" of +1 or +2.

+4 levels in HERO is a -huge-skill level modifier.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Fair is an interesting term here - I would tend to say that the advantage provided by the STR pump is what's not fair in this situation.

 

If your principle concern is points then set the cost at whatever you feel like.

In addition changing things so this character concept comes closer to matching the efficiency of the STR pump has far fewer ripples than changing the far greater number of characters based on the STR pump.

HERO Games gets to cause major trouble like that. Not me.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Applying a limit to a Primary Characteristic that does not also limit its Figured Characteristics - automatically removes the limited portion of the Primary's effect from the Figureds. So Limited Str doesn't work to create the efficiency you desire. Damage Classes' date=' however, will create the effect you seem to be after.[/quote']

Bear in mind that all of what follows is for 5ER or before.

 

-Nothing- RAW will fairly create the effect my player is after in 5ER or before.

 

Each +5 STR is +1d6 ND and 2x more lifting, carrying, etc "feats of STR".

In addition, each 1 CP spent on STR buys 1 STR + 1/5 PD + 1/5 REC + 1/2 STUN= 1.9

Bought separately 1 CP=> 1 PD, 2 CP=> 1 REC, 1 CP=> 1 STUN

 

So 5d6 ND + 5 PD + 7 REC + 28 STUN

a= STR 25 => 15 CP

b= STR 10 => 17 CP on stats + 4 CP for +1 HTH DC= 21 CP

(I'm not including the +3 to +5 CP to buy a Strike.)

 

TBF to the player, I need a way to do things close to as efficiently as the STR pump. Certainly better than RAW.

 

15/21= .7143 or darn close, but still better, than what a "you get 4 points for every 3 you spend for taking this Limitation" bonus to CP spent will result in.

 

Result: the standard character concept of the Brick still comes out on top, but the other concept is not nearly as punished for wanting to play a particular concept of a HTH specialist who is not a Brick.

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

5ER p194. The values are standard.

 

We've used a Falt StunX of 3 and a max StunX of 5 for years. Works pretty well, I definitely recommend it.

"D'oh!" No wonder it sounded so reasonable.:o

*Ki-rin realizes just how forgetful he is getting as he gets older*

Thanks Ghost_Angel.

...and I agree that this is much better than any STUN Lottery.

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

I've been doing some experimental builds based on KD doing 3x STUN Multiplier and a possible new Ad/DisAd of "Change STUN Multiplier" which is -1/4 for each -1 down to a minimum of 1x STUN Multiplier and +1/4 for each +1 up to a maxmium of 5x STUN Multiplier.

Perliminary results seem reasonable so far.

What do others think?

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

It doesn't matter if the bonuses are in addition to RAW or are in addition to something more draconian. When some SFX gain an advantage against others, and that advantage is not set off against drawbacks of similar weight, you favour one SFX over another.

 

Any benefit sufficient to support a +1/4 advantage, and any drawback sufficient to warrant a -1/4 limitation, should be paid for. SFX provide minor benefits and drawbacks of too little value to stat out into the mechanics.

Agreed. Nothing I've said violates any of this.

Then they should not be purchased as NND's that do not do BOD. You are not reasoning from effect if you use NND to purchase an ability that can and will cripple or kill. You mention metarules below. To most Hero Gamers "Reason from Effect" is the UberRule. One rule to rule them all.

I am reasoning from effect. I am not allowing NNDs that do BODY in their normal operation. I am not doing the players any favors. It is in fact a Bad Thing if an NND is Too Big and therefore risks doing BODY.

I believe the rule you were looking for is that no Martial Art maneuver can do more than one type of damage, which I believe is explicitly stated in the maneuver construction rules.

It's certainly what I'm focusing on in a sub thread on MAM's and their damage.

I've already apologized for allowing this subthread to inappropriately widen in scope beyond that.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

STR RAW gives you certain benefits. Prior to 6E, it was in fact one of the most point effective purchases in the game due to the "STR and CON pump" that made building Bricks so efficient over the years.

STR that does not allow you to actually -be- strong is obviously STR that is Limited.

My question at the start of this thread was how large or small should that Limitation be.

The (-1/4) that came back was in line with my original suspicions for 5ER or earlier, but I wanted some other opinions.

I can't discuss 6E STR responsibly yet because I do not have 6E yet.

Everything else that has been discussed in this thread has been OT. Interesting stuff, but OT. I'd be well within my rights and the rules of civility to simply refuse to discuss the OT stuff. But I'm trying to be nice.

Some folks are doing their best to make me sorry I ever asked their opinion.

...and some folks are doing their best to make me sorry I ever came on this board.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Guys, those examples are TWO powers Linked to work together simultaneously. They are not ONE power that uses multiple types of damage dice simultaneously.

And for combat maneuvers, which is what all MA attacks are, I'm even more sure there is a specific prohibition against a single maneuver using more than one kind of damage dice simultaneously.

..and since the whole point of this sub-thread is MA, I apologize for inappropriately broadening it's scope beyond that.

Let's stop talking about powers in general and stay focused on MA please?

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Wrong. They're designed to simulate attacks for which there is no normal defense - hence the name of the Advantage. It is entirely possible and legal to build NND attacks that do BODY.

...and I quote

"No Normal Attacks are STUN only; they can do BODY only if the character also buys the Does BODY Advantage; which requires the GM's permission" 5ER p265 description of NND.

A NNDA that routinely does BODY is a bigger deal than a Stop! power.

That's extra-legal enough for me.

It seems to me that this is exactly why there are Combination Powers. A quick reading of the 5ER metarules shows no such prohibition against using two or more types of attacks. Could you provide a reference and/or quote the relevant sentence(s) in the rules?

I know I've seen the prohibition against building an effect with more than one kind of damage dice. I'll try to find it.

In the meantime I invite you and everyone else who jumped on this point to find me a single official HERO Games published source with an attack in it that uses more than one kind of damage dice simultaneously. Just one.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

The Hero System is not a reality simulator. It's a roleplaying toolkit.

Every RPG is a reality simulator...

Your argument against using Martial Damage Classes in lieu of some 'house-ruled limited STR that adds to Martial Maneuvers just like Martial Damage Classes' seems to boil down to this:

"If one attempts to build a highly effective HTH combat character w/o high STR, it ends up being more expensive points-wise. Sometime much more. "

 

It is a premise that many board members probably disagree with.

 

It also seems like a munchkiny complaint too.

The quoted prinicple is a very inaccurate over generalization of a complex problem. MA have always been a complex and imperfect part of HERO.

For many years, the most point effective way to build a combat specialist in HERO was to to build a Brick.

Then things changed so that building Bricks was merely the most point effective to build a HTH combat specialist.

Then people started tweaking the rule kit to allow MA as a different way to build equally point effective HTH combat specialists.

The pendulum swung too far at one point (Paek-Tu MA in Aaron Allston's _Strike Force_ which he himself said, in the original _Ninja Hero_ IIRC, was found to be game imbalancing upon further play test.) and MA sort of got "frozen" at a certain point of effectiveness and, far more importantly in my PoV, overall approach.

Simulating MA well in HERO is complex enough given that the assumed reality of the base damage system is 4 color comics. It gets worse when attempting to merge them in a game balanced way into a reality that includes beings who can lift jumbo jets and throw tanks.

But the fundamental principle must be that if a Brick and a MA both spend the same amount of CP on being good at HTH combat, they should be equally effective. DIFFERENT, most certainly. But equally effective.

Re: Normal Human

1= Given origin stories that change everything from children to old folks into powerhouses with stats "beyond the ken of men"

of course there's no hard cap on stats.

I never said there was.

2= At some point, people go from being impressed or awed by a person's stats ("Damn! that person is !") to looking at what a character can do and deciding that what they are seeing simply is not human ("OMG! are among us! Please don't ") or they start worshipping them or ...

It's a continuum. Not a step function.

1000 years ago, a man who could lift a motorcycle's worth of weight over his head, let alone -throw- it after doing so, would have been considered inhuman.

Now a significant portion of the population regularly trains to be strong enough to accomplish similar feats.

Evolution + better living conditions + better training methods have changed the upper limits of what we consider peak human performance.

(There was a time when the 10 sec hundred yard dash and the 4 minute mile were both considered impossible.)

3= The "past some point it costs 2x to improve a stat" models this reality better than hard caps would.

Re: Normal Human

I find it interesting that you keep tossing Cap into this. Cap isn't a mainline human. He was altered by the Super Soldier serum. This indirectly makes him a "mutate." His strength' date=' regardless of all the builds that put him at 20, was above a 25. His Dex would/should be pushing 30. I honestly would not ever consider Cap a possibility for NCM.[/quote']

I =finally= get to respond to this.

 

Well established Marvel canon is the effect of his origin story is to put Steve Rogers at the peak of what is physically possible for normal humans.

 

There has even been one very notable plot line where Steve decided to experiment with having true superpowers to overcome what he felt was a growing power gap between his physical abilities and those of common opponents.

He ended up deciding that the effects "unbalanced" him (his term in the comic) to the point where it hampered his effectiveness.

 

Except in plot lines like above, (where Cap has had STR as high as 35-40)

My most accurate homage build of Cap gives him a STR and DEX of about 25 and =lot's= of skill with both using those stats and Pushing them.

 

Cap being best modeled with stats in the 25 range was in fact a critical factor in my decision to set NCM at 25 in my game worlds.

Re: Normal Human

Which is what' date=' from my understanding, was the biggest argument against it. It was not balanced. Technically, every character that is defined intrinsically as "normal" should be qualified for NCM. Whether they are player or non, so long as they are "normal."[/quote']

..and they are. Look at my post.

 

But "qualify" does not mean "must take". The example of Bats in JLA and Cap in The Avengers shows that it is certainly canon for a superheroic normal to be in a campaign w/o having to deal with there being a constant annoying reminder that they are a normal compared to their more god-like brethren.

 

Unless you take characteristics in excess of the cap to justify the disad, then it is really not a disad, seems to be the argument.

Yep, and I've been pointing out the flaw in that interpretation quite vigorously during my entire participation in this thread.

 

Every game mechanic or group of mechanics in HERO that results in a game effect has SFX.

Every. Single. One.

If you are playing or GMing HERO properly, ONE MUST SIMULATE AS BEST AS POSSIBLE THE SFX OF AN EFFECT IN BOTH COSTS AND PLAY

In fact many of the ways munchkins try to manipulate the system basically boil down to violating this meta principle.

 

If you've bought a stat or group of stats with NCM or CM on them, there is a SFX involved. And that SFX must and should be simulated as best we need to in play if we want to keep things fair and fun.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Oh, come now. We ALL house rule things to make them work as we think they should at some point.

 

However, I do think there is some value in thinking ahead and building things "correctly" where you can foresee an issue. We have ways of building NND attacks that do Body, or that even include Str damage if you want. 6E is quite open to that now, in fact. And building them with things like the Does Body Advantage does give a standard structure to the build and a fair appraisal of the cost/value of the power (at least one that those of us used to the system can understand anyway). So you might want to do that rather than just hand waving Body damage back into all NND attacks. You can certainly deny a NND build if it doesn't do Body and that's not appropriate to your campaign, too.

 

If there IS a way to build something already in the standard system, why not use it? You certainly don't have to, but it'll keep things closer to the standard rules, and that can help in collaborative efforts here, with your players, or whatever. **shrug**

Ah, but you see the problem is that HERO does not offer an easy way to simulate what I've been talking about.

NNDAs are supposed to simulate an attack that can -never- do BODY. Never ever.

Problem is that both myself and some of my players have too much ITRW experience with some of the IRL attacks these NNDAs are supposed to simulate.

We -know- that one of the IRL issues with all of the attacks I'm describing is the DisAd that if you put too much power into them they can, will, and do cripple or kill.

One of the meta rules of HERO is that an attack can never be bought with more than one type of damage. An attack can do ND, or KD, or NND, but

ONE CAN NEVER BUILD AN ATTACK THAT USES MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF DAMAGE DICE IN HERO SYSTEM.

So if I want to simulate an effect with enough accuracy to overcome the lack of said that sometimes bothers the heck out of both me and others in our group, I need to find a way to simulate this reality that is NOT

a= "building an attack that does more than one type of damage" and

b= the same thing all the time just bigger or smaller.

The critical facts here are that IRL,

1= under certain circumstances these effects transition from what is best modeled by one kind of HERO damage to something that is best modeled by a different kind of HERO damage; and

2= that it is always a Bad Thing if it happens.

So I've done the best I can to simulate these attacks realistically while staying as close as I could to the RAW and the meta rules of HERO.

HERO started off simulating the unrealistic 4 color comics where people simply do not die except for purposes of dramatic license.

That bias is so deeply embedded in the system that some RW effects are nigh unto impossible to model well within HERO w/o tweaking the system toolkit.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Your last point undermines your supposed agreement with Hugh in your first point.

Only if you think "agreement" means "100% black and white with no shades of grey or exceptions ever".

Things are sometimes not that simple.

NND MA is one of them.

The game mechanics we have to simulate them break down in some fairly common contexts in a supers game.

Fixing them so they retain logical consistency with what we as players would expect given ITRW experience and knowledge requires playing with the toolkit we've been given to some extent.

Re: Normal Human

Never. Now, in his own title, on the other hand...

 

Ki-Rin, answer a simple question for me if you would. By your definition using NCM, would every single person in the game that does not have super powers/abilities, be entitled to NCM as a disad?

 

Normals.

 

DNPCs.

 

Furniture/wallpaper characters.

NCM is a possible bonus to be given to heroic characters competing against superheros in a superheroic campaign. It's a DisAd bonus for those worlds.

It can also be used as a (potentially very ham handed) game balance tool for heroic campaigns. But that is a different topic than what we are presently discussing.

Heroic characters in supers campaigns do not need to take NCM. This means that they do not want these SFX issues to come up in play in such a manner as to affect how they are played.

OTOH, Heroic characters who -do- take NCM in a supers campaign are getting extra points up front for character design in exchange for

a= restrictions on how they can develop in the future

b= having the implications of their "merely mortal" SFX come up in game play.

So,

1= non characters are not entitled to NCM

(so no NCM inanimate or nonsentient objects.)

2= Normals and DNPCs might be depending on context.

3= NPC's and PC's might be depending on character concept and GM or player choice.

Re: Normal Human

Hugh,

I do not give -0 Limitations. Those are essentially SFX.

At this point, it is clear we are not going to agree about the SFX implications of NCM.

Not a problem. We will just have to agree to disagree.

The rest of your more recent post has been responded to in different posts by me to others.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

I consider fairness and playabililty both more important concepts than simulated realism.

On that we agree.

"Pick the right SFX and get a package of free bonuses" supports neither fairness nor playability.

If you think I am advocating "Pick the right SFX and get a package of free bonuses", you and I are having a serious misunderstanding.

If anything I'm =more= draconian than the RAW.

If the SFX suggest the attack shold be capable of doing BOD, a power capable of doing BOD should be selected. If a power incapable of doing BOD is selected, then it is incapable of doing BOD.

100% agree with first sentence.

However, sometimes the world is not that simple. Sometimes things happen that invalidate the model we are working from. When that happens, the situation needs to be cleaned up somehow.

My choice is to use the RAW as far as I can until the results drift too far from what would be logically consistent given what we know ITRW. Then I patch things as best as I can to keep the game world logically consistent.