My existential crisis about SPD

[Ninja-Bear]

11 minutes ago, Steve said:

Limited SPD seems like it should figure into this somewhere.

Perhaps there is a speedster character who buys extra points of SPD that can only be used for Moves and Half-Moves.

It could but that seems to me to be more bookkeeping than it’s worth.

[Gauntlet]

8 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

It could but that seems to me to be more bookkeeping than it’s worth.

 

Not as much as you think depending on the different speeds and the use of them. Big thing to remember is to have the extra speed a specific action that can be done and to remember that if you cancel to your next phase then you can lose the extra phase if the next normal phase is after it.

Edited August 22 by Gauntlet

[Hugh Neilson]

On 8/20/2024 at 2:17 PM, Steve said:

Superman has had an infamously glaring weakness with Kryptonite for decades. A character may start with a Vulnerability that never goes away or gets mitigated and still be playable. It’s just a dramatic part of the character’s build. In the CU, there are glowing alien space rocks (Kelvarite) that grant powers but also give Vulnerabilities.

 

This comes down to genre tropes, and links to some extent to the discussion on GM style. When a GM bemoans the fact that his players refuse to play in genre, I generally ask the same questions.

 

The Supers PCs don't play in genre. They go all-out to kill the villains.  To Doc D's point, what happens when they send the villain off to jail?  He escapes along the way, comes back, kills off a beloved NPC or three and rubs the players' noses in his continued depredations?  You have trained the players to build PCs who are killers.

 

The PCs are utterly paranoid, suspicious of every NPC.  They cast defensive spells at every Inn, carry silver manacles to check if NPCs are werewolves, post constant guards on any NPCs travelling with them, avoid giving NPCs any level of trust whatsoever.  How often does an NPC prove trustworthy?  Well, never - it's so much more dramatic when every adventure hook manipulates and betrays them, and every NPC they travel with stabs them in the back or steals their stuff in the middle of the night.  Gee, I wonder why that experience has caused them never to trust an NPC.

 

The heroes never show restraint, they agonize over making only the best tactical decisions and have no personalities.  So what happens if they don't perfectly execute combat plans?  The opposition ruthlessly exploits their advantage and takes the PCs down.  I see; and what do their enemies do with the defeated PCs.  Well, slit their throats, of course. What kind of idiot villain would let powerful enemies live, much less take them to their hidden base and give away all their plans gloating.

 

When leaving any gap in defenses results in the GM ruthlessly exploiting that weakness at every turn, the player strives to avoid any gap in defenses.  When beloved NPCs are targets to attack the PCs, player build orphan loner PCs.  When the slightest tactical error means defeat and probably a TPK or at least building a new character, players build ruthless tacticians with no personality.  If every NPC betrays the PCs, then they trust no one besides fellow PCs (and maybe not them).

 

By contrast, where having weaknesses creates challenges that the players can cleverly overcome, and the villains also have weaknesses, the players are not as incented to buy up a defense to everything that might challenge them. When beloved NPCs create role playing opportunities and sometimes even help out in-game, players are more motivated to build PCs that connect with the world, not hide away from it. When a tactical error consistent with PC personalities does not mean losing the battle, and losing the battle advances the story rather than ending it, and starting a new PC, players become more willing to have those tropes appear in the game. When many NPCs prove trustworthy and are there in the PCs time of need (not replacing them, but enhancing their ability to be heroes), the PCs start to trust more NPCs. 

 

IOW, if you want the heroes to embrace the genre tropes, then you as GM have to embrace them as well.  In the source materials, the PCs that follow all those genre tropes emerge triumphant. When following the genre tropes frustrates, rather than facilitates, that triumph, the players will avoid, not embrace, the genre tropes.

[Duke Bushido]

"We're sorry; it is not possible to rep a post eleventeen times.

 

Please stop trying......."

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

When a GM bemoans the fact that his players refuse to play in genre, I generally ask the same questions.

 

Well stated.  And it works both ways: why does the GM keep doing x?  Maybe its because you as players keep doing y.  If your Supergroup keeps murdering villains with no cause or justification, maybe the GM responds by making them unkillable, or teleport away, or be a clone every time.  If your fantasy heroes keep stealing from every town, then the guards are all instantly hostile and the treasuries are heavily trapped and enchanted to keep out thieves.  

 

It comes down to what do you want out of a game and are you willing to make that happen?

[Doc Democracy]

Simple conversations work.  As a GM, I was tired of every player using poison all the time.  I said that straight to their faces, I accepted it was effective but I told them it was not socially acceptable. I gave them two incentives, one in-game, that I would play the fact folk knew them as poison users to their detrimental, one meta-game, that if they continued to use poison all the time, so would ALL their opponents, if they did not, only the most evil of opponent would use it.

 

Doc

[Gauntlet]

I found the best way to keep superheroic heroes from always going for the kill is simply to put the law against them. There are plenty of ways that they can put more powerful attacks against them and even discover their true identity, which ends them rather quickly. For a Fantasy Hero game where they just keep utilizing poison, well should there be characters who gain power from a good and/or lawful deity source, well then, that source quickly takes away any powers they may have that they gave to them (any powers with the Religious Restrictions limitation). This would even be if they are not doing it but their cohorts are, which means they are forced to act against the rest of their team if they keep utilizing items and procedures that anger their deities. 

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

I found the best way to keep superheroic heroes from always going for the kill is simply to put the law against them. There are plenty of ways that they can put more powerful attacks against them and even discover their true identity,

 

Absolute truth.

 

Admittedly, much like over-built defenses discussed elsewhere, I have never had a problem with murderous superheroes; my players seem to have an innate understanding of the genre tropes; it is certainly better than what I started with (I was not a comic book kid) and even after all these years of playing Champions with who-konws-how-many different players who _were_ comic book kids, I still feel myself a bit behind their understanding.  😕

 

But that is a digression.  Secret Identity loss is useful in more ways than one, and murder is not the only reason why law enforcement might wish to learn who was behind the mask:  superheroes do a _lot_ of collateral damage.  If a brick makes a habit of throwing cars at his opponents, insurance agencies may well launch their own investigations.  A brick who routinely uses street lamps and manhole covers as foci of opportunity may find himself unmasked by public works, or routinely harassed by the hard-working people who have to make the repairs behind him, or the parents of that one kid who fell into an open storm drain and--

 

It goes on and on, of course.  Social pressure goes a long, _long_ way to reinforcing desired behavior in anyone who accepts this Disadplication (and a _good_ GM will make certain that his players know that _up front_, along with the sort of behavior he will and will not allow in this campaign).

 

As an example:

 

Many years ago, I had a player who was a constant limelight hog--  not just during action sequences, but who kept pushing for social recognition and was constantly stopping to mug for the news cameras and get as much face time as possible to the point that it went from annoying the other characters to annoying the other players with how much it slowed down the game, and much of my (the GM's) time was being taken away from developing their character's arcs to deal with the now-now-now gratification needs of the single player.  It got bad enough that two of the players approached me one afternoon in the middle of an engine swap (I like company, but that is a big job during which I can't really afford to be interrupted, given my limited personal time).  I listened to what they had to say, and was sympathetic without taking sides (which sucks, especially when you actually agree with them), and told them I would see what I could do.

 

A couple of sessions later, as the problem player was standing in front of a group of reporters begging for questions and seeking further accolades, two uniformed officers pushed through the throng of newsies and began asking her much more serious questions.

 

Short version, skipping ahead a few more sessions: she had a stalker who had become obsessed with her TV personality and who was dangerously close to figuring out her identity (the team's skillmaster had discovered that these two men where not actually police officers and told her so).

 

After a coincidental appearance of a police officer showing up _at her home_ (he was canvassing the neighborhood for witnesses to an unrelated occurrence), she became genuinely worried.

 

She sought the counsel of the group, and one of them suggested that perhaps if she was "a little less in the limelight as a standout," his interest might wane.   She immediately stopped mugging for the cameras and seeking out publicity, but did not actually become a recluse or any kind of about face.  She simply started sharing time.  The team leader even named her team spokesman to give her (the player) some of the direct feedback she craved, but it was no longer detrimental to the fun of everyone else.

 

So, yeah-  don't forget that Secret ID and other social Disadplications are not just plot devices; used softly, they can be uses to "steer" individuals onto course that ensures everyone is getting the most from the game without anyone feeling left out. 

 

2 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 For a Fantasy Hero game where they just keep utilizing poison, well should there be characters who gain power from a good and/or lawful deity source, well then, that source quickly takes away any powers they may have that they gave to them (any powers with the Religious Restrictions limitation). This would even be if they are not doing it but their cohorts are, which means they are forced to act against the rest of their team if they keep utilizing items and procedures that anger their deities. 

 

 

Yep.

 

I do this pretty regularly with divinely-sourced abilities, to the point that there are aome deities who will simply remove their blessing entirely should you seek or use the blessing of another, or even of a particular other deity.

 

It is not a mean-spirited thing; given the rivalries and legends of various pantheon, it both "feels right" and helps keep the clerical types from becoming one-man armies.

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Another way to deal with excessive poison use is that poisons are innately dangerous to use and to carry around.  The vials may break, and if made from glass, might poke the PC.  You might screw up putting some on a weapon and nick yourself.  You might breathe in the fumes in an unguarded moment.  Most of the time GMs handwave that, because its not very fun, but abuse of something is a signal that the GM can then start enforcing those kind of scenes.

 

Also you can create monsters that absorb poison and get more powerful; plant monsters who gain the poison they are hit by, and strike back, for example.  Now its a drawback to use poison, and players might be more cautious with it.

[Hugh Neilson]

5 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

I found the best way to keep superheroic heroes from always going for the kill is simply to put the law against them. There are plenty of ways that they can put more powerful attacks against them and even discover their true identity, which ends them rather quickly. For a Fantasy Hero game where they just keep utilizing poison, well should there be characters who gain power from a good and/or lawful deity source, well then, that source quickly takes away any powers they may have that they gave to them (any powers with the Religious Restrictions limitation). This would even be if they are not doing it but their cohorts are, which means they are forced to act against the rest of their team if they keep utilizing items and procedures that anger their deities. 

 

This kind of response, top me, begs the question of whether we all want the same game.  If the players want to play murderhobos with superpowers and the GM wants to run a four-colour game of real superheroes, the conflict of game desires will be a problem. If the players are looking for added power and poison gives it to them, then they will use poison. Is it really so remarkably worse than burning, flash-freezing or electrocuting their enemies?

 

But I do agree with Doc - if poison is the best way to get the job done, then why wouldn't everyone use it? Maybe there are drawbacks, like:

 

53 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Another way to deal with excessive poison use is that poisons are innately dangerous to use and to carry around.  The vials may break, and if made from glass, might poke the PC.  You might screw up putting some on a weapon and nick yourself.  You might breathe in the fumes in an unguarded moment.  Most of the time GMs handwave that, because its not very fun, but abuse of something is a signal that the GM can then start enforcing those kind of scenes.

 

Also you can create monsters that absorb poison and get more powerful; plant monsters who gain the poison they are hit by, and strike back, for example.  Now its a drawback to use poison, and players might be more cautious with it.

 

If these drawbacks apply to PCs, they should apply equally to NPCs.  If the NPCs can take abilities that make poison usage more practical, then why can't the PCs? Will the vials used to carry potions and lamp oil be just as fragile?  If not, save the potion vials or dump the lamp oil out and pour the poison in.

 

Or

9 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

Simple conversations work.  As a GM, I was tired of every player using poison all the time.  I said that straight to their faces, I accepted it was effective but I told them it was not socially acceptable. I gave them two incentives, one in-game, that I would play the fact folk knew them as poison users to their detrimental, one meta-game, that if they continued to use poison all the time, so would ALL their opponents, if they did not, only the most evil of opponent would use it.

 

We could be really creative and try having an actual conversation, like adults, about what we each want from the game, and what kind of game we want to play.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

If these drawbacks apply to PCs, they should apply equally to NPCs.  If the NPCs can take abilities that make poison usage more practical, then why can't the PCs? Will the vials used to carry potions and lamp oil be just as fragile?

 

Well stuff like that applied to NPCs won't show in the game.  You only fight the ones that didn't accidentally poison themselves, or if they did, they survived so its not an issue.  Its all off-camera for the NPCs so it doesn't matter.  And as I noted: "Most of the time GMs handwave that, because its not very fun."  You don't ordinarily do that because you aren't trying to in game ease the characters into different behavior.  Like when you said:

 

Quote

Short version, skipping ahead a few more sessions: she had a stalker who had become obsessed with her TV personality and who was dangerously close to figuring out her identity (the team's skillmaster had discovered that these two men where not actually police officers and told her so).

 

An in-game occurrence which helps illustrate why what a character is doing isn't necessarily in the best interest of the game.

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Well stuff like that applied to NPCs won't show in the game.  You only fight the ones that didn't accidentally poison themselves, or if they did, they survived so its not an issue.  Its all off-camera for the NPCs so it doesn't matter.  And as I noted: "Most of the time GMs handwave that, because its not very fun."  You don't ordinarily do that because you aren't trying to in game ease the characters into different behavior.

 

If poison use by PCs carries the constant risk of breaking poison vials poking them with poisoned shards of glass or nicking themselves applying poison to a weapon, how often do the poison-using NPCs enter combat already suffering from the effects of poisoning themselves accidentally? The practical reality is that, if use of poison is so inherently dangerous to the user, neither PC nor NPC would logically use it. The real question seems more one of the relative power of poison in the game. If it is the most effective tactic, why is it not in near-constant use?

 

If a poisoned dagger is more effective than a flaming greatsword, maybe we have made poison excessively powerful.

[unclevlad]

On poisons...I offer that people are using horribly bad constructions.  I say that, because I see so much DoT with defenses only applying once.  Is that anything like real poison?  Or is it just taking aspects the rules allow, far past anything reasonable?

 

I also think the life support rules, related to poisons, are abysmal.  They're ridiculously too fine-grained for a game, and far, far too expensive for their value.

 

So if you're seeing too much in the way of poisons, consider reviewing the power parameters, and/or the life support rules.  

 

Other aspects...the use of lethal toxins should have significant legal consequences.  By definition, the intentional use of a poisoned weapon automatically creates premeditation, so even swinging it at someone, with intent to strike, becomes attempted murder in the first degree...a first or second degree felony, depending on jurisdiction.  In New Mexico, it appears to be 2nd degree...but we're still talking 15 years in prison.  That's per count, and not counting any other charges that might apply.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/crime-penalties/charged-attempted-murder.htm#:~:text=Like murder%2C attempted murder is,in a fit of passion.
 

IMO, given any reasonably free, law-abiding society, NO authorities will sanction the use of poison.  If the PCs are supposed to be Good Guys...tough noogies.  Arrest them...period.  They DO NOT have license to use lethal poison.,,just as they have no license to inflict extensive collateral damage when it's not necessary.  I'm an absolute believer that PCs should never get undue deference just because they're PCs.  If they're breaking the rules of society, they must pay.  And, yes, I will carry this forward...using lethal force generally can quickly get you into trouble, unless you're VERY careful in how you use it.  How often do supers use guns or weapons not formed from their powers...a big green hammer from a power ring is one thing...sometimes a staff or baton, too.  But a vibroblade or something?  Not something heroes are supposed to use.  A Desert Eagle .50?  Ehhh...not positive image.  Disable, not demolish.  Unless the threat demands it.  Shadowrun had a good principle...if you see an armored Troll with an assault cannon, you don't bother with warnings.
 

[Gauntlet]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

This kind of response, top me, begs the question of whether we all want the same game.  If the players want to play murderhobos with superpowers and the GM wants to run a four-colour game of real superheroes, the conflict of game desires will be a problem. If the players are looking for added power and poison gives it to them, then they will use poison. Is it really so remarkably worse than burning, flash-freezing or electrocuting their enemies?

 

And this is something you definitely need to take attention to, both the GM and the Players. If you are a Player, or group of Players, who do not like the type of game the GM is planning to run they need to tell him/her.

[Grailknight]

 As far as the DOT poisons, that is the closest that the game can simulate most real poisons. I will say that you'll often see the number of increments set too high. But buying more than 1d6 gets expensive quickly, relative to a heroic game and that most of the Characteristics being attacked are going to be defensive and thus halve the damage.

 

Plus, a little research can go a long way. Poisons have antidotes and knowing what type(s) are being used means that you can prepare ahead of time to stop them. If your PCs are going to make a habit of using poison, they run into prepared opponents sometimes.

Edited August 26 by Grailknight

[unclevlad]

15 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 As far as the DOT poisons, that is the closest that the game can simulate most real poisons. I will say that you'll often see the number of increments set too high. But buying more than 1d6 gets expensive quickly, relative to a heroic game and that most of the Characteristics being attacked are going to be defensive and thus halve the damage.

 

This kicked off with Doc's comment...

16 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

As a GM, I was tired of every player using poison all the time.  I said that straight to their faces, I accepted it was effective but I told them it was not socially acceptable.

 

That rather suggests it's being priced too cheap.

 

And as I said...the simple answer is, forget socially acceptable.  It's ILLEGAL.  

[Grailknight]

 I get you, but Doc doesn't mention DOT.

 

I'd have to see a write-up to judge value. And I 100 percent agree on the out of combat pressure from the law and society. I was just offering a way to negate the poison use in game with a reasonable in game explanation. If poison is in common use, then antidotes to common poisons will become common. And those don't have to be paid for with points.

[unclevlad]

I don't know it's DoT either, but I've seen too many posts about "this is so cheap and SO EFFECTIVE!" based on DoT, defenses only apply once, so it seems plausible.

 

As for antidotes...they have to have the antidote.  There are endless poisons that can be concocted.  It simply isn't hard to shift from one to the next.

 

And saying "it WILL get you thrown in jail for years" is a bloody darn good explanation, albeit not entirely a complete solution...because that holds for lethal toxins.  The problem can still exist for non-lethal toxins...somnolents, paralytics, and the like.  To be sure, these can be lethal at times;  dosage is huge.  A little too much of a paralytic could stop your hearth or breathing...and then...????  Just had a colonoscopy...ugh.  The 2nd most important person there is the anesthesia nurse...monitoring *everything* because Bad Things Happen from time to time.  And they're using widely known, well-behaved drugs.

 

Poison should never even be mentioned, IMO, outside of Dark Champions or similar, and perhaps fantasy...using it on monsters can be acceptable, sure.  But I'd start asking *why* is it being so effective?  First things first, that implies a rules problem to me.

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, unclevlad said:

On poisons...I offer that people are using horribly bad constructions.  I say that, because I see so much DoT with defenses only applying once.  Is that anything like real poison?  Or is it just taking aspects the rules allow, far past anything reasonable?

 

I also think the life support rules, related to poisons, are abysmal.  They're ridiculously too fine-grained for a game, and far, far too expensive for their value.

 

So if you're seeing too much in the way of poisons, consider reviewing the power parameters, and/or the life support rules.  

 

Other aspects...the use of lethal toxins should have significant legal consequences.  By definition, the intentional use of a poisoned weapon automatically creates premeditation, so even swinging it at someone, with intent to strike, becomes attempted murder in the first degree...a first or second degree felony, depending on jurisdiction.  In New Mexico, it appears to be 2nd degree...but we're still talking 15 years in prison.  That's per count, and not counting any other charges that might apply.

 

If we're talking modern-day Supers, easy solution.  I more typically see the "poison" issue in fantasy games.  While the discussion shifted there almost immediately (Lawful and Good characters; glass vials), Doc did not mention the nature of the game(s) he was concerned with. 

 

The bigger issue, as you note, is why poisons are constructed to be too effective.  Guns and knives are pretty dangerous in the real world too, and beating people senseless has long-term detrimental effects. Poison's effectiveness in-game should be consistent with other damaging effects, not an autowin, much less an autokill.

[Doc Democracy]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If we're talking modern-day Supers, easy solution.  I more typically see the "poison" issue in fantasy games.  While the discussion shifted there almost immediately (Lawful and Good characters; glass vials), Doc did not mention the nature of the game(s) he was concerned with. 

 

You are right.  I did not mention the genre OR the game system.  This was not an issue exclusive to HERO.  It was, in my experience and in the specifics of poison, exclusive to fantasy.

 

The key issue with poison is that it is a multiplier.  People are killing each other by whacking with sharp pointy objects and sending all kinds of magical effects, it seems silly to get funny about combat poisons in the same way as poisoning a family eating their dinner. In pure mechanics however, the wielder of that sword gets their effect in the physical damage it does; with poison he gets the same damage PLUS the addition of poison.

 

I didn't want to play the game of outlaws on the run, I didn't want to have them ostracised and unable to mix with the societies in the world.  I just wanted them to stop with the poison.  The way to do that was to engage the players, not the PCs, and agree on how we played the game.

 

That lesson with poison was one I took elsewhere and especially into HERO, where there needs to be a LOT of cooperation and understanding between the GM and the players with regard to efficiencies and builds.

 

Getting back to my original point, SPD is also a multiplier, we seem to agree on managing SPD in game to keep the numbers reasonably close, though there is a greater impact if those numbers are low down the SPD Chart.

 

If normals are 1, agents 2 and heroes 4, then heroes double the output of agents and quadruple that of normals.  If normals are 3, agents 4 and heroes 6, then heroes are only half again as much as agents and only double normals.

 

As you go up the SPD chart though, END and REC become MUCH more important as you are getting fewer recoveries in relation to actions.

 

That is why I proposed the concept of a "campaign speed".  The SPD that all PCs and heroic level NPCs get for free, you then put an exponential cost of deviation, i would not be uncomfortable starting that at 20 points.

 

So, if the campaign SPD is 5 for heroic level characters, it would cost 20 points to be SPD 6, 40 to be SPD 7 and 80 to be SPD 8 (which might put that level if SPD into GM discretion for those that use AP caps).

 

It does need that distinction between normals and heroic characters because, otherwise those normal characters get 80 points by selling their SPD down to 2, 160 if they go to 1, at which point they are definitely not normal characters!

 

I just think that the rules do not recognise the uniqueness of SPD in the system and, potentially, the need to treat it differently. 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

 

Over the years, and editions, D&D/d20 has become much more focused on the "action economy". In Hero, the SPD stat varies that action economy.  While d20 did not have that issue, it had certain abilities, like Haste and Quicken Spell, that boosted what could be done in one round, and many of those abilities have been limited to reduce the action economy impact.

 

5e D&D also became more focused on the concept of "bounded accuracy", reducing what, in Hero, would be the CV spread between character levels. No more +30 bonuses at high levels.

 

Is it necessary for (all) Supers to act more often, or is it sufficient that their actions each have more impact? That Normal can half move all of 6 meters, then attack with his 3 OCV for damage that will bounce off a Super's defenses. Even if he acts as often as the Supers, and they all have 3 DCV, the Normals will be ineffectual. The biggest challenge to the Supers will remain not killing them if they attack back.

 

Making a 23 DEX, 5-6 SPD and 8-10 CV essential to be effective against opponents that matter does two things.

 

First, it makes "below Supers" useless, at least without contrived builds.  Oh, wait, we wanted VIPER agents to be a threat. No matter how much they outnumber the Supers, with 3 SPD, 5 OCV and 8 DCs, they are no less effective than normals with baseball bats.  Let's make 5-teams with contrived weaponry that will target the Supers' weak points, thus incenting all the players to buy more exotic defenses so "wimpy agents" stay wimpy.

 

Second, it imposes a character tax. Spend 26 on DEX 23, 30 on SPD 5 and 60 on OCV and DCV 9, and you are about average.  That's just over 25% of your 450 points spent to be baseline.  But he's so much better than normals and agents, right?  So what?  All that means is that normals and agents won't be the opposition - or they will be contrived to somehow be a viable threat to the Supers.

 

Dial it back to 13 DEX, 3 SPD and OCV/DCV 5 as a baseline average and our Supers are still superior to Normals, on par with trained agents and have 80 more points to spend on abilities that differentiate them from not only Normals and Agents, but each other.  They actually save more as they can get by with less END and REC with fewer actions per turn.

 

To play Devil's Advocate on the campaign speed, +1 Speed means a lot more if you are going from a baseline of 2 to 3 (50% more actions) than from 5 to 6 (20% more actions). Not charging characters for the table stakes by starting stats at an expected campaign norm would be an effective means of setting the campaign standards, and would also alleviate the "character tax" element.  There's not a lot of difference between setting that 20 DEX, 5 SPD and 8 OCV/DCV as the baseline and reducing starting points by 100 and a current Supers campaign where stats below that level are rare anyway.

Edited August 26 by Hugh Neilson

[Gauntlet]

I have found that agents, such as VIPER or the IHA, can be extremely dangerous to heroes. While yes, they may not due a huge amount of damage, they can man times get some of their damage through. But their danger is based much upon their number. By holding off attacks, they are able to set it up where they are attacking a hero just about every segment, making it very easy for them to catch him/her when he/she is off guard. Also, they will adapt towards their superheroic foes. Should their standard 8d6 attack be unable to hurt heroes even a little on average, then their lead will make sure to create or obtain weapons with greater energy, perhaps taking that 8d6 to 10d6, or even 12d6 should the heroes be extremely well defended. Add this to the fact that pretty much all agents should by their very nature have Teamwork, it can make their ability to hit a hero with a combined attack very easily. And should they suspect that superheroes will be involved they will make sure they have the numbers to make them a threat every segment, not just one or two and allowing the heroes to choose when they want to be defensive. Plus, agents will go for weakest first, and when they take out that agent, try to capture him/her so that they can then use him/her against that heroes cohorts. 

 

To put this in a package, when utilizing agents, make sure they understand how to work as a team, as only then will they become a threat to superheroes.

[Christopher R Taylor]

One reason for characters to reliably have higher speed than normals is that's how the comic books represent them.  Even the slowest characters can act more often than Joe Average.  The skilled ones can act much more often, and the really fast character many times more often.  As I said above, speed isn't just how often you act in combat, it represents how well trained you are in combat, giving you tactical advantages not available to an untrained person.

 

I also would submit that if you lower everyone's speed then the net effect is largely unchanged: Speed 4 is faster than speed 3, just as speed 6 is faster than speed 4.  One character will act more often than the other.  The only major change is that if you lower everyone's speed significantly, then ordinary characters become much faster by comparison.  If Jane Ordinary off the street has speed 2 and Brickly McTankerson has speed 2, then they are on an even par in terms of movement and actions.  She just got a big upgrade from when Brickly was speed 4.  

Edited August 26 by Christopher R Taylor

[Gauntlet]

I still say that it is not a bad idea to lower the Speed for characters. There is no reason that Brick with no mutations or the like that would make him faster needs to buy his Speed up to a 6 or even higher. I would say that 3 and 4 would be good places to stay. This is still better than that normal policeman but crazily better. Other characters may be higher but not much higher than that. I would have to say that a 6 Speed is extremely fast and probably should only be available for Speedsters, and in many cases for even Speedsters that high may not be required.

 

In games I run when using pre=created villains, I will frequently lower their Speed as many times it will just be a bit too high for realism (I can't see that brick with absolutely no martial training or the like have a Speed of 5 or even 6, just too high. I would definitely lower him/her to a 3).

Edited August 26 by Gauntlet

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

One reason for characters to reliably have higher speed than normals is that's how the comic books represent them.  Even the slowest characters can act more often than Joe Average.  The skilled ones can act much more often, and the really fast character many times more often.  As I said above, speed isn't just how often you act in combat, it represents how well trained you are in combat, giving you tactical advantages not available to an untrained person.

 

I also would submit that if you lower everyone's speed then the net effect is largely unchanged: Speed 4 is faster than speed 3, just as speed 6 is faster than speed 4.  One character will act more often than the other.  The only major change is that if you lower everyone's speed significantly, then ordinary characters become much faster by comparison.  If Jane Ordinary off the street has speed 2 and Brickly McTankerson has speed 2, then they are on an even par in terms of movement and actions.  She just got a big upgrade from when Brickly was speed 4.  

 

Oh my - now Jane Ordinary can hit Brickly with her purse (on a 10 or less assuming Brickly's CV is dropped to 4.  So, with a heavy purse adding +1 1/2d6 HTH to her 8 STR, she can do 3d6+1 normal damage.  On a maximum roll of 19 STUN and 6 BOD, Brickly might even notice she is there!

 

Brickly isn't Super because he's fast. I would also expect that only the slowest of Supers would have a SPD 2.  That would be the Supers who presently have SPD 4, and even many Bricks in Champion writeups have SPD 5.

 

The whole point is that the net effect against other Supers is largely unchanged, but Supers whose schtick has nothing to do with enhanced reflexes or super speed no longer run rings around a Normal, "only" move 50% faster (SPD 3 vs 2) or react twice as fast (SPD 4 vs 2). 

With an average Super at 5 - 6 SPD, a 7 or 8 is not all that impressive.  If the typical Super has a SPD of 3-4, Spidey can be truly Amazing with a SPD of 6.

 

2 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

I still say that it is not a bad idea to lower the Speed for characters. There is no reason that Brick with no mutations or the like that would make him faster needs to buy his Speed up to a 6 or even higher. I would say that 3 and 4 would be good places to stay. This is still better than that normal policeman but crazily better. Other characters may be higher but not much higher than that. I would have to say that a 6 Speed is extremely fast and probably should only be available for Speedsters, and in many cases for even Speedsters that high may not be required.

 

The standard for Champions, set way back in 1e, was about 2 SPD too high.  Supers ended up clustered at SPD 5 - 6 when 3 - 4 would have worked just as well.

Edited August 26 by Hugh Neilson