Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

[bcaplan]

One of the main trouble spots in the Hero system, as I see it, is that there is a strong incentive to pour a lot of points into one really big attack power. Since you need to exceed someone's defense to do any damage at all, weak attacks are virtually useless.

 

This, presumably, is the main reason why a lot of campaigns impose Active Point limits. The trouble with AP limits, though, is that they lead to a high level of uniformity. If you have a 60 AP limit, then every well-designed character is going to have a 60 AP attack. It might be a 12d6 Energy Blast, or an 8d6 Armor Piercing Energy Blast, or a 2d6 Autofire RKA with 1/2 End, but it's going to have 60 APs.

 

This is where my proposed solution comes in: Give PCs a "standard" AP limit, and let them pay points if they want to increase it (or give them points back if they reduce it).

 

For example, suppose you run a Superheroic game with a standard 60 AP limit. This you get for free. If you want a higher AP limit, however, it will cost you, say, 3 CPs per +1 AP. If you want an 80 AP limit, you pay 60 CPs purely for the option to buy powers with up to 80 APs.

 

Similarly, if you are willing to reduce your AP limit down to 50 APs, you would get 30 CPs back to spend any way you like - as long as none of your powers exceed 50 APs.

 

What do you think? Does the 3 CPs per +1 AP price seem reasonable?

 

P.S. You could easily adapt this system to other systems with similar problems, like Mutants and Masterminds.

[The Main Man]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

That is an interesting proposition, it's similar to NCM but for powers.

 

What happens if you raise the Active Point limit later on?

 

It makes for a neat house rule.

[Comic]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

Interesting.

 

I wonder how it would balance with the UEP optional special effect rules?

 

For instance, someone with Ice/Cold powers (-1/2) is going to lose 1-2 DC's and 1-2 DEF (or so) against fairly common special effects.

 

Assume 60 APs, and a simple character, that's 20 pts saved on the attack and 20 pts saved on the defense.

 

Pay 30 pts saved for the UEP limitation to increase the DC's of the top attack by 2, and your Ice Projector is extra effective against targets who don't benefit from interaction of special effects, and AP-limit effective against those who do... and they have 10 pts left over for END and REC to pay for the extra 1 END/Phase.

 

In this case, it looks like 3 CP's/1 AP may be slightly too cheap, but not everyone uses UEP, and there are many more important factors to consider.

 

I'm used to balancing DC's with CV's and SPD myself, but this mechanism could well work out very nicely for some campaigns.

[Alibear]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

I wouldn't use it, I don't have a cap. I have a reccomended level of 15d6 and on top of that I allow a one of special power of much greater potency but with lots of limitations.

 

I find any lower than 15d6 and the fights start to drag on a bit. I want two good hits and the bad bloke is out.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

I wouldn't use it, I don't have a cap. I have a reccomended level of 15d6 and on top of that I allow a one of special power of much greater potency but with lots of limitations.

 

I find any lower than 15d6 and the fights start to drag on a bit. I want two good hits and the bad bloke is out.

 

 

...or the good bloke is out

 

It is an interesting idea but, as the campaign progresses might become a hinderance - you will either need to recalculate costs if you change the cap, or keep it, and you will find it places a different kind of evolutionary pressure on characters - they will probably get a wider range of different powers rather than just improving the ones they have.

 

Now, I'm not sure the right way to go about this. I agree you can get uniformity, but I'm increasingly wondering whether you can address this through points. I mean, there is a limit to how well points can indicate balance anyway: if someone came to me with a 15d6 attack in a 12DC game but had a character who, for instance, has a low OCV, or SPD, I might well allow it - the eyeball balance test can work well.

 

Very often, synergy is the key - not just point totals or even DCs.

[bcaplan]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

I mean, there is a limit to how well points can indicate balance anyway: if someone came to me with a 15d6 attack in a 12DC game but had a character who, for instance, has a low OCV, or SPD, I might well allow it - the eyeball balance test can work well.

 

Very often, synergy is the key - not just point totals or even DCs.

True enough, but one of the main benefits of having a point system is to cut down on the amount of eye-balling the GM has to do.

 

There's no formula complicated enough to capture all the synergies, but I think adding an explicit cost for AP limits gives a better summary of a character's power without raising the computational complexity very much.

 

(In contrast, we could switch from linear pricing of attack powers to quadratic pricing, or something along those lines, but the extra computional complexity just wouldn't be worth it. See http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51289&page=3).

[bcaplan]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

That is an interesting proposition, it's similar to NCM but for powers.

 

What happens if you raise the Active Point limit later on?

 

My thinking is that if players want higher AP limits, they can pay for them with their XP. But of course if you wanted to raise them for everyone, you could just give a CP refund to everyone who already paid for it.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

Looks like a workable approach.

 

The system that our group used in our last Champions game was a 75/60 split.

 

75 Active points max

60 points max in Damage Class max

 

This allowed Blasters to balance a little better vs. Bricks by letting them have a 12d6 1/2 END EB vs. a 12d6 base punch before movement maneuvers.

 

It also allowed other more interesting constructs that are just not useful with a 60 pt hard cap without making the characters pay extra.

 

So a 10d6 AP EB was OK but a 15d6 EB was not.

An 8d6 x2 KB EB was possible but a 5d6 RKA was not.

etc...

[The Main Man]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

My thinking is that if players want higher AP limits' date=' they can pay for them with their XP. But of course if you wanted to raise them for everyone, you could just give a CP refund to everyone who already paid for it.[/quote']

I was pretty much thinking that that would be the logical step to take.

 

I figure you could experiment with a separate campaign, maybe even report the results.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

What do you think? Does the 3 CPs per +1 AP price seem reasonable?

No! That's way too expensive. Note that there's nothing else in the game that requires you to pay points for no direct benefit, but only the potential to buy something else (for more points). Your price means that additional APs cost 4-for-1!

 

I could see it being the other way around: 1 CP per +3 AP limit.

 

But I understand and sympathize with what you're trying to do. It seems to me that the way the system is, there's a very strong temptation to buy very high defenses. Defenses are so cheap, 60 points of ED is more powerful than 60 points of EB.

 

I've been thinking about making such an adjustment, but from the other end: increasing the price of Defensive Powers. That will lead to lower defenses, which makes low-DC attacks more useful.

 

Just a thought.

[The Main Man]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

Actually, as far as Defense goes, I limit the Active Points based on PD + ED + Resistance AP + Hardened AP.

 

This controls Defense pretty well.

[Fedifensor]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

I base recommended and maximum Active Point values for attacks on Speed, and Defense values on the character's DCV. It comes out to look something like this:

[u]Speed[/u]        [u]Attack[/u][u] Power  Range[/u]            [u]Maximum Attack[/u]     [u]Defenses[/u]           [u]DCV[/u]
  4          12-14 DC (12d6 to 14d6)         15 DC (15d6)      28-30 PD/ED        [u]<[/u]7
  5          10-12 DC (10d6 to 12d6)         13 DC (13d6)      24-27 PD/ED        8
  6          8-11 DC (8d6 to 11d6)           12 DC (12d6)      20-23 PD/ED        9-10
  [u]>[/u]7         7-10 DC (7d6 to 10d6)           11 DC (11d6)      18-20 PD/ED        11

Basically, the slow characters need to hit harder because they don't hit as often, and the hard to hit characters have lower defenses because they aren't hit as often.

 

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, based on the specifics of the attack or defense, and other factors outside of those listed above. For example, if a character has a very high Recovery and a lot of extra STUN, I'll probably lower his PD and ED a few points to compensate. This is why game balance is as much of an art as it is a science.

 

I really don't think paying points for going past limits is the way to go. You'll just end up with people spending less on noncombat skills in order to pay the points so their combat skills can go into the stratosphere.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

I base recommended and maximum Active Point values for attacks on Speed, and Defense values on the character's DCV. It comes out to look something like this:

[u]Speed[/u]        [u]Attack[/u][u] Power  Range[/u]            [u]Maximum Attack[/u]     [u]Defenses[/u]           [u]DCV[/u]
  4          12-14 DC (12d6 to 14d6)         15 DC (15d6)      28-30 PD/ED        [u]<[/u]7
  5          10-12 DC (10d6 to 12d6)         13 DC (13d6)      24-27 PD/ED        8
  6          8-11 DC (8d6 to 11d6)           12 DC (12d6)      20-23 PD/ED        9-10
  [u]>[/u]7         7-10 DC (7d6 to 10d6)           11 DC (11d6)      18-20 PD/ED        11

Basically, the slow characters need to hit harder because they don't hit as often, and the hard to hit characters have lower defenses because they aren't hit as often.

 

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, based on the specifics of the attack or defense, and other factors outside of those listed above. For example, if a character has a very high Recovery and a lot of extra STUN, I'll probably lower his PD and ED a few points to compensate. This is why game balance is as much of an art as it is a science.

 

I really don't think paying points for going past limits is the way to go. You'll just end up with people spending less on noncombat skills in order to pay the points so their combat skills can go into the stratosphere.

 

This is a very good point.

 

Main Man, it sounds like your game has pretty tight controls on attacks and defenses. With that in mind, let's consider the options. A player under the structure you suggest can boost his EB by 1d6 for 20 points. Alternatively, he can:

 

- buy +4 DCV

- buy +2 Speed

- Buy 25% Physical and Energy Resistant Damage Reduction, -1/2 STUN Only

- Buy +10 DEX (selling back the extra SPD point

- Buy +4 levels with his main form of combat

 

How competitive is +1d6 to your Energy Blast compared to those alternatives?

[BNakagawa]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

It's an interesting approach, but it does end up being a little inflexible. I mean, with those limits, you can't have a low SPD character with a good DCV or many other combos.

 

what I would do, is to reverse the order of the first column (combine column 2 and 3) and say this:

 

You can pick any combination of limits as long as they add to 10 (or more) Picking the best entry adds one point, picking the worst adds 4.

 

This way, you could have the best SPD, and you could also have the best defenses, but to balance it, you would have to have the worst CVs and the lowest attacks.

 

Similarly, you could have the worst SPD, lousy attacks, but awesome defenses and DCV.

 

Imbalanced? Potentially. But more flexible. I like that.

[Kdansky]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

We tried an approach like this once. It was low powered (150 cp) with the following rule: every AP from 21 to 40 you pay 50% extra, and for every AP after that (41+) you pay it twice.

 

Advantages: Big things got really expensive, whereas lots of small things were rather cheap. Did what it was planned to do, more or less.

 

Disadvantages: Lots. And even more. CVs and Speed got really attractive, calculations were really difficult and limitations were a MUST. It just was not feasible to pay 40 (+ 10 +20) = 70 points for a 8d6 Attack, so everyone just took lots of limitations. Note that limitations increase in relative power in this system. Even a small -1/2 limitation instantly saves many, many points.

 

I'm not using that house rule again, I'd rather eyeball, even though I dislike it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

You could do an approach where each character has a Schtick Power that lets them really shine; the AP Cap is 60 Active, but they each have one Power that truly stands out from the rest and goes up to 75 Active. If the Schtick is Defenses, allow 50% greater Defenses than the campaign maximum as a possibility.

 

Personally... I like the 12 Damage Class/75 Active Point method myself.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

Let me get this straight:

 

You think artificial caps are bad (which I definitely agree with for supers, though they do have their uses in more heroic campaigns), and your solution is to impose soft caps with a opt in / opt out scheme to "solve" it?

 

Why not just get rid of it altogether and allow / veto power levels on a holistic, ie "total character", basis?

 

 

However, in the interests of being constructive if I were to institute something like this I would do it based on a formula of Total Character Points / 6 rounded to the nearest 5 points. So for 350 point characters, the cap is 58.333 rounded up to 60. As the characters gain XP their AP cap slowly rises.

[The Main Man]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

However' date=' in the interests of being constructive if I were to institute something like this I would do it based on a formula of Total Character Points / 6 rounded to the nearest 5 points. So for 350 point characters, the cap is 58.333 rounded up to 60. As the characters gain XP their AP cap slowly rises.[/quote']

 

That is almost the exact same system I use, except I find 6 to be a somewhat goofy divider, not there isn't logic behind yours, but I use 5 for a slightly higher powered game whose AP goes up +1 for every +5 CP gained.

 

Granted, I only officially award the experience after a finished arc.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

One point that we have not considered is frameworks. One thing about removing AP limits for schtick powers, certainly for MPs and VPPs, is that it discourages the use of such frameworks, or messes with the cost utility, because it is rarely efficient to have a single power in a framework that is a bit bigger than the rest in AP terms.

 

Of course you could also use a MP to solve the problem:

 

MP 120 points pool

1. 16d6 EB u 8 points

2. 12d6 EB u 6 points

3. 20/20 FF 0 END Lockout SLOT 4 u 4 points

4. 16/16 FF 1/2 END u 4 points

 

So you can turn on the 12d6 EB and the 20/20 FF, or have a lesser powered defence and a more powerful EB. You are not building for utility so much as concept, i suppose, but it is an approach wotrth considering.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

I have more than a few characters who have Frameworks larger than the highest AP of any power, mostly VPP so I can use lots of things at once with fewer limitations.

 

But the occasional MP for the same reason, you may not be able to Multiple Power Attack with several slots, but a few Constant Powers in an MP coupled with some Attacks is a nice one (I'm fond of Darkness+Attack Power myself).

[Kdansky]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

On the other hand, if you want to use two powers at the same time, both which really do only shine if used at max-AP (attacks, mind control, etc, but e.g. flight is also useful at 10 pts), you would probably not use a MP to build them. EC (or just buing seperately) is quite better. VPP is something else, because you're not paying for slots.

 

Rarely we see someone hitting the AP limits with darkness (except AoE, Selective, Megascale, Continious, Zero End, .....), but it's always KA and EB.

 

I like the Schtick Power. But that results in everyone having one big 75 cp attack I suppose. That's 3 DC through any armor, since enemies will be built at a "non-schtick attack is also good" level.

[Remjin]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

This will likely alwyas be an issue as people see things in a lot of different lights. No one mechanic is likely to solve all problems since there are so many different mechanics to deal with.

 

Personally, I prefer to set a certain standard in line with the campaign world, try to confer the overall feel of the game to players, and let them build what they want. I won't play with people I can't trust to work towards the ultimate goal: everyone to have fun. Thus, no AP or damage caps of any kind. This is likely different from some people's games and groups, but our group tends to self-regulate.

 

The idea is that everyone stays in genre, gets to make what they want, has an idea of how powerful that will be in the game, and provides their own limitations to big powers (either through rules or roleplay) and its all good. There's oversight to make sure everything jives and that everyone is on board. Questions before play initiated by players is usually takes care of most issues. With the way things work, misconceptions or things turning out to be more powerful than expected, usually the players volunteers to bring it down a notch before anything needs to be said.

 

This allows for players to have their "big gun/sword/whatever" if they really want it, or to be ridiculously tough in certain situations, but leaves them with vulnerabilities to be exploited and schticks well defined. We try not to tread on each other's schticks and we try to keep the game challenging and fun. Its not very technical, obviously, but technical solutions just tend to add confusion and you end up with the same problems in conformity.

 

An example through our current party: I have a fast-drawing cowboy type schtick with an oversized hand cannon... except he seldom uses it. He has various rounds to deal with various types of baddies, but not many. That is his main attack outside of the shotgun he ocassionally employs. Our trick arrow guy has a bit more accuracy and a lot more variety. He's allowed higher AP since few of his arrows do much damage.

[Remjin]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

Had to continue in a separate post...

 

since our archer has the trick shot schtick, he has higher CSLs to allow for bounces and other amusement. He limits his damaging arrows to less than campaign standard to better simulate what he's doing. He uses his RKA arrows mostly for sticking people to walls and such.

 

Our flame blaster actually works at campaign standard damage, but has quite a few "other" effects. Her concept is sich that she feels no need to exceed the basics as her powers are already pretty radical for the world we're playing in.

 

Our tough guy is scarie bad in a fistfight, and has claws that are brutal. He seldom uses these, though they're on the highest end of damage and hates it when he is forced to use them. He is also our 2nd best stealth guy. When serious firepower comes out, he gets in a lot of trouble as he isn't very bullet resistant to anything above handguns of the moderate order.

 

There are others, but it serves to illustrate. Our APs cross the spectrum from 5 to 120 but it doesn't really affect things.

 

Sorry to ramble, but I felt talkative today.

[Kdansky]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

Remjin's example shows well how the system currently works: We treat the points as guidelines and then we eyeball for balancing. By the way, I once played a short adventure where our characters had neither point limits nor the same overall maximum. It works rather well.

 

What I would like to have: If you spend 150 points in an obviously meaningful way, then you are useful. If you powergame as much as possible, you are about as strong as the 150 cp character if he got 15 exp. Result: We powergamers would be allowed to do it because it had nearly no consequences (10% improvement is tiny) but we (at least I) enjoy building something with high synergy a lot.

 

Sadly, this is probably an impossible problem, at least in P.

[Alibear]

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

 

The Mark I Human Eyeball is always the best tool to check this stuff.