Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

[Sean Waters]

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

 

Absolutely: I've seen powers that grossly exceed campaign limits for active points, but still balance nicely, and I've seen powers that are under the wire but are still unbalanced. Character points are a useful starting point, but not, by any means, an end to it.

[Kdansky]

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

 

Yeah, but this makes me ponder:

 

Do I really need the points at all? Do I need an active point limit? Do all characters have to be on the same point pool?

[Trebuchet]

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

 

We don't tend to like caps in our campaign as they seem to create more problems than they fix. We prefer some basic guidelines and a more (to use a term used upthread) "holistic" approach to characters. No one item will generally make a character too unbalancing; it will almost always be some combination of elements. High defenses and attacks = OK. High defenses, attacks, and OCV = too much.

[Markdoc]

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

 

Yeah, but this makes me ponder:

 

Do I really need the points at all? Do I need an active point limit? Do all characters have to be on the same point pool?

 

In order, yes, no, and generally not.

 

Yes, you do need points (or something equivalent) simply because you need some way to bring the players and the GM all onto the same page. A purely soft text description "I have a powerful energy blast" likely means two different things to two different people, which doesn't make for smooth gaming.

 

No, you don't need active point caps. I've always found them to be the source of significant problems and the benefits are largely theoretical, as far as my experience goes. As already noted by others, it's quite possible to build lethal attacks under most AP caps and attacks over the caps that are not out of line. They tend to promote "samey" characters and bias the game in unpredictable ways, depending on what's capped and what isn't. All powers need to be viewed in context and that context is going to vary from PC to PC and game to game.

 

As to equal points, I have played in and GM'ed games with quite divergent point totals. That can certainly work, but your players need to be up for it. In the end, I don't think it works well for long-term campaigns - even the most reticent player will likely get tired of being the group's henchman after a year or two. Unless there's a compelling reason to do it, I'd avoid starting with imbalanced PCs and although some imbalances arise in gameplay, I try and keep them from getting too out of whack.

 

cheers, Mark

[jaws]

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

 

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

 

I' making it a habit to quote Sean Waters But seriously It is all about synergy. You can limit or not limit all you want, the proper synergy will always work around limits easily and nicely. It takes eyeballing and a willingness on the players part to create a credible balanced concept with in the game.

 

 

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.

 

What I try to do on both counts. Auto scaling meaning no recalculations and

 

 

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.

 

 

I ave to disagree, my power gamers will get a lot more than 10% percent out of their meddling if I let them. Sadly I lost a player over this (not too much because we are still great friends) but the game is so much better for it. Enjoyment levels increased at least 50% if there was an objective way to measure it.

 

And it is not a systemic problem as it was the same issue with d20 when we played that. Finally the other players just said... hey we like this guy but he need to bring his character down a notch. When we broached the subject, he said I'd rather not play.

 

Honestly my monitoring of the rest of the characters is hardly necessary. AP guidelines are there but they are NOT limits. My players just build knowing what their power level needs to feel like and limit or role play accordingly.

 

By the way we are all new (read under 1 year) to actually playing the system and are doing fine.

[Checkmate]

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

 

I think you're definition of "uniformity" and mine are very different. To me an 8d6 AP EB is a lot different than a 12d6 EB or a 6d6 NND. Even if two characters have exactly the same powers, they can be incredibly unique is SFX and the way they're played. I mean every character is built with 350 points, does that make them all uniform?

[Thia Halmades]

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

 

One of the main trouble spots in the Hero system' date=' as I see it, is that there is a strong incentive to pour a lot of points into one [b']really big[/b] 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.

 

Actually, I do something ... rewrite. I saw the same problem and addressed it, and my solution was:

 

* Cap defenses at the appropriate level to avoid that sort of thing,

* Use two caps; your 'power' cap, i.e., 45 AP (a 3d6 killing attack, tops) and 60 AP, only to be used for advantages. When your game is full of guns this isn't a big deal, but when people are slinging around powers, it becomes quite relevant. Now no one can build a 4d6 attack, so they tend to rethink their whole plan, and come up with more diverse powers.

 

Then be fair in how you adjudicate your defenses, so damage is done on all sides.

[Thia Halmades]

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

 

I think you're definition of "uniformity" and mine are very different. To me an 8d6 AP EB is a lot different than a 12d6 EB or a 6d6 NND. Even if two characters have exactly the same powers' date=' they can be incredibly unique is SFX and the way they're played. I mean every character is built with 350 points, does that make them all uniform?[/quote']

 

I know what he means; this is the reason I'm so high on Ultimate Energy Projector, it really adds a LOT of flavor to the game. However, d20 is no different; listed SFX /=/ variety. Every 10th level mage throws the same Fireball, and that ain't a problem in HERO.

 

That, and I have the added advantage that barring one guy, none of my players ever just go sixty AP! YAY! FULL POWER ATTACK! I don't run into that problem, for which I'm eternally grateful.

[Remjin]

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

 

I know what he means; this is the reason I'm so high on Ultimate Energy Projector' date=' it really adds a LOT of flavor to the game. However, d20 is no different; listed SFX /=/ variety. Every 10th level mage throws the same Fireball, and that ain't a problem in HERO[/quote']

 

I actually asked a DM of a D&D game once if I could just buy whatever magical spells and have them "look like" ice spells instead of fire. No difference, except maybe things froze instead of caught on fire, or whatever... basically, wanted to change sfx to something else to "theme" my sorcerer. Got a big paranoid "NO." The difference? Nothing. Though, as it turned out, we fought a bunch of fire-based creatures who were particularly vulnerable to cold. Bad time to ask, I guess.

[Tonio]

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

 

I actually asked a DM of a D&D game once if I could just buy whatever magical spells and have them "look like" ice spells instead of fire. No difference' date=' except maybe things froze instead of caught on fire, or whatever... basically, wanted to change sfx to something else to "theme" my sorcerer. Got a big paranoid "NO." The difference? Nothing. Though, as it turned out, we fought a bunch of fire-based creatures who were particularly vulnerable to cold. Bad time to ask, I guess.[/quote']

 

You'd get a "no" from just about every DM out there, since there are Metamagic Feats you need to take to acheive that sort of thing. Like to let you cast Acidball instead of Fireball, Acid Hands instead of Burning Hands, etc.

[Thia Halmades]

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

 

You'd get a "no" from just about every DM out there' date=' since there are Metamagic Feats you need to take to acheive that sort of thing. Like to let you cast Acidball instead of Fireball, Acid Hands instead of Burning Hands, etc.[/quote']

 

Actually, I did allow this for an individual in my campaign, and in fact the individual wanted all ice, all the time, so I gave it to him. He also insisted he would "beat the game" with a Cantrip. That didn't go over quite as well.

[Tonio]

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

 

He also insisted he would "beat the game" with a Cantrip. That didn't go over quite as well.

 

Haha, how did he plan on doing that?!

[Thia Halmades]

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

 

We never quite figured it out. At the time d20 had worn out it's welcome and I switched to HERO, the game got put on hold and has yet to be activated. By this time the HellSpawn Wars were starting, there were a ton of political players as well as infernal characters involved, the Empire was about to erupt and they'd just gotten back from Ravenloft. The party was edging towards 12th/13th level and it was clear that the fights were getting more and more cataclysmic. How "a cantrip" was going to beat the game was beyond me.

 

However, I don't put much past Mike. I don't know if his crazy ass plan would work, but I guarantee you he would've freaking tried.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

I tell you what, while we are on the subject. Yes, in a 60 AP game, everyone tends to take a 12d6 EB or a 4d6 RKA, so it can all look a bit samey, but it needn't.

 

You rarely if ever see it, except in a MP, but an 2d6+1 AP RKA is pretty effective, and a 6d6 NND EB does the trick (well against the majority of opponents). Why is it that advantaged attacks, and stuff like 4d6 Ranged Stun Drain tend to only appear in MPs; they never seem to be the sole main attack.

 

It is because there is a perception that maximum damage = maximum combat efficiency, and we might be right.

 

Sod that. Build interesting and unusual characters, and they won't all look the same, even if they are built on identical attack point limits.

 

Anyway, it is sloe gin season so I'm offski.

[Remjin]

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

 

I must say I wasn't aware there was a mechanic for changing sfx. At the time, I only had the core books, and since then I've only bought The Complete Warrior and the Iron Kingdoms books. Was that in the core book? Sheesh. I seldom play spellcasters, really. I never enjoyed the mechanics, and I usually went the cleric route when I did.

 

As for the multi-power thing... I usually take every blast in one of those so I can have the variety. Armor piercing, penetrating, and double knockback are favorites... along with small autofire penetrating RKAs and the like. My favorite was the 1 point RKA with continuous and double penetrating.... a small laser cutter. Course, that was another player's, but I'm stealing it.

 

Its not the size but how you use it! Yay, its finally true! hehe.

[Thia Halmades]

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

 

I must say I wasn't aware there was a mechanic for changing sfx. At the time' date=' I only had the core books, and since then I've only bought The Complete Warrior and the Iron Kingdoms books. Was that in the core book? Sheesh. I seldom play spellcasters, really. I never enjoyed the mechanics, and I usually went the cleric route when I did.[/quote']

 

No, that was so far out of the guidelines besides Rule Zero that it isn't even worth discussing. d20 balance (such as it is) is predicated on playing the game RAW (Rules As Written). Failure to abide by RAW generally leads to unbalance all around. However, since I consider the core rules to be bollocks to begin with, it was a small matter of rewriting the mess as necessary to create rules with which I was more comfortable.

 

And, generally, since there were no 'sfx' rules (other than what the book said) making "Magic Missile" "Ice Dart" didn't have a net effect on gameplay, except occassionally he would fire it at something immune to cold or vulnerable to it. This is why you hear me giving so much loving to the UEP.

[Remjin]

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

 

No, that was so far out of the guidelines besides Rule Zero that it isn't even worth discussing. d20 balance (such as it is) is predicated on playing the game RAW (Rules As Written). Failure to abide by RAW generally leads to unbalance all around. However, since I consider the core rules to be bollocks to begin with, it was a small matter of rewriting the mess as necessary to create rules with which I was more comfortable.

 

And, generally, since there were no 'sfx' rules (other than what the book said) making "Magic Missile" "Ice Dart" didn't have a net effect on gameplay, except occassionally he would fire it at something immune to cold or vulnerable to it. This is why you hear me giving so much loving to the UEP.

 

Ah, okay, I thought I missed it or something. =) I have no idea what "Rule Zero" is. I'm not exactly a fan, though I don't mind playing the game. I don't really look for "balance" in those games since it has never existed... but as is, its still fun if you keep out the the usual game-breakers and other assorted brat players. As stated earlier, I only really play with people who can enjoy any game as intended without the min/maxing issues. =)

[Kabluey]

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

 

In the last Champions campaign I ran, I used a table of limitations, such as AP, Damage Class, OCV/DCV, PD/ED, etc. Each limitation had a level, Low, Standard, or High. So, for example, the standard DC limit was 14, but the Low limit was 12 and the High was 16. There were a few other things that only had a High limit, such as having Damage Reduction or Power Defense. That is, by default you couldn't take these, but you could take them with a High limitation.

 

So when you built your character, you got to pick one High limitation for free, but for each one thereafter, you had to pick a Low limitation (assuming there was a valid Low limitation - you couldn't take the Low limitation of no Damage Reduction, because the Standard was no Damage Reduction, for example).

 

So this gave a character a chance to pick where he wanted to shine. You want a high damage blaster who also has a high SPD? No problem, just pick a low defense or a low CV or whatever (I don't recall all the limitation categories that I had). You want a character who can't be hit? Take a High DCV limitation.

 

Don't like the system? Fine, just opt out and take everything as Standard.

 

It allowed characters to pick one or two areas to excel, but also meant that they had to take trade-offs. And if they didn't like the system (and I had one or two players that didn't), they could just not worry about it and still build characters who were reasonably balanced with the others.

[Thia Halmades]

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

 

Ah' date=' okay, I thought I missed it or something. =) I have no idea what "Rule Zero" is. I'm not exactly a fan, though I don't mind playing the game. I don't really look for "balance" in those games since it has never existed... but as is, its still fun if you keep out the the usual game-breakers and other assorted brat players. As stated earlier, I only really play with people who can enjoy any game as intended without the min/maxing issues. =)[/quote']

 

Oh. Rule Zero, aka, Game Master's Option, also called "What Thia says, goes."

[Markdoc]

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

 

I tell you what' date=' while we are on the subject. Yes, in a 60 AP game, everyone tends to take a 12d6 EB or a 4d6 RKA, so it can all look a bit samey, but it needn't.[/quote']

 

I think the problem is more that it outlaws the concept of "I''m badass - I can really lay the smack down" since the STR15 martial artist and the STR60 brick do the same amount of damage

 

 

Anyway' date=' it is sloe gin season so I'm offski.[/quote']

 

Meh. It's post-Julfrokost here. That translates to "get drunk at employer's expense"

 

It's really hard to type while drunk...... (We don't have a drunk emoticon, but if we did, I 'd use it.....)

 

Cheers, Mark

 

Oh, and have a good weekend, y'all

[Warp9]

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

 

(We don't have a drunk emoticon, but if we did, I 'd use it.....)

 

[Kenn]

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

 

While I agree that the points are needed for bookkeeping and such, I have found that AP caps and such are more of a hinderance than a help. Especially when a game has run long enough that some established characters were in excess of 500 or more points. No matter the point cap new players were ALWAYS at the disadvantage.

 

My eventual solution was to try to give up point caps, and go so far as to have flexible numbers of Base Point available.

[SteveZilla]

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

 

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

 

Only if all the opponents are made with equal defenses built to the level of the highest attack available to the PC group.

 

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.

 

I see a potential avenue of abuse of such a system. Sell back one's AP limit to a fairly low level, then use the extra CPs to buy up one's SPD and DEX. Make the attack Autofire and Penetrating. Sure, each shot only gets though ~1 STUN, but when you are landing 10-15 each Segment because of your high SPD and DEX, you'll quickly whittle down most opponents.

 

If the GM assures the players ahead of time that they won't have to have at least one AP cap attack to be effective in combat (and they believe him), then it shouldn't be a problem. The GM can provide a wide variety of opponents that fit the full range of the PC's abilities. Look at the Justice League. How often does Batman go up against Darkseid, or Superman against Scarecrow/Joker/Riddler/Penguine?

[SteveZilla]

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

 

I think the problem is more that it outlaws the concept of "I''m badass - I can really lay the smack down" since the STR15 martial artist and the STR60 brick do the same amount of damage.

 

Some groups I've played with have tried limiting the AP cap of "pure" martial artists (i.e., highly trained "normal" human) to less than that of the rest of the characters. Which is why IMO nobody played them.

 

Other people I've played with (that had a better view IMO) took the tact that Martial Arts, in general, are about precision and not about raw power. Thus, Martial Artists's attacks inherently had the Beam Limitation.

 

Both the Brick and the Martial Artist can do a 12d6 attack. The Brick punches a concrete wall and smashes a man-sized hole in it. The Martial Artist puches the same wall, but only pokes a fist-sized hole though it.

 

I can see also making Martial Arts attacks inherently Knockdown-only (unless it's a special "super-knockback attack").

 

Changes that stress the Precision vs Raw Power aspects of Martial Arts IMO don't detract significantly from their overall effectivness. They just reduce the effects that one would normally get with raw power.

[Hyper-Man]

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

 

Saying that a Martial Artist and Brick both do a maximum of 12d6 damage is a potentially confusing statement that is comparing 'apples and oranges'.

 

What maneuver is the MA using to get to 12d6?

Does it add +4d6?

 

Is the Brick using the Haymaker maneuver?

If not he can actually reach 16d6 when he uses it.

The MA is already maxed at 12d6