[HoE] Re: Fortitude Response

[John Goff <johngoff@erols.com>]

Sorry, got to jump in on this one. ;-)

I'm responding purely as a Marshal/syker player, not a PEG weenie (I save that for the DL
list <g>).

Jess Van Valkenburg wrote:

> I agree you are right on game balance as far as getting a lot of strain
> for one point, but the problem is that  you end up on the brainburn
> chart, and it is so deadly that it makes one question why you would do
> this, because you would never use more than 2 or 3 points due to the
> risk.

Assuming you're never in a life or death situation where you need more than that 2 or 3
points to succeed. If you do--and you have Fortitude--you pays your money and you takes
your chances. Even if you don't use more than 2 or 3 points _ever_, you're still getting
those 2 or 3 points of Strain for 1 character point with minimal risk to yourself.

> Why not spend them in raising your
> strain with the edge that has no danger, one for one up to max of 5? Now
> you have the extra strain all the time if you need it and do not face
> the chart.

Because you can buy Steel-Trap Mind 5 (5 points) _and_ Fortitude to increase your emergency
total by 10. Granted, you're likely to blow your head off if you use that much, but it is
available... ;-)

> When the damage was wind it was still enough to make it rough
> on a player. What really takes us out is not the wounds - it is the 1d6
> of wind that goes WITH each wound (well, most of the time). When it was
> that, it was balanced to where you might try it in a tight spot with the
> brainburn chart. There are really no "in the middle" things, like for
> example "reduce your strain by one
> forever or power does not work because you are dazed and now (like
> chainbrain) you must make a stun check to act again", or maybe "lose
> that power and have to relearn it",  or "lose syker powers for a
> duration of time". These would be balancing to the chart and make it
> still effective, but not deadly 9 times out of ten. Then I would not
> mind it as is.

I have to disagree that the Brainbun table is all that unbalanced. The one on page 109 of
the Brainburners book just _isn't_ that deadly. Less than 1/2 the results are likely to
cause any serious damage to the syker and are, in most cases, less painful to the syker
than those you've suggested above. Of those that do  have the potential to cause serious
harm, Brainburn is going to do d6's for damage 50% of the time and Melonhead may actually
_improve_ the power's effectiveness.

I'll admit _I_ don't want to roll on the table when I'm playing a syker, but it isn't
unbalancing for a 1-point Edge.

> Or you could, as I mentioned, increase the cost of the
> power from 1 to 3 or 5 if used in the first "incorrect" way.

A 3- or 5-point Edge that doubles a syker's Strain is simply unbalanced. The closest
comparable power is Steel Trap Mind that, for 5 points, provides 5 Strain. It's likely a
character is going to gain 8, 10, or even 12 Strain before worrying about any psychic
backlash for 5 points, were the Edge to work the way you suggest.

> Also I know as a Marshal they have specific flaws for when you botch as a syker
> for most of the powers, and you still are to roll on this chart. So,
> worst case scenario,  you botch while using fortitude and roll twice on
> this chart and have the flaw when you botch. Do you see what I mean?

You're right that seems harsh, but...those are two different backlash methods--you use one
or the other. So, if you're using the Brainburn table, you don't automatically assign the
flaw, and if you're using straight flaws, you don't roll on the Brainburn table. Flaws were
the "basic" syker backlash effect; with Brainburners, the option of the Brainburn table was
added to replace them.

> The junkers and the doom priests do not get hit with all this on their
> charts.  It is the game balance thing I was looking at - not that I was
> saying it should not be one way or the other.  Rather I wanted to look
> (as you did) at balance both for the syker and the other power
> characters in the game.

Doomsayers pick up a different type of balancing factor--primarily the emnity of Silas'
Cult o' Doom; sykers are without a group enemy in the Wasted West. Junkers are balanced by
the time necessary to build their devices, the requirement for g-rays and batteries to
power their creations, and (as of The Junkman Cometh) taints and instability. Each
background has a different mechanic in effect to balance it; only the syker's is a table
generated effect, but that doesn't mean the others are getting off scott-free. ;-)

> OK.  Now the Tsar.

And the stones. That's purely a case of  "we want them rare and expensive." ;-)

Neither the TSAR nor the stones are present on Earth in any great quantities. Most TSARs
went to Banshee sykers and Banshee stones only come from...well, Banshee. Perhaps by pure
statistics the cost doesn't seem to add up, but remember neither of these can likely be
"bought" after the fact. Supply and demand in action.

> OK, next thing is the question of "Yes, we want them rare and expensive
> to give out as rewards and plot devices". I again think at first "OK,
> that's a good thing", but then I look at game balance again and wonder
> why, if that's so true, can a templar start with a relic (a rare and
> very expensive item)

Actually, if it fits the character's description, any of them can start with a relic, so
this is really a moot point...

> or the junker being able to start with a device for
> free and then scrounge at a cost of only time to find the items to make
> many cool things?

The junker's device is _part_ of the character's arcane background. If one wasn't provided
for free at the start, in the first adventure a junker takes part in she'd be running
around with nothing for the character points she'd invested in her background.

> Why is it the syker is always the one that has all the
> restrictions on gear and the one thing that was cool, may be really
> deadly and not worth taking at all? See what I mean about balance?

No offense, but I'm afraid I don't. The TSAR/Banshee stones are the fuzzy dice for a
syker's car; they're a nice addition, but the syker by no means needs them to be a serious
badass. Nearly every adventure where I've seen a syker played well, the character
consistently contributes a sizeable amount to a successful posse. Without either of those
items.

> And I won't even get into cyborgs. They are so badly unbalancing to a game I
> don't think any player should be allowed to play one.
> So where is balance for the syker in comparison to these other
> archetypes (or the normal archetypes without any powers for that
> matter)? I look forward to hearing more from you and others on this, and
> hope John and the rest of the gang at Pinnacle get involved too.

I'm sorry, I have to completely disagree. I think you could more easily convince me that
sykers were _over-powered_ with respect to the other character types than under-powered.
However, when playing one character-type, it is easy to lose sight of the drawbacks to
other characters if they don't directly correlate to your own. To take AD&D, for example,
every time I play, I find myself thinking, "Man, those specialty priests have got it
_made_--they've got spells, special powers, and even get decent weapons; they totally
outstrip my punky little thief." Then, the next chance I get, I make one. Guess what? I
find out very quickly what looks great from one side of the fence isn't nearly as nice up
close...

John Goff