Repricing Striking ST (but not HP or Lifting ST) in modern campaigns

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by RedMattis

Tbh. Jumper is another one of those traits that just feel RAW mispriced in a typical campaign structure where you aren't expected to try to abuse it to trade or whatever. You can't even use it to escape with the rest of the party unless you have a bunch of really expensive (or backfirey like tunnel) enhancements.

I've been playing around with making jumper cost 30, but its a bit involved to make sure you've cut out all of the "useful" bits for adventuring. Like escaping from bad situations and walking through walls.

[Michael Thayne]

Is anyone willing to go to bat for Striking ST should be 3 points/level? I feel like I'm really tending to settle on 2 points/level. It's also kind of nice to have ST Without HP at 5 points/level, since it makes it easy to create abilities that temporarily boost ST (using modifiers like Cardiac Stress, Costs FP, and Maximum Duration) that cost a nice round 1-4 points/level, depending on specific limitations.

[A Ladder]

I've ran a TL8 Supers game where I repriced Strength to [5/level] with HP at [2], Lifting at [2], and Striking ST at [1]. (My gaming table runs "fast and loose" and leans towards the "rule of cool", so were not strict simulationists or even that good at following Basic Set rules.) So take my experience with that in mind.

At the end of the campaign close here are my thoughts:
Striking ST at [1/level] was too little IMO. No one picked up Innate Attack and just went Striking ST. I think every character picked up at least a little extra Striking ST.
I felt like HP at [2/level] was perfect. We had some characters purchase extra HP but not everyone.
No one picked up Lifting ST. :(

If I were to redo the Strength breakdown I would go with HP at [2/level], Striking ST at [2/level] and Lifting ST at [1/level] (and then diligently track encumbrance).

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by A Ladder

If I were to redo the Strength breakdown I would go with HP at [2/level], Striking ST at [2/level] and Lifting ST at [1/level] (and then diligently track encumbrance).

We're not completely repricing ST in this thread (at least not by the OP), but ST 5 with your breakdown is generally the way I lean.

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Is anyone willing to go to bat for Striking ST should be 3 points/level? I feel like I'm really tending to settle on 2 points/level. It's also kind of nice to have ST Without HP at 5 points/level, since it makes it easy to create abilities that temporarily boost ST (using modifiers like Cardiac Stress, Costs FP, and Maximum Duration) that cost a nice round 1-4 points/level, depending on specific limitations.

2/level for striking ST feels right to me.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Is anyone willing to go to bat for Striking ST should be 3 points/level? I feel like I'm really tending to settle on 2 points/level. It's also kind of nice to have ST Without HP at 5 points/level, since it makes it easy to create abilities that temporarily boost ST (using modifiers like Cardiac Stress, Costs FP, and Maximum Duration) that cost a nice round 1-4 points/level, depending on specific limitations.

[2]/level works out to [4] per +1 thr and +2 sw, which is roughly around [3] per general +1 to damage. [3]/level works out to [6] per +1 thr and +2 sw, or roughly around [4] per general +1 to damage. The Innate Attacks that replicate ST-based weapons are cr, cut, and imp (pi-class, tox, burn, corr, and fat weapons, if available, are rarely ST-based), which are around [1.5], [2.1], and [2.4], respectively, per +1 to damage (0.3d per +1), for an average of [2] per +1 to damage.

So, with all that in mind, you have to make a decision - is it more appropriate to have a +50% surcharge ([2] per +1 Striking ST and thus [3] per +1 damage) or a +100% surcharge ([3] per +1 Striking ST and thus [4] per +1 damage) to go from "this affects a single attack" to "this affects all attacks." Considering Single Attack is canonically -60%, +100% to buy it off is arguably more appropriate.

That said, however, I think [2]/level is a cleaner solution. This allows you to decouple HP from ST, with ST as its own trait at [5]/level and HP as its own trait at [2]/level - and a note that realistically the two don't vary much from each other.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by A Ladder

I've ran a TL8 Supers game where I repriced Strength to [5/level] with HP at [2], Lifting at [2], and Striking ST at [1]. (My gaming table runs "fast and loose" and leans towards the "rule of cool", so were not strict simulationists or even that good at following Basic Set rules.) So take my experience with that in mind.

At the end of the campaign close here are my thoughts:
Striking ST at [1/level] was too little IMO. No one picked up Innate Attack and just went Striking ST. I think every character picked up at least a little extra Striking ST.
I felt like HP at [2/level] was perfect. We had some characters purchase extra HP but not everyone.
No one picked up Lifting ST. :(

If I were to redo the Strength breakdown I would go with HP at [2/level], Striking ST at [2/level] and Lifting ST at [1/level] (and then diligently track encumbrance).

Lifting ST for 1/level seems too cheap unless players aren't trying very hard to get the most of it—when you're lugging around big guns and lots of other gear and using it for grappling (which even when you have a gun can be worthwhile to maintain stealth or take someone alive), I think Lifting ST becomes unambiguously more than just a perk. I could maybe see 2/level though.

[RedMattis]

I like the "Know Your Own Strength" Lifting ST. It scales up fast enough to keep being worth it.

I personally reduce its cost by 1 though, and add that to KYOS's (IMO) underpriced Striking-ST.

[awesomenessofme1]

KYOS removes too much granularity for my tastes, both at low and moderately high levels. That, and the damage is just silly. The progression of damage in the Basic Set may be somewhat arbitrary, but it intuitively seems about right. Someone who can lift ten tons (logST 31) punching with equivalent force to a mid-caliber rifle bullet (6d-1 thr) does not intuitively seem right.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Lifting ST for 1/level seems too cheap unless players aren't trying very hard to get the most of it—when you're lugging around big guns and lots of other gear and using it for grappling (which even when you have a gun can be worthwhile to maintain stealth or take someone alive), I think Lifting ST becomes unambiguously more than just a perk. I could maybe see 2/level though.

My experience running a campaign that averages TL10 (for PC gear) is that players buy ST (they aren't allowed to buy individual components other than HP) more enthusiastically than they buy bare Hit Points, so they obviously consider some part of the whole package attractive. As hitting people with ST based attacks is fairly uncommon, and grappling no more so, I assume they like the load-carrying increases of Lifting ST. This is understandable considering how big a dent encumbrance puts in tactical movement and how important Dodge is when automatic weapons are in common use.

If you track encumbrance at all rigorously, and serious weapons and armour are in use in your campaign then Lifting ST will be worth the 3/level the Basic Set gives it, possibly more (unless low-G environments are very common - they reduce its value somewhat).

Also, contrary to what some others report, Hit Points are very useful in my experience. For starters most UT long arms do about 6d damage, so if you're unarmoured having more than the baseline HP strongly reduces your chances of needing to make death checks from single hits. Then there's what it does for you if you're appropriately armoured - it lets you soak up a lot more of the barely penetrating hits that you get when your armour 'matches' the attacks. Also, it cuts down the chance that above-average damage hits cripple you. Hit points are nearly as important for a high-combat TL10 as they are in a high-combat TL3 game, assuming the weapon to armour balance GURPS defaults to.

As for Striking ST, it's the odd one out - it's not that useful until you need it, and then it's really useful. However, unless your ultra-tech game features lots of fist-fights and knifings in dark alleys, or you otherwise go out of your way to make ST-based melee weapons important, it's not generally worth points.

Thinking about my players, I don't think there's a point where it'd be cheap enough they'd stack it in this campaign it unless they were building a character with the concept "Can punch through mountains", but they'd complain if it wasn't build into ST and they then found they'd 'forgotten' (i.e. been too cheap) to buy it.

[Aldric]

I wouldn't reduce the cost of Striking ST for a modern (or UT) game, I don't think I have Striking ST on any of the suggested templates for my SF campaign. If it was completely useless for a game I would inform the players of it or even outright ban it, but that's no different than any other advantage that's inappropriate for the campaign.