Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jim Hague" data-source="post: 3408725" data-attributes="member: 17550">Problem is, it's a flawed point.  As Mamba points out, PL is simply a measure of internal balance, not effectiveness.  Unlike 1e, characters are not restricted in the number of points available by PL, merely their caps...and even that's flexible, thanks to trade-offs.  So PL as measurement of anything but balance doesn't work (nor is it supposed to).  It's a 'Batman vs. Superman' argument - while Supes is effectively invulnerable and high PL, Bats has a lot of points sunken into Feats and skills and combat ability.  Who wins?  Is it based on PL?  Hardly.Likewise, the assumption that everyone starts at PL 10 is false - that's something set by the individual GM.  While the characters presented in the corebook are PL 10 (the archetypes, at least - villains are different), there's nothing saying you can't start at PL 6 (for an Agents of Freedom game) or PL 15-20 (for a cosmic-level campaign).  PL 10 is the middle of the road, not anythign resembling a hard mechanical setting, much like the 'default' assumption of 100 points in HERO.The idea that different PL characters are going to either fall or own the field is likewise flawed; much like other point-based system, it's where you put the points, the campaign...a lot of facotrs.  Taking the Nick Fury example, Agents of Freedom addresses this issue nicely...and if someone thinks that Nick (perhaps a PL 7-8 character built on a great, great many points) isn't going to have a good chance again, say, Iron Man or Thor, heavy hitters both, they're very, very much mistaken.</blockquote>

Verification