Should CV be a base characteristic?

[zornwil]

I'm just lobbing this one out to see what people say, inspired by the conversation on Aiding OCV.

There are some real consequences to making CV (whether broken out into OCV, DCV, EOCV, etc., or as a simple base stat from which DCV and OCV are derived) a stat - Adjustment Powers being a particularly interesting/relevant source of consequences, though there certainly are others.

[Dust Raven]

It already is a Characteristic. We call it DEX and is also affects your agility skills, DEX rolls and figures into your SPD. :)

Sorry. I actually think it works fine the way it is. If it ever becomes a Characteristic, it should be for OCV/DCV only and be a Figured Characteristic based off of DEX. What it's cost would be I can't figure. It would end up being cheeper than buying any kind of CSLs though, or else buying DEX would be a better bargin than buying CON.

[CourtFool]

Hey Zorn, which parts of the system are you going to keep? :lol: Again, I was glad Hero based combat on DEX. I have never really had an issue with it. Thieves finally got their day in court. There was much rejoicing. If you want your characters to have high OCV and or DCV without being agile...we call them Combat Skill Levels. This being Hero, the SPX can be whatever you like.

[Dust Raven]

This being Hero, the SPX can be whatever you like.

SPX? Special...Post Exchange?

[zornwil]

Hey Zorn, which parts of the system are you going to keep? :lol: Again, I was glad Hero based combat on DEX. I have never really had an issue with it. Thieves finally got their day in court. There was much rejoicing. If you want your characters to have high OCV and or DCV without being agile...we call them Combat Skill Levels. This being Hero, the SPX can be whatever you like.
Oh, I don't want to change this at all, just curious what people thought!

Much the same with idle thoughts on scaling advancement. Just in a mood for idle speculation, really, I suppose.

[David Blue]

Oh, I don't want to change this at all, just curious what people thought!

Much the same with idle thoughts on scaling advancement. Just in a mood for idle speculation, really, I suppose.You have a dangerous mind, Zornwil, and I mean that in a nice way. :)

My first thought is that if you split up DEX into its component parts, such as DCV, each part becomes more convenient to Drain. From a Martial Artist's point of view, I would prefer whatever gives me my DCV to be as "bundled" as possible.

I don't know what the up-side of that transaction would be, because nobody's mentioned yet a positive aim which this change would be intended to achieve.

[Hugh Neilson]

It's almost a stat now. Figured as 1/3 of DEX, and you can "buy it up" at 5 points per (+1 level for all DCV = 5 points; the same seems reasonable for all OCV).

Do we really need more stats on the sheet? I'd just handwave the ability to apply bonuses with adjustment powers, and we have a choice of mechanics for negatives (while adjustment powers would work OK there was well).

[Sean Waters]

Lessee...

If you carve up DEX, starting at 15 points of DEX = 45CP = +5 OCV, +5 DCV and +3 on DEX rolls and 15 points towards SPEED.

Lop off the 15 points for speed and you are down to 30 points, or about 10 points for OCV, 10 for DCV and 10 for the DEX levels.

So +5 OCV = 10 points.

Hmm.

I can see some pretty high OCV/DCV totals, and some pretty drastic consequences for drains.

What do I think? I think you should keep churning out the interesting questions, but as far as this one goes, I think it is not a keeper. :)

[zornwil]

Sometimes I throw out stuff that I don't think is sound but just curious to see what others say - you never know what comes out of the woodwork, sometimes.

[Phil]

I dont think it should be a characteristic, but I do think it should be treated as a skill. I dont like games which combine different task resolution mechanics without any good reason, and the CV / Skill resolution in HERO is a classic example.

[austenandrews]

In a lot of ways CV makes more sense as a stat than the current system. Mary Lou Retton might have DEX out the yin-yang but should her CV really be high? Plus it would map better to Hero's effect-based design philosophy. Hugh's point is valid, that it's practically a stat already. The main advantage I can see for tying it to DEX are "barriers to entry" - it's expensive to buy up DEX, and CSLs require some modicum of background justification.

I didn't read the Aiding OCV thread, but isn't it currently possible to Drain a Skill?

[rjcurrie]

In a lot of ways CV makes more sense as a stat than the current system. Mary Lou Retton might have DEX out the yin-yang but should her CV really be high? Plus it would map better to Hero's effect-based design philosophy. Hugh's point is valid, that it's practically a stat already. The main advantage I can see for tying it to DEX are "barriers to entry" - it's expensive to buy up DEX, and CSLs require some modicum of background justification.

I didn't read the Aiding OCV thread, but isn't it currently possible to Drain a Skill?

Given the way DEX is defined in Hero with its effects on Combat, I'd argue that Mary Lou Retton doesn't have a high DEX, she just has a high PS:Gymnastics roll -- and possibly high Acrobatics and Breakfall skills as well.

[Hyper-Man]

...snip...
Mary Lou Retton might have DEX out the yin-yang but should her CV really be high? ...snip...

She instead might have several 2 point Dex Levels as well as 5 point Agility Skill Levels too. In this case she has no high CV because her base DEX is not artificially high.

Seems very similar to the DEX -> SPD figured argument. Easy fix there is to make it NFC. The fix here is similar. Use Skill Levels and maybe Lightning Reflexes where appropriate if the base CV is too high.

HM

[nexus]

Given the way DEX is defined in Hero with its effects on Combat, I'd argue that Mary Lou Retton doesn't have a high DEX, she just has a high PS:Gymnastics roll -- and possibly high Acrobatics and Breakfall skills as well.

And I agree with you whole heartedly. The only issue is with player characters your going to get more High Dex than high skills since its a bit more point officient. Stat Inflation can be a problem (You get statements like NO character should have a dex less 20). There's also the "Great Thief, Great Warrior" issue which is a personal bugaboo of mine.

[austenandrews]

She instead might have several 2 point Dex Levels as well as 5 point Agility Skill Levels too. In this case she has no high CV because her base DEX is not artificially high.
Which seems backwards, when you think about at it. DEX has become synonymous with combat effectiveness, while the intuitive definitions of DEX become special cases.

[Blue]

Take out CV from DEX and, IMO, but for the fact that it figures into SPD, it becomes a 1pt Stat, like STR. You can't damage with it, like STR, but you can act before other people that segment, so it's a tradeoff.

Of course it can't be 1pt because then it becomes more point effective to buy up your SPD by applying that cost to DEX instead.

I think it's an introduction of needless complication to a working system. But then I say that about all suggestions on these boards ;)

Having said that, I was at one point (before I came to my senses and realized my players didn't need 'simpler' rules) considering elimination of OCV/DCV. It looked more like this:

(Attacker DEX - Defender DEX)/3 + 11.

So 26 DEX guy vs. 18 DEX guy gets you a 14-, just like with OCV/DCV.

And it had the added bonus of making the porous DEX numbers, like 24, more useful than 23 because subtration of that 1 extra point from an opponent might cause his attack number to round down, etc.

Levels would then just be applied directly to the roll (In the direction desired by the person with the levels; which would almost always be downward).

But like I said, it turns out I'm just making my life more difficult by rewriting the book when that's been written well enough already.

[austenandrews]

Eh, I'm not saying the system should be changed. I'm only saying that zornwil makes a good point. I've been playing with essentially the same rules for decades. If I wanted fundamental changes, I'd play another system. :)

[schir1964]

How about a Hero who's extremely agile but can aim or dodge any better than average normal standing next to him?

How do you handle that?

- Christopher Mullins

[Hyper-Man]

How about a Hero who's extremely agile but can aim or dodge any better than average normal standing next to him?

How do you handle that?

- Christopher Mullins5-point Agility Skill Levels

HM

[zornwil]

5-point Agility Skill Levels

HM
Hmmm, but I wonder if limited DEX is more cost-efficient... :whistle:

:D

[Hyper-Man]

Hmmm, but I wonder if limited DEX is more cost-efficient... :whistle:

:D

If we compare the commonplace 18 DEX vs. 23 DEX, and assuming the same SPD, the difference in cost is 15 real and 10 effective points to get a +1 to the Agility Skill (DEX) roll. So you're going to need at least a (-1.5) limitation in addition to No Figured (-1/2) to get the cost down to an equivalent 5 real points per +1 to the roll.

HM

[prestidigitator]

Mary Lou Retton might have DEX out the yin-yang but should her CV really be high?
Well, as a gymnast, a matial artist, and a fencer, I can say that the gymnastics definitely helps with the rest: balance, reaction time, flexibility, coordination. So: yes.

[prestidigitator]

I would actually like to say that I think Int (and/or Pre?), as well as Dex, should be figured into CV. The physical is important, but the ability to out-guess, out-wit, and fake-out your opponent is just as important. That is only covered in the system (and most systems for that matter) by allowing for the occaisional "surprise maneuver" bonus, but in reality it affects things on a much more pervasive level.

[David Blue]

I would actually like to say that I think Int (and/or Pre?), as well as Dex, should be figured into CV. The physical is important, but the ability to out-guess, out-wit, and fake-out your opponent is just as important. That is only covered in the system (and most systems for that matter) by allowing for the occaisional "surprise maneuver" bonus, but in reality it affects things on a much more pervasive level.I agree with that.

I think Lightning Reflexes for highly intelligent characters are an acceptable kludge. Three or four levels of Lightning Reflexes for Monsieur Mallah, on the assumption that he will often get a "gun start" by anticipating what came next, are highly reasonable. Also, I like characteristic rolls, but instead of rolling DEX if two characters are trying to act first on the same segment and DEX, instead of rolling I prefer that usually to be a gamemaster call in favour of the character with higher intelligence, or the hero. If the Brain finds you pathetically primitive and predictable, and is not deluded about that, it should be harder for you to get the jump on him.

That's initiative, not combat value of course.

It's easier for me too see high intelligence translating into being the first to act in an unexpected situation (which has combat benefits of course) than to see it translating into superior scores on a pistol range, which a higher combat value will do for you. But for someone else, it might be the other way around.

[prestidigitator]

It's easier for me too see high intelligence translating into being the first to act in an unexpected situation (which has combat benefits of course) than to see it translating into superior scores on a pistol range, which a higher combat value will do for you. But for someone else, it might be the other way around.
You are right that you will be no better on a pistol range. Let me give you an example: in fencing and Martial Arts, your ability to fight well is only partially determined by your speed, agility, and knowledge of technique; between skilled opponents a touch most often comes to the combatant who out-wits the other and manages to throw in an attack that the other just isn't quite able to anticipate. Perhaps the same isn't quite true in a firefight, unless the combatants are making judicious use of cover, but I don't have experience there so I can't really tell you.

[David Blue]

I think it's often good to uncouple the various effects of high dexterity.

Example: Syndrome has blazing reaction times, yet is not particularly graceful. Or, yes he is graceful, but not compared to some heroes who are not as fast as he is. (That's a build I accept readily, given his very high intelligence.)

I think the right way to do this should usually be to use disadvantages. I think that there are strong reasons to see disadvantages as better than limitations for both roleplaying purposes and for game balance, and that this applies very much to dexterity.

If a character is fast, accurate and hard to hit, but not graceful, agile or adept at skills like dancing, an obvious way to build him or her would be to buy (relative) clumsiness. If a character is exceptionally hard or easy to hit, this could also be built with the disadvantage "physical limitation" (plus combat skill levels as needed).

My problem is that selling off the benefits of dexterity as disadvantages (not as limitations) seems to work poorly.

A character who is always 12ft tall is encouraged to take this disadvantage: you are four meters or two game inches tall, you weigh - it says here up to twice normal human mass, which is absurd, that should be eight times - you get -2 DCV constantly, others get +2 on all their PER rolls against you, and this is a minor physical limitation, infrequently and slightly impairing.

Oh is it? (frosty) No, I don't think it is.

I submit that the way the game gives us to reflect a classic kind of character whose defensive combat value is not up with their gracefulness, speed and ability to hit things is completely broken.

I don't want defensive combat value (DCV) to be a separate characteristic. I do want taking physical limitations as disadvantages to work much, much better.

[Gary]

I'm just lobbing this one out to see what people say, inspired by the conversation on Aiding OCV.

There are some real consequences to making CV (whether broken out into OCV, DCV, EOCV, etc., or as a simple base stat from which DCV and OCV are derived) a stat - Adjustment Powers being a particularly interesting/relevant source of consequences, though there certainly are others.


Zorn, I officially hate your guts. I was in the middle of writing and submitting an article for Digital Hero on this issue. :mad:

;)

[zornwil]

If we compare the commonplace 18 DEX vs. 23 DEX, and assuming the same SPD, the difference in cost is 15 real and 10 effective points to get a +1 to the Agility Skill (DEX) roll. So you're going to need at least a (-1.5) limitation in addition to No Figured (-1/2) to get the cost down to an equivalent 5 real points per +1 to the roll.

HM
Who said -1.5? -2!!! :D

[zornwil]

Zorn, I officially hate your guts. I was in the middle of writing and submitting an article for Digital Hero on this issue. :mad:

;)
Ha, well, on a serious note do be sure to promote it if/when you do so!

[Dust Raven]

I would actually like to say that I think Int (and/or Pre?), as well as Dex, should be figured into CV. The physical is important, but the ability to out-guess, out-wit, and fake-out your opponent is just as important. That is only covered in the system (and most systems for that matter) by allowing for the occaisional "surprise maneuver" bonus, but in reality it affects things on a much more pervasive level.

One of the things I used to do for initiative (just the action order per segment) was instead of a roll off for equal DEXs, automatically go with the higher INT. After that was higher SPD, and if all those things were equal... I'd double check the charactersheets to make sure I didn't add the same character in twice.

I'm not sure that basing CV on INT (or anything other or in addition to DEX) is appropriate for the system though. It's designed to simulate action, the kind of action you'd find in a martial arts movie, superhero comic book or any action film. The peole fighting aren't always smart, perceptive or extremely intelligent, but they are typically fast, coordinated and accurate (well, the main characters are).

If we did do it that way, it might make sense to change the cost of DEX to 1/1 and have OCV and DCV based on DEX/5 + INT/5, and have each cost an additional 5 points to increase. The cost of CSLs would also have to change. This would lead to a slightly different set of values for CV overall (something would have to be done with ECV, perhaps basing it off is INT/5 + EGO/5 with EGO also costing 1/1). And SPD could no longer be based on DEX (or just DEX, perhaps (DEX+INT)/10 or (DEX+INT)/20+1).

[prestidigitator]

One of the things I used to do for initiative (just the action order per segment) was instead of a roll off for equal DEXs, automatically go with the higher INT. After that was higher SPD, and if all those things were equal... I'd double check the charactersheets to make sure I didn't add the same character in twice.

I'm not sure that basing CV on INT (or anything other or in addition to DEX) is appropriate for the system though. It's designed to simulate action, the kind of action you'd find in a martial arts movie, superhero comic book or any action film. The peole fighting aren't always smart, perceptive or extremely intelligent, but they are typically fast, coordinated and accurate (well, the main characters are).

If we did do it that way, it might make sense to change the cost of DEX to 1/1 and have OCV and DCV based on DEX/5 + INT/5, and have each cost an additional 5 points to increase. The cost of CSLs would also have to change. This would lead to a slightly different set of values for CV overall (something would have to be done with ECV, perhaps basing it off is INT/5 + EGO/5 with EGO also costing 1/1). And SPD could no longer be based on DEX (or just DEX, perhaps (DEX+INT)/10 or (DEX+INT)/20+1).
Hmm. Sure, but how about OCV,DCV=(Dex+Int)/6; Spd=1+(Dex+Int)/20. Make Dex and Int each cost 2 (makes more sense for all the Skills based on Int anyway). Make ECL=(Ego+Pre)/6, as Ego and Pre are already mixed up with Presence Attacks, and make each of them cost 2 as well. Leave CSL costs the same. Kinda wacky. Makes things a bit more expensive, but people seem to want that anyway. Of course, that would mean you could get a Spd of 5 with normal max Dex and Int, which seems a bit high. Hmm. Would probably take some more tweaking.

EDIT: Wow! With the cost of Str going up to 2 like everyone seems to want, this would give all the Base Characteristics except Com cost 2 each! We could just eliminate Com entirely (and instead allow people to buy some limited Pre or something, and Disadvantages--DFs and Social Limitations--for being ugly).

[austenandrews]

Right, I think you can make an argument for several stats being involved in CV - DEX, INT, STR, maybe even PRE and EGO. And different stats are important depending on the type of combat. Which to me argues that CV itself is relatively independent of stats, or at least shouldn't be dominated by them. I think a skills-based CV sounds more logical - lower the base CV (so eliminate the Mary Lou Retton examples) and make it dominated by skill. Maybe your base CV for Fencing is DEX+INT/10. For Sumo it's STR+DEX/10. For giant laser cannons it's INT/5. Complicated, but probably more realistic. (Come to think of it, doesn't GURPS kinda work that way?)

[zornwil]

(snip)
EDIT: Wow! With the cost of Str going up to 2 like everyone seems to want, this would give all the Base Characteristics except Com cost 2 each! We could just eliminate Com entirely (and instead allow people to buy some limited Pre or something, and Disadvantages--DFs and Social Limitations--for being ugly).

Um, INT and PRE are 1 each.

[prestidigitator]

Um, INT and PRE are 1 each.
If you'll re-read my post, I proposed including them in some calculated values and changing their cost to 2. :)

[zornwil]

If you'll re-read my post, I proposed including them in some calculated values and changing their cost to 2. :)
Ah, sorry.