Perks And Talents Issues

[James Gillen]

It occurs to me that a very similar thing could be said about COM. :)

Which is why we still spend points in it when it's technically not good for anything. ;)

JG

[nexus]

Comeliness does have a mechanical effect. There is no mechanical effect for Wealth.

[James Gillen]

Comeliness does have a mechanical effect. There is no mechanical effect for Wealth.

Maybe there should be.

JG

[Tonio]

Comeliness does have a mechanical effect. There is no mechanical effect for Wealth.

That's not exactly accurate. Wealth does state an analogous annual income, and things have prices in a campaign, so it really does tell you what you can and can't buy. There are no rolls involved, nor bonuses, but there are unequivocal, if approximate, numbers involved.

But yeah, in practice, Wealth and COM are treated more or less the same... rough guidelines and suggestions that at times have better defined effects.

[nexus]

That's not exactly accurate. Wealth does state an analogous annual income, and things have prices in a campaign, so it really does tell you what you can and can't buy. There are no rolls involved, nor bonuses, but there are unequivocal, if approximate, numbers involved.




It's perfectly accurate. Wealth does not alter any rolls, add any bonuses or effect they way anything works in mechanics level outside of Gm fiat and house rules. Even what "income" it represents, if it's available or what reaction it create is GM fiat. That money is used to buy thinks is a game effect not mechanical one. Comeliness might let you buy some of those cheaper with a complimentary skill roll or just because the sellar likes a pretty/handsome face. In Superheroic games, Wealth is a sfx and occasional justification for other things.

And personally, I'm fine with that. Everything doesn't have to have codified mechanical impact to have a Game impact.

[Vondy]

Maybe there should be.

JG

I am strongly opposed to having a mechanical effect for everything. At that point we might as well eliminate the gamemaster and replace him with an automated system. There is room for some interpretive, non-mechanical elements in the game. Frankly, if you apply mechanics to every single piddly thing, I'll be out of here. Creativity - the flexibility to be creative - and good judgement are a part of the game.

[Trebuchet]

I am strongly opposed to having a mechanical effect for everything. At that point we might as well eliminate the gamemaster and replace him with an automated system. There is room for some interpretive, non-mechanical elements in the game. Frankly, if you apply mechanics to every single piddly thing, I'll be out of here. Creativity - the flexibility to be creative - and good judgement are a part of the game.QFT. :thumbup:

[Susano]

I am strongly opposed to having a mechanical effect for everything. At that point we might as well eliminate the gamemaster and replace him with an automated system. There is room for some interpretive, non-mechanical elements in the game. Frankly, if you apply mechanics to every single piddly thing, I'll be out of here. Creativity - the flexibility to be creative - and good judgement are a part of the game.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[steamteck]

I am strongly opposed to having a mechanical effect for everything. At that point we might as well eliminate the gamemaster and replace him with an automated system. There is room for some interpretive, non-mechanical elements in the game. Frankly, if you apply mechanics to every single piddly thing, I'll be out of here. Creativity - the flexibility to be creative - and good judgement are a part of the game.


quoted for truth:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[BobGreenwade]

I am strongly opposed to having a mechanical effect for everything. At that point we might as well eliminate the gamemaster and replace him with an automated system. There is room for some interpretive, non-mechanical elements in the game. Frankly, if you apply mechanics to every single piddly thing, I'll be out of here. Creativity - the flexibility to be creative - and good judgement are a part of the game.What's that? Good judgement -- from this group??? :nonp:

Seriously, very well said. It makes a good argument for "rule of thumb" Perks as well as COM.

[PhilFleischmann]

I am strongly opposed to having a mechanical effect for everything. At that point we might as well eliminate the gamemaster and replace him with an automated system. There is room for some interpretive, non-mechanical elements in the game. Frankly, if you apply mechanics to every single piddly thing, I'll be out of here. Creativity - the flexibility to be creative - and good judgement are a part of the game.
I also agree. Building specific mechanics for money is like "building a spoon". If you don't understand how money works without a rulebook to explain it to you, then Role-Playing Games are probably beyond you.

[James Gillen]

The problem with the analogy is: Even Wealth has real-world analogs. "Wealthy" means millionaire level. 15 points means the character has enough wealth to do whatever, but it's usually multi-millionaire or billionaire level. I assume we all know how money works in real-world terms. ;) Just like STR has charts and the other stats are bases for Skill rolls, but other than strictly optional rolls for Interaction, which are purely Complementary, COM has no game point.

JG

[ajackson]

I am strongly opposed to having a mechanical effect for everything.
There should be a mechanical effect that is represented mechanically. If you don't pay points for it, it needn't have any well-defined effects.

If Com just cost x0, leaving it on the character sheet is fine if irrelevant. If it's going to have a cost, there should be guidelines for what it does.

[Trebuchet]

If Com just cost x0, leaving it on the character sheet is fine if irrelevant. If it's going to have a cost, there should be guidelines for what it does.There already are such guidelines; although I'd like to see them expanded upon a bit. In general the benefits of COM reflect their cost: It's the least expensive Characteristic precisely because it's also the least useful one.

[nexus]

Basically this entire debate boils down to do you like the concept of Comeliness as a characteristic or not thus it's subkective and probably endless. If you like it you do and if you don't, you won't. It's been around for too long for opinions to shift much in the fanbase. That's probably the reason its being debated so vigorously. No matter how "useful" you feel it is its been a core part of the system since the beginning so there's going to be strong feelings about it both ways.

I still feel that since it's there, many people are getting use from it, a Talent, Perk or whatever is going to be just as "optional" as in subject to GM's discretion when it applies; there's no real effort required to keeo ignoring it if you already are while putting it back would require some and the tools to build an alternative are already in the system leaving Comeliness in place isn't a big deal but I know my veiwpoint is as subjective as any other. It's a matter of taste.

[nexus]

There already are such guidelines; although I'd like to see them expanded upon a bit. In general the benefits of COM reflect their cost: It's the least expensive Characteristic precisely because it's also the least useful one.


I feel Comeliness is very useful in game and as a story tool (again like many of the Perks) It just doesn't have allot of mechanical "weight" backing it up.

[Tonio]

I am strongly opposed to having a mechanical effect for everything. At that point we might as well eliminate the gamemaster and replace him with an automated system. There is room for some interpretive, non-mechanical elements in the game. Frankly, if you apply mechanics to every single piddly thing, I'll be out of here. Creativity - the flexibility to be creative - and good judgement are a part of the game.

Well, while I agree with the general sentiment, I also think it's misleading. I think you pose a false dichotomy by implying that having mechanical effects for all point-costing abilities (including characteristics, powers, etc.) rules out, or somehow curbs, creativity and the human element.

I can submit, for example, that having well defined mechanics for all point-costing abilities frees the GM from mechanics decisions and allows him to devote his time to purely creative endeavors. I won't, though, because I also think that's misleading, by implying that time spent deciding mechanical effects is time wasted, creatively speaking.

I think having mechanical effects for everything is a great idea, if only because it lets GMs deal only with what they want to deal. GMs are, of course, always free to ignore or alter any mechanics they dislike. A looser, more story-oriented game (as opposed to combat-oriented) might have a GM ignoring most/all the combat rules and simply playing out combat based on the CVs of the combatants, maybe with a single roll on each side, much like Social Interaction skills are dealt with. But having the rules there is good, for those GMs who want a more combat-heavy game. The same idea should apply across the board: game mechanics for everything that can be expected to be used to any significant extent.

[James Gillen]

There already are such guidelines; although I'd like to see them expanded upon a bit. In general the benefits of COM reflect their cost: It's the least expensive Characteristic precisely because it's also the least useful one.

It's also just as expensive as END, which is a bit more useful. ;)

JG

[CTaylor]

Part of the reason that comeliness seems to have so little value in the game is that, ironically, it has no figured characteristics based on it. There's no perception roll, no ECV, no Stun, no speed. It sits alone.

Combine this with the "lets not have figured characteristics" crowd that tends to like eliminating comeliness, and it's kind of amusing from where I sit.

Incidentally, Comeliness is significantly cheaper than END, because Endurance starts at a higher level as it is based on CON. You're paying for the points of endurance in CON and what you buy for Endurance.

[ajackson]

Part of the reason that comeliness seems to have so little value in the game is that, ironically, it has no figured characteristics based on it. There's no perception roll, no ECV, no Stun, no speed. It sits alone.

Combine this with the "lets not have figured characteristics" crowd that tends to like eliminating comeliness, and it's kind of amusing from where I sit.
No-one has argued for eliminating everything which is figured from any given stat. 'Figured characteristics', is a particular term of use which applies to PD, ED, REC, Spd, End, and Stun. Your perception roll is not a figured characteristic, nor is your CV.

In any case, the reason that comeliness seems to have little value in the game is because there's absolutely nothing based on it.

[CTaylor]

In any case, the reason that comeliness seems to have little value in the game is because there's absolutely nothing based on it.

Yes, that was my point. Thus, the irony: splitting figured characteristics off from their primary stats will make them all share that characteristic with Comeliness (there is a comeliness roll). Which people want to get rid of because it has no attached mechanic.

Combat value and stat rolls are figured, they aren't called "figured characteristics" but there's a useful post earlier in this thread that points out how many stats D20 has; they just aren't called stats. Armor Class, Saving Throws, etc. They're all there, they just aren't considered characteristics, they aren't as neatly bundled up and easy to find and reference, instead they're scattered all over the rules.

[ajackson]

Yes, that was my point. Thus, the irony: splitting figured characteristics off from their primary stats will make them all share that characteristic with Comeliness (there is a comeliness roll).
Yes, there's a Com roll, but it doesn't do anything. All the other stat rolls actually have some game effect. If Com rolls actually did something, other than a complimentary roll (anything that only acts as a complimentary roll is better implemented as a straight bonus), I wouldn't object to Com as characteristic.

[nexus]

Yes, there's a Com roll, but it doesn't do anything.

Yes, it does. A complimentary rolls is doing something. You might think it's not enough, you might not like complimentary rolls but they are a part of the system So yes, it does something. Frankly, I've been asked and asked for many many more Com rolls than I have raw Characteristic rolls for anything outside Ego and Per (Int) and Ego mainly for Mental combat and Psych limes (which in many cases should be Pre).

You can also create Skills for Comeliness. It's even an option in Hero Designer, there just haven't been any "official" ones but until Ult Mentalist there weren't any for Ego and there aren't any for Con and one (Ult Brick) for Strength. And there optional at that. The romantic/sexual aspects of Seduction, for example would make perfect sense to be based on Comeliness. PS's like Fashion Model, Stripper, Courtsean/Prostitute, etc, some times of performance, etc


If Com rolls actually did something, other than a complimentary roll (anything that only acts as a complimentary roll is better implemented as a straight bonus), I wouldn't object to Com as characteristic.

This is definitely a YMMV thing. I think using it as complimentary roll is a good way to simulate the appearance is a fickle thing and doesn't have the same impact on all people, all the time on all subjects even if the same encounter.

[ajackson]

Yes, it does. A complimentary rolls is doing something. You might think it's not enough, you might not like complimentary rolls but they are a part of the system So yes, it does something.
Complimentary rolls are not 'doing something'. They are providing a bonus to something else which is what's actually doing something.

[nexus]

Complimentary rolls are not 'doing something'. They are providing a bonus to something else which is what's actually doing something.

You're of course entitled to your opinion but I strongly disagree

Providing a complimentary skill bonus is a mechanical effect. That is "doing something" by my definition. Otherwise seems to be splitting hairs or many PS and KS skills don't "do anything" either. Almost none of the characteristic rolls "do something" directly unless the GM wants them to.

[CTaylor]

Actually Comeliness rolls do things, they just don't do anything specific and listed in the mechanics. Constitution rolls don't <i>do</i> anything by your definition, either. Body rolls, Presence rolls, same thing. Yet they exist and can be used by a GM, if they are creative and clever and know the system.

I'm opposed to focusing on combat effectiveness and turning everything into a predictable mechanic. This is a role playing game left largely open, simply because you can't point to a page number and say "this does x, y, and z" doesn't mean it's useless or does nothing. And even if it did, the answer is to create that rule and add it to the book, not delete the stat, or turn it into a talent, which has the same drawbacks and cost as the stat (?)

[ajackson]

Actually Comeliness rolls do things, they just don't do anything specific and listed in the mechanics. Constitution rolls don't <i>do</i> anything by your definition, either.
True, and if Con didn't do anything outside of Con rolls, I'd be in favor of tossing Con from the system.

[BobGreenwade]

I think there's been more than enough discussion, both here and in the Characteristics thread (where it really belongs), to demonstrate that the assertion "COM doesn't do anything" is simply not true. It may not do anything in someone's particular game or particular experience, but there have been more than enough cases where COM has "done something" in other games, both mechanical and subjective, that the assertion is essentially proven false.

[ajackson]

I'm opposed to focusing on combat effectiveness and turning everything into a predictable mechanic.
Who's focusing on combat? Interaction skills are not combat. I'm just saying 'If Com has no role other than to make a complementary roll to give a bonus to interaction skills, just turn it into a simple bonus to interaction skills, and junk the complimentary Com rolls'. Given that bonuses are typically implemented as perks or levels rather than attributes, that means Com should become a perk or a level with some limitations.

[Trebuchet]

It's also just as expensive as END, which is a bit more useful. ;)Yes, but the base value for END is quite a bit higher. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

No-one has argued for eliminating everything which is figured from any given stat. 'Figured characteristics', is a particular term of use which applies to PD, ED, REC, Spd, End, and Stun. Your perception roll is not a figured characteristic, nor is your CV.

Sure they are. They just aren't presented the same way. You get a base PER roll, and you can increase it for 3 points per +1. We just call it an Enhanced Perception power instead of a stat. You can limit them and pay less to enahnce only certain types of perception.

Your DCV can be enhanced by paying 5 points - but we call it a skill level. Your OCV can also be enhanced by purchasing skill levels. Buy an 8 point level and limit it as "only for OCV, -1/2" and you get about a 5 point cost. [Myself, I allow 5 point levcels to raise OCV by 1, just like DCV).

These abilities are figured from primary stats. To me, that's a figured characteristic. And, BTW, I would argue that, if decoupling is, in fact, a good thing, we should look to decoupling all derived stats. If you don't buy that a healthy (high CON) person should have stamina and staying power (STUN, END, REC), how is it any more reasonable that an agile rogue must have strong combat abilities (OCV and DCV)? The source material is rife with wily rogues who are far less able in combat than their lower agility comrades.

Combat value and stat rolls are figured, they aren't called "figured characteristics" but there's a useful post earlier in this thread that points out how many stats D20 has; they just aren't called stats. Armor Class, Saving Throws, etc. They're all there, they just aren't considered characteristics, they aren't as neatly bundled up and easy to find and reference, instead they're scattered all over the rules.

Absolutely!

[BobGreenwade]

These abilities are figured from primary stats. To me, that's a figured characteristic.The rest of us are discussing Figured Characteristics as defined in the rulebook: PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, and STUN.

[nexus]

Sure they are. They just aren't presented the same way.

Perhaps some of the complaints about "too many characteristics" could be alleviated by presentation. Make Stun and Body "damage meters" like hit points, Speed becomes "Actions per turn" Endurance becomes Stamina points or whatever. Recovery is listed in the damage track section of the sheet with a chart/formula for how it's derived (or not if the decoupling goes through). They would still be there just hidden like the "figured characteristics" in other systems.

[Hugh Neilson]

The rest of us are discussing Figured Characteristics as defined in the rulebook: PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, and STUN.

Perhaps some of the complaints about "too many characteristics" could be alleviated by presentation. Make Stun and Body "damage meters" like hit points, Speed becomes "Actions per turn" Endurance becomes Stamina points or whatever. Recovery is listed in the damage track section of the sheet with a chart/formula for how it's derived (or not if the decoupling goes through). They would still be there just hidden like the "figured characteristics" in other systems.

Nexus has it in one. Yes, the "rest of us" are only discussing the six specific characteristics derived from other charateristics [B]and[B] labelled "figured characteristics". However, it is not tough to remove them from that category. REC becomes "recovery from injury", just like it reads in other games; PD/ED becomes "resisting damage" and that removes all figured characteristics. We still calculate them exactly the same way. We still buy them up exactly the same way. But now they aren't figured characteristics. Now slap OCV and DCV under the primary characteristics, give them a price per +1, and they are figured characteristics.

Q: Should we get rid of the concept of Figured Characteristics, and just make all Characteristics straightforward purchases?

Steve’s Thoughts: I am strongly in favor of doing this and intend to implement this change unless I am persuaded otherwise by a particularly convincing argument. Figured Characteristics are not only contrary to the general spirit of the HERO system in my opinion, but they cause all sorts of mathematical problems and muddles.

If decoupling is a good thing philosophically, then why are we stopping with the six derived abilities that have been labelled "characteristics"? OCV and DCV are figured characteristics in all but name. Mathematical muddling? Ignoring Speed, 45 character points spent on DEX buys you +3 DCV (cost: 15 points), +1 OCV (cost: debateable, say +15 points), +3 with all DEX skills (cost: 15 points, plus you get bonuses to any complementary DEX skills so it's worth more) and +15 Lightning Reflexes (7.5 x 3 = 22.5 points) for a total of 67.5 points - a 50% premium, even at 3 points per +1 DEX (and really, DEX only costs 2 points at present, in that 1 point goes to Speed).

Mind you, much like my view of STUN, REC and END, I find Lightning Reflexes to be overpriced considerably, which artificially inflates the comparison.

Overall, if we believe decoupling is philosophiocally apropriate, then let's not restrict that discussion to those six abilities arbitrarily classified as "figured characteristics" when it would be easy to swap them out and move other derived stats in.

[BobGreenwade]

I've noticed that a lot of the discussion currently under way in this thread, which is supposed to be about Perks and Talents, has drifted into discussions on Characteristics. Apologies if I'm stepping on moderators' toes, but shouldn't we move that discussion to the Characteristics thread?

[OzMike]

I think there's been more than enough discussion, both here and in the Characteristics thread (where it really belongs)

I've noticed that a lot of the discussion currently under way in this thread, which is supposed to be about Perks and Talents, has drifted into discussions on Characteristics. Apologies if I'm stepping on moderators' toes, but shouldn't we move that discussion to the Characteristics thread?

Hey Bob, I may be just guessing here and correct me if I'm wrong but...

...are you saying that perhaps talking about characteristics and stuff should maybe happen in the characteristics and stuff thread? :)

[BobGreenwade]

Hey Bob, I may be just guessing here and correct me if I'm wrong but...

...are you saying that perhaps talking about characteristics and stuff should maybe happen in the characteristics and stuff thread? :)That's kinda the idea, yeah. :)

[Chris Goodwin]

I've noticed that a lot of the discussion currently under way in this thread, which is supposed to be about Perks and Talents, has drifted into discussions on Characteristics. Apologies if I'm stepping on moderators' toes, but shouldn't we move that discussion to the Characteristics thread?

I once attempted to start a thread on SPD, reasoning that since it covered both Characteristics and combat, it should be in its own thread. Steve closed my thread, responding that it can go into either of those. So, to the extent we're talking about a Perk or Talent to replace COM, that discussion can go here, but perhaps COM related discussion should stay in Characteristics.

[JmOz]

And now for something entirely different

Wealth, there should be 2 sets of rules for it, for campaigns that use money to purchase equipment and campaigns where Character points is the curency used to purchase equipment.

My experience is that the current price structure is okay (but not great) for non equipment games, but can unbalance equipment games

[Vondy]

And now for something entirely different

Wealth, there should be 2 sets of rules for it, for campaigns that use money to purchase equipment and campaigns where Character points is the curency used to purchase equipment.

My experience is that the current price structure is okay (but not great) for non equipment games, but can unbalance equipment games

This will sound a little crazy, but you can already use Resource Points for contacts (a non-equipment perk) in an advanture. What if it were to allow a "wealthy" character to leverage the resource pool to leverage the wealth perk for non-equipment based plot uses of wealth. It would req. advanced permission from the GM, of course, and it would have to be apropos to the character (the pizza delivery boy couldn't use his resource pool to accomplish a corporate takeover), but it would make sense for "equipment games" games where wealth could otherwise be problematic. The only question would be assigning an appropriate cost ratio because some characters with lots of gear don't logically have lots of buying power.

[CTaylor]

It would be useful to have a master list of talents and where they came from in some location. Fantasy Hero for example has a bunch of D20 feats turned into talents that aren't listed anywhere else.

I'd like to repeat something I have said elsewhere: Deep Cover at present is lost points if your cover is blown, that's something that doesn't fit the genre and is crippling for a character. Your cover inevitably will be blown in a campaign, but there are only 2 things in the game that destroy your points entirely without you deliberately building them that way (independent): Deep Cover and Duplication. That aspect should be dropped.

If you lose your cover identity, you should get the points spent on that in a reserve; the GM can allow a character to build a backup identity with those points or some other perk or talent, but they ought not simply be taken away.

[Vondy]

That's kinda the idea, yeah. :)

Balderdash! Chutzpah! What kind of sense is that?! :D

[pinecone]

It would be useful to have a master list of talents and where they came from in some location. Fantasy Hero for example has a bunch of D20 feats turned into talents that aren't listed anywhere else.

I'd like to repeat something I have said elsewhere: Deep Cover at present is lost points if your cover is blown, that's something that doesn't fit the genre and is crippling for a character. Your cover inevitably will be blown in a campaign, but there are only 2 things in the game that destroy your points entirely without you deliberately building them that way (independent): Deep Cover and Duplication. That aspect should be dropped.

If you lose your cover identity, you should get the points spent on that in a reserve; the GM can allow a character to build a backup identity with those points or some other perk or talent, but they ought not simply be taken away.

Thats how I do it, who cares what the rules say?

[schir1964]

I've been mulling over all the posts for and against COM remaining a Characteristic.

First, let me say that COM is non-issue for me since it has not existed in my games or even in any of the games I've played in. That's not to say there wasn't a place on the character sheet for it, it just never had any effect in the games I've been involved in. So whether it goes or stays has little effect on the game as far as my experience goes.

I think that perhaps COM should be implemented in some manner other than a characteristic.

Why? Simply that as far as I've seen on the boards, there is not a majority who use it regularly if at all. That is not to say that a majority doesn't exist, just that I've yet to see any evidence of it. And since characteristics are permanent fixtures, they should represent things that are used by the majority on a regular basis. How that can be determined, I have no idea.

After mulling and considering all the posts concerning the use of COM and its effects I think I have a theory that might explain why COM doesn't get the use that other characteristics do. I'm pretty sure it explains it for myself, which I'm now only beginning to realize. And it pertains not just to COM but to other mechanical effects based on interaction.

Theory: COM does not get the same mechanical effect as other characteristics due to the fact that many, if not most, players reject the notion that they do not get to decide their own character's reactions when dealing with purely interaction based mechanics.

I created thread once to ask about whether or not GMs would enforce mechanical results of interaction based skills for PCs. Overwhelmingly the answers I got were no. Even though Persuasion and Oratory are skills that have specific mechanical effects, GMs will not force PCs to make rolls to decide the effect of the skills on their characters. I think COM falls into this same category.

For my own PC's, I don't care how much Comeliness a NPC or PC has, my character will only be affected as much as I want in spite of it.

The oddity in all this is the Presence Attack, again, something that I've only seen done occasionally and mainly against NPCs (most PCs had elevated PRE anyway). Yet this is an interaction based mechanic that forces NPCs and PCs to react in a specific way.

Would the debate be as heated if there had always been a Comeliness Attack as part of the system that forced character reactions? I'm not sure.

Just My Thoughts On The Subject (As Insignificant As They Are)

- Christopher Mullins

[Vondy]

I've been mulling over all the posts for and against COM remaining a Characteristic.

First, let me say that COM is non-issue for me since it has not existed in my games or even in any of the games I've played in. That's not to say there wasn't a place on the character sheet for it, it just never had any effect in the games I've been involved in. So whether it goes or stays has little effect on the game as far as my experience goes.

I think that perhaps COM should be implemented in some manner other than a characteristic.

Why? Simply that as far as I've seen on the boards, there is not a majority who use it regularly if at all. That is not to say that a majority doesn't exist, just that I've yet to see any evidence of it. And since characteristics are permanent fixtures, they should represent things that are used by the majority on a regular basis. How that can be determined, I have no idea.

After mulling and considering all the posts concerning the use of COM and its effects I think I have a theory that might explain why COM doesn't get the use that other characteristics do. I'm pretty sure it explains it for myself, which I'm now only beginning to realize. And it pertains not just to COM but to other mechanical effects based on interaction.

Theory: COM does not get the same mechanical effect as other characteristics due to the fact that many, if not most, players reject the notion that they do not get to decide their own character's reactions when dealing with purely interaction based mechanics.

I created thread once to ask about whether or not GMs would enforce mechanical results of interaction based skills for PCs. Overwhelmingly the answers I got were no. Even though Persuasion and Oratory are skills that have specific mechanical effects, GMs will not force PCs to make rolls to decide the effect of the skills on their characters. I think COM falls into this same category.

For my own PC's, I don't care how much Comeliness a NPC or PC has, my character will only be affected as much as I want in spite of it.

The oddity in all this is the Presence Attack, again, something that I've only seen done occasionally and mainly against NPCs (most PCs had elevated PRE anyway). Yet this is an interaction based mechanic that forces NPCs and PCs to react in a specific way.

Would the debate be as heated if there had always been a Comeliness Attack as part of the system that forced character reactions? I'm not sure.

Just My Thoughts On The Subject (As Insignificant As They Are)

- Christopher Mullins

Following on this line of thinking, while presence attacks and interaction skills are useful as a metric of determining a likelihood of success for dealing with mooks, walk-ons, and bit parts, should they be allowed to influence major non-player characters and player characters in ways that may not be natural to them, or derail a plot in some bizarre way because of a failed/passed interaction test? As for me, I don't use fear oriented presence attacks against major non-player characters and player characters. I decide what the major henchmen and villians do, the players decide what their characters do. And, truth be told, based on descriptions, some of my players have had their characters freeze up or freak out on occassion. They roll play it. As such I tend to trust them and use what I call "soft enforcement" for non-combat oriented presence attacks and interaction rolls. If the player fails a roll they decide what that means. I'm not going to tell them how their character reacts (I have a whole world of characters to manage without doing that). Instead, I expect them to role play it and do so in accordance with their character's established persona. Sometimes they've had more dramatic, or more disadvantageous, reactions than I would have imposed if I had forced the situation. When they use the skills on major NPCs I do much the same. I think, he failed the contest, so based on this character, X will happen. For me - and my players - interaction skills and their related characteristics are just a measure of how good the character is at something with results being a strong suggestion (and only come into play as hard results determinants when dealing with non-headliners).

[AnotherSkip]

No-one has argued for eliminating everything which is figured from any given stat. 'Figured characteristics', is a particular term of use which applies to PD, ED, REC, Spd, End, and Stun. Your perception roll is not a figured characteristic, nor is your CV.

In any case, the reason that comeliness seems to have little value in the game is because there's absolutely nothing based on it.

I happen to disagree with your statement, there has been discussion of uncoupling Per And CV from any other stat. and they are, like Char Rolls, all Figured Characteristics. For example (9+x/5) are Figured from the Characteristic thus they are Figureds.

[BobGreenwade]

I happen to disagree with your statement, there has been discussion of uncoupling Per And CV from any other stat. and they are, like Char Rolls, all Figured Characteristics. For example (9+x/5) are Figured from the Characteristic thus they are Figureds.Perception, Combat Value, Characteristic Rolls, and similar numbers are figured from Characteristics, but they are not themselves Characteristics, so they are not Figured Characteristics.

Figured Characteristics are listed in 5ER (pages 38-39) as PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, and STUN. Those six things, and nothing else, is what the Hero System term Figured Characterstic refers to. (DEF is also listed in the Figured Characteristics section for reasons beyond me -- probably a layout error.)

[Vondy]

Perception, Combat Value, Characteristic Rolls, and similar numbers are figured from Characteristics, but they are not themselves Characteristics, so they are not Figured Characteristics.

Figured Characteristics are listed in 5ER (pages 38-39) as PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, and STUN. Those six things, and nothing else, is what the Hero System term Figured Characterstic refers to. (DEF is also listed in the Figured Characteristics section for reasons beyond me -- probably a layout error.)

I agree these things aren't termed figured characteristics. But as values derived from primary characteristics and function like characteristics, maybe they should be...

[Hugh Neilson]

Perception, Combat Value, Characteristic Rolls, and similar numbers are figured from Characteristics, but they are not themselves Characteristics, so they are not Figured Characteristics.

Figured Characteristics are listed in 5ER (pages 38-39) as PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, and STUN. Those six things, and nothing else, is what the Hero System term Figured Characterstic refers to. (DEF is also listed in the Figured Characteristics section for reasons beyond me -- probably a layout error.)

I agree these things aren't termed figured characteristics. But as values derived from primary characteristics and function like characteristics, maybe they should be...

Von D-Man hits it on the head. The fact that many of these are not defined as "Characteristics" does not change the fact that they are also benefits derived from primary characteristics. For many, it would be a short step to making them Figured Characteristics.

PER: Base value 1/5 INT, buy +1 for 3 points, PER rolls are 9 + PER. Now your absent-minded professor can sell back his PER. And +5 INT only really costs 2 points if you would have bought Enhanced PER anyway.

CHARISMA: base value = 1/5 PRE; buy +1 for 5 points; Interaction rolls are 9 + CHARISMA. Hey, you get all the added benefits of PRE for free by buying the primary instead of the secondary!

DCV: Base value 1/3 DEX, buy +1 for 5 points.

OCV: Base value 1/3 DEX, buy +1 for 5 points (+1 combat level, only for OCV -1/2).

This is exactly how things are priced out now - just changing the nomenclature makes them "Figured Characteristics" in name as well as substance.

[Vondy]

Von D-Man hits it on the head. The fact that many of these are not defined as "Characteristics" does not change the fact that they are also benefits derived from primary characteristics. For many, it would be a short step to making them Figured Characteristics.

PER: Base value 1/5 INT, buy +1 for 3 points, PER rolls are 9 + PER. Now your absent-minded professor can sell back his PER. And +5 INT only really costs 2 points if you would have bought Enhanced PER anyway.

CHARISMA: base value = 1/5 PRE; buy +1 for 5 points; Interaction rolls are 9 + CHARISMA. Hey, you get all the added benefits of PRE for free by buying the primary instead of the secondary!

DCV: Base value 1/3 DEX, buy +1 for 5 points.

OCV: Base value 1/3 DEX, buy +1 for 5 points (+1 combat level, only for OCV -1/2).

This is exactly how things are priced out now - just changing the nomenclature makes them "Figured Characteristics" in name as well as substance.

In terms of OCV, DCV, ECV, and PER it would rationalize some things and allow more control over the values without resorting to powers and the like to get it done. On the other hand, it would make the "stat block" super long. We'd be pushing harnmaster style in that regard. That may not be a bad thing when compared to the benefits, but its something to consider.

[BobGreenwade]

Von D-Man hits it on the head. The fact that many of these are not defined as "Characteristics" does not change the fact that they are also benefits derived from primary characteristics. For many, it would be a short step to making them Figured Characteristics.That's different from saying that they are Figured Characteristics, which you did. If you want to say that they should fall under the definition, then that's fine. I'd disagree, but that's a matter of philosophy, not fact.

[Hugh Neilson]

In terms of OCV, DCV, ECV, and PER it would rationalize some things and allow more control over the values without resorting to powers and the like to get it done. On the other hand, it would make the "stat block" super long. We'd be pushing harnmaster style in that regard. That may not be a bad thing when compared to the benefits, but its something to consider.

I'm not saying we should change (or that we shouldn't - there's already boxes on the sheet for OCV, DCV and PER anyway so any increase to the length of the stat block is illusionary).

I am saying that the claim that PD, ED, SPD, REC, STUN and END are somehow markedly different from other abilities derived from primary statistics is spurious at best.

As a consequence, I find the argument that decoupling those abilities labeled "Figured Characteristics" without decoupling other, similarly linked, abilities less than compelling. I see a philosophical argument for decoupling as being valid, but an argument that only Figured Characteristics should be decoupled makes as much sense as claiming only Missiles can be Deflected, all Energy Blasts are energy and Invisibility can't make you inaudible - it's just confusion derived from nomenclature.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm not saying we should change (or that we shouldn't - there's already boxes on the sheet for OCV, DCV and PER anyway so any increase to the length of the stat block is illusionary).

I am saying that the claim that PD, ED, SPD, REC, STUN and END are somehow markedly different from other abilities derived from primary statistics is spurious at best.

These are Characteristics; you can buy them up or sell them down, exactly as you can any other Characteristics.

As a consequence, I find the argument that decoupling those abilities labeled "Figured Characteristics" without decoupling other, similarly linked, abilities less than compelling. I see a philosophical argument for decoupling as being valid, but an argument that only Figured Characteristics should be decoupled makes as much sense as claiming only Missiles can be Deflected, all Energy Blasts are energy and Invisibility can't make you inaudible - it's just confusion derived from nomenclature.

If you decouple things like PER, CV, etc., you have to decouple everything. Decouple Skills from all Characteristics; decouple initiative from Dexterity; decouple damage and lift from one another in Strength.

And you end up with a game that is not Hero.

[James Gillen]

Following on this line of thinking, while presence attacks and interaction skills are useful as a metric of determining a likelihood of success for dealing with mooks, walk-ons, and bit parts, should they be allowed to influence major non-player characters and player characters in ways that may not be natural to them, or derail a plot in some bizarre way because of a failed/passed interaction test? As for me, I don't use fear oriented presence attacks against major non-player characters and player characters. I decide what the major henchmen and villians do, the players decide what their characters do. And, truth be told, based on descriptions, some of my players have had their characters freeze up or freak out on occassion. They roll play it. As such I tend to trust them and use what I call "soft enforcement" for non-combat oriented presence attacks and interaction rolls. If the player fails a roll they decide what that means. I'm not going to tell them how their character reacts (I have a whole world of characters to manage without doing that). Instead, I expect them to role play it and do so in accordance with their character's established persona. Sometimes they've had more dramatic, or more disadvantageous, reactions than I would have imposed if I had forced the situation. When they use the skills on major NPCs I do much the same. I think, he failed the contest, so based on this character, X will happen. For me - and my players - interaction skills and their related characteristics are just a measure of how good the character is at something with results being a strong suggestion (and only come into play as hard results determinants when dealing with non-headliners).

And you can do all that cause you're a good GM and know the spirit of the rules. Just as most gamers who know what a "Psychological Limitation" means can roleplay that without needing to have the GM imposing the fine print about roleplaying it. The rules are still there for those who want them.

And "roll play" is an interesting slip in this context. :D

JG

[AnotherSkip]

frankly i would like to see talents "built as powers" wiped out. most of this stuf while a useful suggestion seems to be a way for players to harass the GM for powers they don't really need in lower level games. in addtion they seem to inflate a lot of the genre specific books with funky stuff that does not seem to work right. (ie +Pre to turn undead, I built a priest that could turn vampires out of the gate (150 points) with below average rolls [20 Base Pre +60 Undead only =80 /5 = 16x2.5 (low roll)=40 vampires have 25 base iirc= pre= +10 and 3.5 x 16= 56 Pre= +30, almost destruction and for +10 char points Takofanes could probably go down and most vampires definately would.]

perks can stay

[Hugh Neilson]

These are Characteristics; you can buy them up or sell them down, exactly as you can any other Characteristics.

For +3 points, you can buy your PER roll up by 1. For +5 points, you can buy your DCV up by one.

If you decouple things like PER, CV, etc., you have to decouple everything. Decouple Skills from all Characteristics; decouple initiative from Dexterity; decouple damage and lift from one another in Strength.

The same argument could be made that, if you decouple things like PD, SPD , STUN, etc., you have to decouple everything. Decouple PER, CV, Skills from all Characteristics; decouple initiative from Dexterity; decouple damage and lift from one another in Strength.

Sound familiar?

[Chris Goodwin]

For +3 points, you can buy your PER roll up by 1. For +5 points, you can buy your DCV up by one.

The one is a Power; the other is a Skill. These are not Characteristics.

Edit: You could not also sell down your PER by getting back 3 points per -1, nor your DCV by getting back -5 points per.

[Vondy]

The one is a Power; the other is a Skill. These are not Characteristics.

Edit: You could not also sell down your PER by getting back 3 points per -1, nor your DCV by getting back -5 points per.

Maybe you should be able to, though. Does it necessarily follow that a super-smart person also has remarkably accute senses? At least, in terms of perception, this has always bugged me. With combat values, not so much.

[CTaylor]

It's not that your senses are more accute when you have a higher INT, its that you are understanding more of what you see in a faster manner with a higher INT. Intelligence doesn't exactly measure smarts in Hero, it measures speed of thought and memory more than anything else.

Generally speaking, smarter people are more perceptive, though.

[ajackson]

Generally speaking, smarter people are more perceptive, though.
Depends on what you mean by 'smarter'. There certainly doesn't seem to be much of a link between formal education and perception, or between things like math/science talent and perception. Based on real-world linkages, I would say that high social skills (Presence) is at least as closely tied to being perceptive as high intellectual skills.

[CTaylor]

I dont know about Presence but it is true that intelligence is incredibly difficult to nail down and precisely define. One thing I can say for certain, however, is that education does not equal intelligence. It equals learning, which is a separate category (you can be very learned and quite stupid, and unwise, for that matter).

[SSgt Baloo]

...(you can be very learned and quite stupid, and unwise, for that matter).

As anyone who has had a conversation with a 2nd Lieutenant* can attest. :eek::D

* Or possibly Leftenant, if you happen to be British. Upon further research, it seems the Royal Navy has saved themselves the embarassment by not having the equivalent rank at all.

[BobGreenwade]

Somebody over in the Champions forum made mention of how Danger Sense (which, by the way, I think should be returned to the Powers list) could be limited to certain types of danger based on Special Effect. For example, a character with electrical powers might be able to tell when lightning is about to strike, when someone's getting too close to an open power line, and so forth. The simplest way to do this (in terms of adding it to the system) would be to just introduce a Power Limitation, but an alternative that might be simpler for actual play would be to make this the base form of Danger Sense (with a lower cost than there is now) with an Adder or Advantage to broaden it.

[CTaylor]

I agree that Danger Sense is more a power than a talent, but I am fine either way. (Missile) Deflection could go either way also.

[Netzilla]

Somebody over in the Champions forum made mention of how Danger Sense (which, by the way, I think should be returned to the Powers list) could be limited to certain types of danger based on Special Effect. For example, a character with electrical powers might be able to tell when lightning is about to strike, when someone's getting too close to an open power line, and so forth. The simplest way to do this (in terms of adding it to the system) would be to just introduce a Power Limitation, but an alternative that might be simpler for actual play would be to make this the base form of Danger Sense (with a lower cost than there is now) with an Adder or Advantage to broaden it.

WARNING: This idea just now popped into my head.

How about making Danger Sense a Sense Modifier rather than a separate sense in its own right? Then it would be tied to a specific sense/sense group and use that sense's Perception Roll. Thus, your electrical character above would have Sense Electricity 12-, Unusual Group, Sense, Ranged, Danger Sense, etc. Likewise, you can give the mentalist Mental Awareness 12-, Danger Sense in order to detect Mental-power based dangers.

The main down-sides I see to this is that it might get expensive to be able to detect on multiple groups and it obviously won't work against dangers you cannot somehow perceive with existing senses. The latter might be remedied by introducing a 'Danger Sense Only' limitation.

Anyway, just a thought.

[CTaylor]

That's an interesting idea, and it would shift the way Danger Sense works considerably. It's a bit hazy now about things you can sense and cannot sense, but making it directly work off of senses as a sense modifier would clearly define whether you were capable of noticing the source of danger or not. The more absolute and broad the sense (thus the more expensive) the more costly danger sense would be.

A Bene Gesserit-style observational danger sense would be cheaper: you already have sight perception for free. A global Spider-man style danger sense would be very expensive: it has a huge area and ignores barriers and even logic.

[schir1964]

WARNING: This idea just now popped into my head.

How about making Danger Sense a Sense Modifier rather than a separate sense in its own right? Then it would be tied to a specific sense/sense group and use that sense's Perception Roll. Thus, your electrical character above would have Sense Electricity 12-, Unusual Group, Sense, Ranged, Danger Sense, etc. Likewise, you can give the mentalist Mental Awareness 12-, Danger Sense in order to detect Mental-power based dangers.

The main down-sides I see to this is that it might get expensive to be able to detect on multiple groups and it obviously won't work against dangers you cannot somehow perceive with existing senses. The latter might be remedied by introducing a 'Danger Sense Only' limitation.

Anyway, just a thought.
Hmmm... I'm going to create a thread in the Rules Forum to explore what the mechanics might look like.
New Mechanic: Danger Sense Modifier

- Christopher Mullins

[Teflon Billy]

As anyone who has had a conversation with a 2nd Lieutenant* can attest. :eek::DHey now, I resemble that rank. :whistle:

TB

[Vondy]

Hey now, I resemble that rank. :whistle:

TB

Aren't you a mustang second louie, though?

[Teflon Billy]

Aren't you a mustang second louie, though?Yes, but I'm not in my original job field so all that really amounts to is I know how to be in the right place, at the right time, wearing the right clothes, doing the right thing. I've still got a lot of on the job training to go before I'm worth anything, but shhh don't tell my troops that ;):hush:

[Vondy]

Yes, but I'm not in my original job field so all that really amounts to is I know how to be in the right place, at the right time, wearing the right clothes, doing the right thing. I've still got a lot of on the job training to go before I'm worth anything, but shhh don't tell my troops that ;):hush:

Ah, but you have deceptionis adus hominuminus... you can appeal to the authority of non-commissioned officer horse sense that most freshly minted second louie's cannot, despite having no idea what the hell your job is. :eg:

[pinecone]

Ah, but you have deceptionis adus hominuminus... you can appeal to the authority of non-commissioned officer horse sense that most freshly minted second louie's cannot, despite having no idea what the hell your job is. :eg:

Yeah, 90% of being a "Good louie" is knowing to ask the noncom(s)...;)

[Balabanto]

What about Find Weakness?

This power needs to remove a flat amount of defense, somewhere between 3-5. As it stands, it's utterly ridiculous for it's point cost. It's like Armor Piercing with a multiplier and an activation roll, and it's not balanced vis a vis that power advantage, especially in low powered games.

If I have Armor Piercing, it cuts my defenses in half for a 1/2 advantage.

But if I have Find Weakness with a single attack, I can, on average, quarter my opponent's defenses for the same amount of points. And skill levels apply to my Find Weakness roll. Doubling the cost of my armor piercing costs me another +1/2 advantage, taking the cost of the power out of the range of affordability in all but the mightiest of cosmic situations.

This needs to be taken down a peg. It's the "Secret Most Powerful Ability In the Game."

[Sketchpad]

[Paints Bullseye on Chest]
I had a random thought ... what about making Reputation, negative and positive something that GMs can hand out to players rather than something bought? If someone does a good deed, maybe they get a +1/+1d6 to their Rep ... but if something bad happens, it either occurs as a -1/-1d6 to their Rep or a +1/+1d6 to a bad rep ...

[Hugh Neilson]

[Paints Bullseye on Chest]
I had a random thought ... what about making Reputation, negative and positive something that GMs can hand out to players rather than something bought? If someone does a good deed, maybe they get a +1/+1d6 to their Rep ... but if something bad happens, it either occurs as a -1/-1d6 to their Rep or a +1/+1d6 to a bad rep ...

Villains & Vigilantes Charisma system.

[Trebuchet]

[Paints Bullseye on Chest]
I had a random thought ... what about making Reputation, negative and positive something that GMs can hand out to players rather than something bought? If someone does a good deed, maybe they get a +1/+1d6 to their Rep ... but if something bad happens, it either occurs as a -1/-1d6 to their Rep or a +1/+1d6 to a bad rep ...That's actually not without merit, although I think it should probably be optional and/or a supplement to Reputation rather than the sole basis for it.

[Sketchpad]

Villains & Vigilantes Charisma system.
Or the MSH Popularity system ... I always liked the way that worked :)

[AnotherSkip]

It's more complicated than that for V&V (says the guy who has a copy of that closer than his 5th Heroes). But yeah that is what I am doing for my Current Street level Champions campaign. in addition it is kept secret from the players.

[Markdoc]

[Paints Bullseye on Chest]
I had a random thought ... what about making Reputation, negative and positive something that GMs can hand out to players rather than something bought? If someone does a good deed, maybe they get a +1/+1d6 to their Rep ... but if something bad happens, it either occurs as a -1/-1d6 to their Rep or a +1/+1d6 to a bad rep ...

Scratches head.... isn't this something that most GM's do? I always assumed it fell under "disadvantages acquired during play do not provide extra points" or (more rarely, given player behavior) "a bonus awarded for good roleplaying"

When player chooses to take it as a limitation at character creation, it becomes "a persistent rumor that they simply cannot shake off" - short of buying off the limitation.

cheers, Mark

[PhilFleischmann]

When player chooses to take it as a limitation at character creation, it becomes "a persistent rumor that they simply cannot shake off" - short of buying off the limitation.
Exactly. A character may well have a Reputation - positive (Perk), or negative (Disadvantage), prior to the start of "campaign time" or may have a reputation due to activities "off-camera". Bruce Stark has a rep as a lady's man, but it isn't really role-played that much. Likewise, one may have (or acquire) a rep that isn't even true.

[Scifi_Toughguy]

I find I have an issue with how cheaply costed the Compter Link thingy is. Perhaps I simply use it incorrectly but it seems insanely useful for the 1-5 points you throw at it especially if you build it into a power armored characters OIF. The amount of on the fly information that can be gathered by one of these characters in the field is staggering.

[Foxiekins]

Also, I would like something about how perks could combine... It would be much easier to design a base with a computer if they were two parts of a single construct... Similarly with vehicles and computers...

[Hugh Neilson]

From another thread, and posted here for 6e consideration at jmoz' suggestion.

Thinking on it, though, having a Follower who is nearly always around and useful, but is also a DNPC (8-) who ocasionally gets in trouble and requires the PC's assistance seems a very reasonable application of the two mechanics to the SFX of a sidekick-type who is pretty much always with the hero, generally very helpful, but occasionally requires assistance himself.

Would you let a 350 point Super (or a 150 point fantasy character) have a 275 point (75 point) sidekick (animal follower) accompany him pretty much all the time, generally providing considerable assistance, and occasionally need some help himself by taking a 0 point Disadvantage (DNPC, 8-, almost as powerful as hero), or pay 5 points (that sets off other disadvantages like selling back running sets off other powers) to add Useful Noncombat Skills?

Viewed in that light, I think a character who serves double duty as both a follower and a DNPC makes a lot of sense - book legal or not.

[Hugh Neilson]

Carrying on with the cross-posting [this thread's not seeing much action anyway - maybe the Follower needs a 40 COM to attract some attention...

But the book says (everybody say it together, since we all know what is coming): "... unless the GM specifically permits him to." :rolleyes:

For a 200+150 Super, wouldn't a 200+75 Follower cost only 40 points?

The figures I place in parentheses are not costs, but a Fantasy alternative to the Super example.

I don't follow the part starting with "or pay 5 points..."? :confused:?

Well, we've established that the Sidekick should cost 40 points if he's purchased as a Follower who occasionally gets into trouble. But what causes him to get into trouble? No mechanic makes the follower - for whom the player paid points - detrimental instead of beneficial. The suggestion is that this sidekick-type who is pretty much always with the hero, generally very helpful, but occasionally requires assistance himself is a DNPC with useful abilities, but that's no better. This is where my 5 point example comes from.

The sidekick will accompany the main character pretty much all the time, generally providing considerable assistance, but will occasionally need some help himself. The DNPC asp[ec only covers him needing assistance.

Can the hero take a 0 point Disadvantage (DNPC, 8-, almost as powerful as hero) to have a sidekick who's always in the game, but only gets into trouble rarely? If the Sidekick also has useful skills, that's a 5 point reduction, so a negative 5 point disadvantage. The Super now needs 155 points of other disadvantages to total 150. Why not have 10 such followers and 200 points of othr disad's?

If the character is purchased as a Follower - paying for the advantages of the sidekick - it should be permissable to claim him as a DNPC also, getting credit for only the detrimental aspects of the DNPC (so an 8-, 5 point disad).

Personally, I would allow a Follower to also be taken as a DNPC but the DNPC Disad is worth 0 points. After all, being the follower of a hero means that occasionally being in trouble is part of the job description.

So a follower who rarely, if ever, causes the hero trouble ("DNPC 5-") has precisely the same value as one who requires asistance almost constantly ("DNPC 14-"), and both are pretty much always with the hero?

Or, one sidekcik is always around, and gets in trouble on occasion, while the other is only around when he gets into trouble?

I'm not seeing either as being equitable.

I agree a Follower who is also a DNPC should have a minimal value as a Disad - 0 or 5 points seem about right. Seems to me a DNPC who is also a Follower probably has a 14- Occurrence rate.

But I don't want a sidekick who's nearly constantly in trouble. I want a sidekick who joins my character in virtually every adventure, and is generally helpful and beneficial to the character. That's more frequent than 14-. However, on rare occasions, he gets in over his head and needs the PC's help to assist him (thus the DNPC aspect of the character acts 8-).

Looking at the DNPC rules a bit more closely, it seems to me that Follower/DNPC kind of blur in the middle. It's entirely possible to have a DNPC who is just as useful as a Follower (Useful Skills or Position; Almost As Powerful, etc.). The only real difference seems to be that DNPCs tend to get in trouble more often; and that may just be a genre trope.

The big difference I perceive is that DNPC's typically apear only to get in trouble. An 8- DNPC spends most of his time offstage. The combination "follower/DNPC" would be on stage most of the time as a follower, but occasionally the DNPC aspect would kick in, and the follower would get into trouble.

Looking at this from another angle, should Our Hero recover 5 points as disad's because his DNPC occasionally gets into trouble (infrequent, slightly less powerful) or get a Psych Lim for "Loyalty to Sidekick" - Uncommon (he's always around but rarely needs assistance) Strong for a minimum 10 points?

My thought is that if he's more hindrance than help he's a DNPC; if he's more help than trouble he's a Follower; and if he's both equally then it really doesn't matter because if the player character takes the "sidekick" as both Follower and DNPC then the value of the Disad will be predetermined by how useful and powerful said sidekick is. Just apply the same categories to the DNPC as to the Follower (Useful Skills or Position; Almost As Powerful, etc.) and calculate on that basis. If he's really useful, then the Disad will be worth 0 points by the rules anyway and just becomes background. Most of the time a player would be better taking a 0 point Disad anyway because Follower costs points whereas DNPC doesn't and he's not going to get extra points for a truly useful DNPC anyway.

Is it reasonable that the character can obtain exactly the same follower - one who is quite useful, always around and occasionally gets into trouble - by either paying a significant amount of character points, say 40 points, or by taking a zero point disadvantage? 40 points seems like a pretty significant swing to me.

A follower who always provides benefits should clealry cost points. One who always needs assistance should clearly generate disadvantage points. But one in the middle - who provides both benefits and drawbacks - has elements of both and should reasonably be purchased as both - buy the follower aspect and get points for the disadvantageous aspects.

You buy Spatial Awareness and take Blindness as a disadvantage. You don't net the two costs and get the difference as a power cost or disadvantage value. This really isn't different, philosophically.

[AnotherSkip]

part of the give and take of balancing a character sheet is just that give and take. Hammer it out with your GM. Frankly a Gm may just want to compare cost and make notes and adjust the cost. He may give you a disad or subtractor on your follower (much like summon does) for "dependant on hero" -1/2 to make him more troublesome than a typical follower but less so than a DNPC.

[Hugh Neilson]

I thought you were arguing against that position? Have you changed your mind?

I'm arguing that there is considerable logic to paying for the Follower aspect and receiving a disadvantage for the DNPC aspect. You could have:

(a) A 200 point follower who is not a DNPC. You get all the benefits of a 200 point follower. On rare occasions, he might be used as a plot hook, but he would cause nowhere near the issues of a DNPC, 8-.

(b) A 200 point DNPC who is not a follower. You get none of the benefits of a 200 point follower although, on rare occasions, he might be useful in some fashion.

(c) A 200 point follower who also a DNPC. You get all the benefits of a 200 point follower. He brings with him all the drawbacks of a DNPC, at the frequency you set by the disadvantage level you selected.

The more I consider this, the more I also come to believe that the "useful non-combat skills" reduction should be eliminated in favour of buying your DNPC as a Contact if you want to get that sort of benefit from him.

In short, my position is "pay for the benefits and get points for the drawbacks". That's how Hero is supposed to work.

No mechanic is needed for the GM to occasionally use the Follower as a Plot Hook, IMO.

If the player pays points for an ability and gets a disadvantage tacked on, I think the GM is abusing the word "occasionally". If the intent is to have a follower with a DNPC aspect, each mechanical aspect should, in my view, be separately costed and acquired.

Sure, a character can take as many 0 pt Disads as they want. ;)

Perhaps you might also address the underlying issue. If it's OK for the GM to use the Follower the player paid 40 points for as a DNPC, 8-, with no points to the player, it should be equally OK for the player to take the DNPC, 8-, and get all the benefits of that DNPC as a follower, right? Or do the rules change when the player would get an advantage, instead of a drawback, at no point impact?

There are two aspects to the NPC in question. He provides the benefits of being a 200 point follower and the drawbacks of being a DNPC, 8-. Why is it difficult to envision that being purchased as both a Follower and a DNPC?

If the character had a 200 point follower and a different 200 point DNPC, 8-, the result would be crystal clear. Why should the points play out any differently because the same NPC serves both functions? Using the same NPC, rather than two different ones, is just special effects, and should not change the mechanics.

No. There is no such thing as a -5 pt Disad, i.e., a Disad that the character has to *pay* points for the pleasure of having.

Even better. I'll have 100 point DNPC's, amazingly more powerful, numerous useful noncombat skills, always around to help me out, rarely needs my assistance. Even if one needs help, the other 99 will be around to help him out. Remember, you said I can have as many 0 point disad's as I want :rolleyes:

IMO it is expected that the Follower will be used as a plot element/hook from time to time -- it's part of the job description.

When this goes beyond occasionally to approach the same level as DNPC, 8- (or 11-, or 14-) then I believe the character should get points. I wouldn't let him have the follower for free, so why should I believe it is reasonable that he get saddled with the DNPC for free?

It seems that if the follower is almost constantly getting into trouble that requires the hero's intervention, then either the character controlling him is doing it deliberately, or the GM is taking way too many liberties. IMO, followers shouldn't be that much trouble -- after all, you paid points for him.

Unless the PLAYER decides the follower should be that much trouble by taking him as a DNPC at the appropriate level. And if he occasionally gets in trouble, say every four or five adventures, that's a DNPC, 8-.

Then buy a follower and don't treat him as a DNPC and express to your GM that he's the former and not the latter. Problem solved.

OK, I'll say it once more. The problem is that your DON'T have the option of taking him as both a follower and a DNPC where this is the CHARACTER as envisioned. This NPC is more complex than "my always-useful follower" or "my always-needy DNPC". Why should the game not appropriately cost/reward the mixed advantages and drawbacks of the more complex NPC who fills two different roles?

The idea about "stage time" and usefulness (or lack thereof) isn't without merit. I just think that mixing the two makes things that aren't absolutely 100% one or the other even less clear, and needs to be worked out with your GM beforehand to the satisfaction of both.

That describes pretty much every character, IMO, and would not be changed at all by removing the "no NPC can be both a follower and a DNPC". Let's complicate it further. I take my loyal squire as a Follower. My teammate takes his nephew as a DNPC. His nephew is my squire. There's no rule against that AND it's a nice link between two PC's. Why should the mechanics differ if my squire is my own nephew?

"Recover" is not the correct terminology, IMO. Taking the DNPC: Your Follower (which is by no means required) does not reduce the cost of said Follower.

No one is saying it is required. In fact, by the rules as written, it is prohibited. I am saying it should not be prohibited - the option should exist for the same NPC to serve both roles.

Actually, if his 8- roll "comes up" that is an indication to the GM that it's "time" to work the DNPC into the story in such a way that they are dependent upon the PC. Thus the 'D' before the 'NPC'. ;)

In my experience, DNPC's don't hang around all the time, being useful unless their roll comes up. They appear as window dressing on occasion, and impediments (their true function) more commonly. The OP wants an NPC that is both Follower and DNPC. I see no compelling reason the rules should preclude this.

The approach I like is to take both mechanics independently. That seems better than reducing the cost of a follower for also being a DNPC, or reducing the value of the DNPC disadvantage for the fact the NPC also provides advantages to the PC. Any of the three, however, is superior to "No, you can't do that."

[jeffkmills]

Q: Should Followers, Vehicles, and Bases be costed differently?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think the general cost of 1 point per 5 Character Points is fine, but I also think that a couple of specific changes need to be made. First, as with Summon, I don’t think that any of these Perks should get a cost reduction based on their Disadvantages. The Disadvantages generally taken for them typically don’t in any meaningful way inhibit their usefulness to the character.

JM: I respectfully disagree. As several others have noted, we should stick with Steve's Golden Rule of Disadvantages. If it doesn't limit the usefulness of the item, it really isn't a Disadvantage. For example, does the fact that everyone in the world knows where the superteam base is located take away from its usefulness to the team? Probably not. But everyone chasing the local hero around town because of his flashy super-ride could create some difficulty. Does he stop on the way to a crime because some papparazzi got into a horrible accident trying to follow him? Would not stopping create legal problems for him later on? Possibly worth Disad points. Leave it to the GM to adjudicate this one for their own games, Steve.

Second, I think it will simplify things mathematically to get rid of the concept that the cost changes if the points used to build the Perk exceed the character’s own points. That creates annoying math oddities that are best avoided. I’d rather just have the flat 1-for-5 cost throughout and put in a warning note for the GM (and perhaps even a Caution Sign) explaining that it’s probably not a good idea to let a hero buy a Follower who’s significantly more powerful than the hero himself.

JM: This part, I'm good with. Flat 1-to-5, and let the GM figure it out for himself.


Q: Should we add or remove any Talents?

Steve’s Thoughts: I like Talents and think they add a lot of flavor to a character, so I don’t mind expanding the core list if it seems helpful. We’ve published some in more than one genre book — like Animal Friendship, Deadly Blow, and Hotshot Pilot — that might be worth including in the main rulebook because they can apply to many genres and character types. The “Strong-Willed” Talent mentioned above is another good possibility.

JM: Some Talents, don't belong in every genre, however. Would you want Deadly Blow showing up in a supers game? Sure, it is good for several types of games, but not all. I trust your judgment, but do be careful, please.

Strong-Willed sounds promising, BTW.

On the other hand, should we remove any? One could argue that some of them, like Perfect Pitch and Lightsleep, aren’t useful or common enough to justify including in the core rules.


JM: As long as the description isn't overlong, I have no problem with keeping some of the less frequently used Talents. But I don't want to see a page-and-a-half description of 101 uses for Perfect Pitch, however. KISS - keep it simple, Steve - and let the GM's do what they do best.

Let me make one recommendation while I'm thinking about it. Could you make Deadly Blow more granular by breaking it down per Damage Class gained? So +1 DC with all weapons would be 3 points, +2 DCs 7 points, and +3 goes for 10 points, all requiring a DEX Roll. A smaller group of weapons to use the skill with reduces the cost still further, but allows the character greater diversity.

Plus, they could stack, with a STOP sign. So if a character had +1 DC with Shortswords, +1 DC with Blades, and +1 DC with all weapons, he could then have a total +3 DC with Shortswords, a total of +2 DC with Blades, and +1 DC with all other weapons. (Hmm... 3 DEX Rolls?)

Further, why a DEX Roll? You could help discourage DEX inflation by coupling this Talent with a Skill instead of a Characteristic. For example, Tactics might be one good example.

Jeff Mills

[CTaylor]

OK regarding Followers: the present system as I understand it (and Hero creator uses it) is a bit odd: your follower's disadvantages reduce it's cost for you. I think the disads should be dropped and just the total cost used. The base and disad points are irrelevant in this case: the total point value is the power level you're getting as a follower.

[PhilFleischmann]

OK regarding Followers: the present system as I understand it (and Hero creator uses it) is a bit odd: your follower's disadvantages reduce it's cost for you. I think the disads should be dropped and just the total cost used. The base and disad points are irrelevant in this case: the total point value is the power level you're getting as a follower.
I disagree. All other things being equal, a follower who is afraid of heights, susceptible to xenonite, and takes 2x effect from Mind Control, is less useful than one who doesn't have these disadvantages. And a follower that's less useful should cost less.

[moquif]

OK regarding Followers: the present system as I understand it (and Hero creator uses it) is a bit odd: your follower's disadvantages reduce it's cost for you. I think the disads should be dropped and just the total cost used. The base and disad points are irrelevant in this case: the total point value is the power level you're getting as a follower.

Then why have followers who have Disadvantages? If it costs the same for my follower to have "Secret ID, enemy agent" than not have it, then why purchase it? If it's for the sake of plot development or adding depth to an NPC, why assign point values for any disadvantage for anyone? A PC should also not gain any points for a disad by the same logic.

I'm not saying all disads for followers are valid. "Psych lim: loyal to PC VC:total" shouldn't be allowed. The rulebook says that a disad that doesn't limit isn't worth any points. Well the opposite should be true, a disad that isn't worth any points shouldn't be limiting.

[James Gillen]

I would say: "Secretly Brainwashed Double-Agent" should make your Follower cost less. Just my opinion.

jg

[CTaylor]

While I understand the idea that disads should make your follower cost less, it also makes sense from a GM standpoint that most of the time those disads aren't going to come up - especially with non-human followers. Sure your dog is sub human intelligence and doesn't have hands, but then you don't care if a dog has those limitations: he's a dog. Yet still those make the follower cheaper? I think rather than having some disads count and others not, making none of them count is a better overall rule. After all you are only paying 1/5th their total cost.

[Netzilla]

While I understand the idea that disads should make your follower cost less, it also makes sense from a GM standpoint that most of the time those disads aren't going to come up - especially with non-human followers. Sure your dog is sub human intelligence and doesn't have hands, but then you don't care if a dog has those limitations: he's a dog. Yet still those make the follower cheaper? I think rather than having some disads count and others not, making none of them count is a better overall rule. After all you are only paying 1/5th their total cost.

Actually, the way it should work in my mind is that only disadvantages that inconvenience the PC should count. Having your plucky sidekick hunted by Viper effectively becomes a hunted for you as well since you'll have to pull his fat out of the fire when he gets captured (of course, if you already have Hunted by Viper then you don't get to double-dip). Likewise, when your dire bear mount gets enraged, you're pulled along into the fight, no matter how badly the odds are stacked against you (not to mention just plain holding on may make it difficult to effectively fight).

[Vulcan]

[Paints Bullseye on Chest]
I had a random thought ... what about making Reputation, negative and positive something that GMs can hand out to players rather than something bought? If someone does a good deed, maybe they get a +1/+1d6 to their Rep ... but if something bad happens, it either occurs as a -1/-1d6 to their Rep or a +1/+1d6 to a bad rep ...

(Going back to an old post)

Our GM does this already, as a form of supplemental XP. This way he isn't shorting the PC's earned XP, but it isn't going toward making the PC's combat gods, either. He hasn't done it yet (mostly our fault), but the same principle can be used for favors and other perks.

I'm just glad he stopped giving out 1/4 xps in the current game...

[Vulcan]

I find I have an issue with how cheaply costed the Compter Link thingy is. Perhaps I simply use it incorrectly but it seems insanely useful for the 1-5 points you throw at it especially if you build it into a power armored characters OIF. The amount of on the fly information that can be gathered by one of these characters in the field is staggering.

Being a perk (I have access to the computer system in question), not a power (I have a satelite modem built into my armor) it should not be subject to limitations, nor should it be allowed into power frameworks.

Basically, Computer Link is misnamed. It does not connotate an actual, physical communication link to the computer in question. What it does is say that you have the passwords to use the system at will - or have a backdoor to bypass the passwords.

If you want to access the computer through your power armor, you need RLT or HRRH on top of the computer link - and probably an on-board computer as well. And I would make them buy the RLT/HRRH as part of the armor, not as part of the on-board computer, as well.

[CTaylor]

I think there's plenty of incentive to add interesting variations simply in terms of role playing and, you know, because it's interesting. Since it's too much work to codify "these disads don't matter" in a rule book, I would strongly suggest dropping them entirely, since as I pointed out, you're getting an 80% discount on price to begin with.

[IndianaJoe3]

OK regarding Followers: the present system as I understand it (and Hero creator uses it) is a bit odd: your follower's disadvantages reduce it's cost for you. I think the disads should be dropped and just the total cost used. The base and disad points are irrelevant in this case: the total point value is the power level you're getting as a follower.
My group house-ruled that followers had the same base-point/points-from-disadvantages ratio as the player character. If the PC started with 200 base points and 150 from disadvantages, then a 175-point follower of that PC would have 100 base points, 75 points from disadvantages, and cost 35 points.

[AnotherSkip]

My group house-ruled that followers had the same base-point/points-from-disadvantages ratio as the player character. If the PC started with 200 base points and 150 from disadvantages, then a 175-point follower of that PC would have 100 base points, 75 points from disadvantages, and cost 35 points.

the interesting thing about summon is tht if you have a 350 point Hero with 100points in disads the he get's summoned as a 250 point cost. it kinda makes sense when you look at it from that way....

[PhilFleischmann]

Actually, the way it should work in my mind is that only disadvantages that inconvenience the PC should count. Having your plucky sidekick hunted by Viper effectively becomes a hunted for you as well since you'll have to pull his fat out of the fire when he gets captured (of course, if you already have Hunted by Viper then you don't get to double-dip). Likewise, when your dire bear mount gets enraged, you're pulled along into the fight, no matter how badly the odds are stacked against you (not to mention just plain holding on may make it difficult to effectively fight).
Exactly! The disads must be disadvantageous to the PC. "Blindly Follows the PC's Orders" would not be a Disad to the PC, and would not reduce the cost of the follower. However, the disadvantages of being a dog, as opposed to a human (not having hands, not being able to speak a language, etc.) would reduce the usefulness/cost of the follower (all other things being equal - obviously Krypto would be worth more as a follower than Aunt May, but less than Superman).

[Talon]

Follower Cost

As others have pointed out, part of the issue is that some Disads are not really disadvantageous to the buying character (for example "blindly follows PC's orders"). OTOH, some Disads will transfer directly to the character (Hunted: Dr. Destroyer), some will be double-dipping (the PC is also Hunted by Dr. D), and some will work just fine.

If you are going to base Follower cost on total points, you could refer to the Character Types Guidelines table on FRED p.28 and state that a Follower/etc. not built on one of these templates, or with more points than the owning character, requires GM permission. That way, players are encouraged by default to come up with Disads for the Follower...even if they aren't paying for them.

Even better, I think, would be some more text (like that under "Using Followers") stating that Disadvantages on Followers/etc. need to be considered in light of their drawback to the Follower and the purchasing character.

Adding/Removing Talents

Ambidexterity shouldn't be removed, but it has cost/balance issues that I'm guessing are being talked about in the Combat thread. At present it costs way too much.

Combat Sense is at the top of my "remove" list, but it's really only because I don't see it used often. No harm (other than page count) to it staying.

Eidetic Memory is one of the Talents that is somewhat questionably constructed...I'd prefer to see the underlying construct tightened up somehow (create a Power, come up with a more absolute way to retain memories). This one is important, especially since Eidetic Memory is used for a lot of things (video cameras, tape recorders, etc.).

Lightning Reflexes: Several people have said this is overcosted, though if you change the cost of DEX that may no longer be true. I do get the sense that it should be more like 1 point per (-2 for all actions).

Simulate Death: Number 2 on the "remove" list.

Universal Translator: The other Talent with a questionable construct. What if I want UT that always works with no INT roll? I'd like to see this ability become a Power somehow and then the Talent based off of that.

I think it's a good idea to add some Talents from sourcebooks, but I am concerned about page count.

[Talon]

Comeliness should land here as a Perk like Reputation (or even part of Reputation, though people will be happier I'm sure if it's called Appearance).

I like the idea of folding the Absolute X Talents into a single Talent with multiple options (Exact Measure: Range; Exact Measure: Time; etc.). That saves page space for other Talents without reducing options.

I like the idea of putting Strong Willed in the main book. Deadly Blow makes me uneasy (and causes problems in lower-level campaigns), I'd rather not see it promoted in the main rulebook.

The point about the cost of Lightsleep vs. Life Support: no need to sleep is well taken.

I agree with cutting out all the "marginal" Perks like Right To Marry or Licensed Doctor; people who need them will know to add them into their game, and in most games they are not needed.

I don't agree that size costs for Bases are irrelevant, but they are maybe paid a bit too much attention.

I do agree that the Location modifiers are odd and more than a bit anachronistic.

I agree about changing the rule that points are lost when a Perk is lost; they should not be immediately spendable, but they should not be gone forever. The points should go to the GM who can spend/restore them as he sees fit, but the reasonable expectation is that the points are not gone forever.

Contact does not cost too much; I think rather that the more expensive versions are unlikely to be used by PCs.

[Talon]

The book says "All Talents can be built" with existing powers/skills, and I think this is a good principle that needs to be emphasized (i.e., the Talents that are built a bit loosely should be refined). Pulling in Talents from other sourcebooks should be done in such a way that displays the range and flexibility that can be applied to Talents.

I assume vehicle rules are being discussed elsewhere, otherwise I'll be posting here again shortly!

Contact takes up a lot of space; it would be nice if it could be reduced a bit just to keep the page count down. For example, the Contact Modifiers Table seems like something that could land in a sourcebook.

[nexus]

Exactly! The disads must be disadvantageous to the PC. "Blindly Follows the PC's Orders" would not be a Disad to the PC, and would not reduce the cost of the follower. However, the disadvantages of being a dog, as opposed to a human (not having hands, not being able to speak a language, etc.) would reduce the usefulness/cost of the follower (all other things being equal - obviously Krypto would be worth more as a follower than Aunt May, but less than Superman).

I agree And yes, some of it would be GM's discretion. I know a few who could make "Blindly Follows PC's Orders" worth the points. :D but some might not want to deal with it. Perhaps there should be advice about making disads for Followers optional as well.

[CTaylor]

Even better, I think, would be some more text (like that under "Using Followers") stating that Disadvantages on Followers/etc. need to be considered in light of their drawback to the Follower and the purchasing character.

As I said, easier and cleaner in the rules to just say "disads don't count, you're already getting a PC for 1/5th the cost.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Universal Translator: The other Talent with a questionable construct. What if I want UT that always works with no INT roll? I'd like to see this ability become a Power somehow and then the Talent based off of that.
What I would see, rather than an INT roll, is a specific limitation based on the SFX of Universal Translator. Some examples:

Telepathic translation: Can't decipher recorded or transmitted language
Extensive experience: Can't decipher codes or totally alien languages
Language analysis: Needs a reasonable sample before translation can be done
Magical: Requires obvious SFX (gestures, incantations, visible)
- Klaus

[Talon]

What I would see, rather than an INT roll, is a specific limitation based on the SFX of Universal Translator. Some examples:

Telepathic translation: Can't decipher recorded or transmitted language
Extensive experience: Can't decipher codes or totally alien languages
Language analysis: Needs a reasonable sample before translation can be done
Magical: Requires obvious SFX (gestures, incantations, visible)
- Klaus

Great list! And a "Universal" Universal Translator power lets you build all of those with the appropriate Limitation.

[PhilFleischmann]

As I said, easier and cleaner in the rules to just say "disads don't count, you're already getting a PC for 1/5th the cost.
Yes, it would be easier and cleaner, but it would be less balanced and less fair.

[CTaylor]

I think getting a second character to run for 1/5th the cost is plenty fair and maybe a little unbalanced as is. Seriously. 20% cost.

[AnotherSkip]

Yes, and the disads are only 1/5 as much value too. Seems pretty balanced to me. After all even hunted by the entire fleet of death worth 30 points to a PC is only 6 points.

Seriously, 20% cost.

[CTaylor]

exactly: 20% cost. You're only paying 1/5th of the character, you can't really get a better deal than that. And since Summoning ignore disads entirely it's not exactly without precedent or a problem of balance for that power. Just drop the disads entirely and pay full cost for the follower.

[The Main Man]

Not to be an arse, but I haven't yet bothere to read this relatively short thread all the way through yet, so I'm going to be the poster who says what he wants, regardless of relevance.

Put in the Talents from "A Fistful of Talents" and "A Few Talents More"

When a new Dark Champions is released, present the "Super-Skills" as being more akin to Talents; the same goes for Pulp Hero "Heroic Feats"

Return Find Weakness to the Talents; it fits in better there.

[JmOz]

I think it would be a good idea to make Followers, bases, and vehicles one talent, this is espesialy important in how the doubling rules work

Basicaly Flying Rat Man would buy Birdboy as a follower, then could spend 5 points to get a vehicle (The Flying ratmobile), 5 more points gets him a base (The Flying Rat Cave) and another vehicle (The Flying Ratcoptor), etc...

Why do I think this is appropriate? basicaly all three give a very similar advantage to the character, that of an outside help, and while I am on the fence a bit about followers being included, bases and vehicles especialy seem to have alot of overlap in usefulness.

[BobGreenwade]

I think it would be a good idea to make Followers, bases, and vehicles one talent, this is espesialy important in how the doubling rules work

Basicaly Flying Rat Man would buy Birdboy as a follower, then could spend 5 points to get a vehicle (The Flying ratmobile), 5 more points gets him a base (The Flying Rat Cave) and another vehicle (The Flying Ratcoptor), etc...

Why do I think this is appropriate? basicaly all three give a very similar advantage to the character, that of an outside help, and while I am on the fence a bit about followers being included, bases and vehicles especialy seem to have alot of overlap in usefulness.I disagree. For one thing, these things should definitely remain as Perks rather than Talents.

For another, Bases and Vehicles are sufficiently different that they should be paid for separately -- in many cases, remarkably different Bases and Vehicles should be paid for separately from each other, especially if one has multiple copies of the same thing. For example, an organization with a fleet of motorcycles, vans, trucks, and helicopters would pay the full cost for each Vehicle type separately, but use the doubling rule for the number of each type. If it had a large headquarters, several smaller field offices, and a number of training facilities, it might pay for each of those types of Bases separately as well.

An individual GM might decide that the doubling rule applies to Bases and Vehicles combined, but the two types of things really serve separate functions in most games. A Base is primarily a place where one can store equipment, rest, train, stay connected to the rest of the world, and similar things. A Vehicle is primarily a means of moving from one place to another, often with portable equipment and sometimes (especially in military settings) with built-in weaponry for combat. The two can sometimes overlap, such as with very large military vehicles (submarines, aircraft carriers, and such), but on the whole they're very different.

[JmOz]

I did mispeak about talent, I did mean perk...what I get for posting in a hurry.

The thing is, vehicles and Bases only really come up in one type of game, super hero, otherwise characters spend money on them not character points.

[AnotherSkip]

You don't even have to pay for them in a Supers game.

[megaplayboy]

I kinda like JMOz's idea of folding bases, vehicles, computers and followers into some kind of "meta-perk", with all of them basically being different "flavors" of it. I'm stuck on what term would be a catchall to include the Batcave, Batcar, Batcomputer and Batsidekick under one rubric, though. It would save a ton of points if ol' Bats could get all of the above for, say, 50 points(40+10 for x4 items) instead of 160 points.
"Trappings" is the only term I can come up with, off the top of my head, as in "he has all the trappings of an established superhero--sidekick, robot duplicate, computer, base, invisible battle RV..."

A fantasy wizard could then have their tower, their hippogriff mount, their homonculus familiar, their stone golem tower guards, their steam-powered balloon, and their mystical mirror/crystal ball(i.e., computer) for an affordable sum, just as the fantasy warrior can have his retinue of light cavalry, his castle/keep, his squire and his warship. Otherwise all of those things may cost as much or more than the PC's stats, skills and abilities combined.

[pinecone]

I kinda like JMOz's idea of folding bases, vehicles, computers and followers into some kind of "meta-perk", with all of them basically being different "flavors" of it. I'm stuck on what term would be a catchall to include the Batcave, Batcar, Batcomputer and Batsidekick under one rubric, though. It would save a ton of points if ol' Bats could get all of the above for, say, 50 points(40+10 for x4 items) instead of 160 points.
"Trappings" is the only term I can come up with, off the top of my head, as in "he has all the trappings of an established superhero--sidekick, robot duplicate, computer, base, invisible battle RV..."

A fantasy wizard could then have their tower, their hippogriff mount, their homonculus familiar, their stone golem tower guards, their steam-powered balloon, and their mystical mirror/crystal ball(i.e., computer) for an affordable sum, just as the fantasy warrior can have his retinue of light cavalry, his castle/keep, his squire and his warship. Otherwise all of those things may cost as much or more than the PC's stats, skills and abilities combined.
Yeah "Panoply" or "instramentality" or some such...the stuff that shows you've "made it" even in a supers setting it is not a major thing....Bats out guns many small countrys but still goes toe to toe every freakin time...

[AnotherSkip]

Yeah "Panoply" or "instramentality" or some such...the stuff that shows you've "made it" even in a supers setting it is not a major thing....Bats out guns many small countrys but still goes toe to toe every freakin time...

not every freaking time, usually his major baddies because it means nothing to duel them Battank on mano. Other major baddies and he may go for cybersuits (vs. Mcfairlanes whats-its-name) or availible tech (using a crane or other vehicles of opportunity) Or even locking them in a sewer tunnel access untill they die (the Beast).

[megaplayboy]

Maybe just subsume it under the rubric of Resources (bases, vehicles, followers(including automatons), computers(including sentient magic items)), 1 point per 5 points worth of the resource(including disad points), x2 the number of resources per +5 points.

Example: Flying Rodent Man has 8 sidekicks: Bluejay, Wing Night, Flying Rodent Girl, Uriel, Crossbow Vigilante Babe, Jack the Flying Rodent Hound, Flying Rodent Mite, and his faithful and hypercompetent butler, Albert. He also has his secret Flying Rodent Cavern, his spiffy Flying Rodent car, Flying Rodent moped, Flying Rodent speedboat, Flying Rodent Chopper, Flying Rodent jet, and Flying Rodent space plane. And he has a really tricked out Flying Rodent Supercomputer he plays Sudoku on. The most competent/capable of these resources is built on 500 points, so FRM pays 120 points for all of his resources, 100 for the best, and 20 points for the other 15.

In the alternative, FRM would be paying 115 points for followers, 100 points for his base, 115 points for his vehicles, and, let's say, 50 points for his computer. 380 points!

Simpler, cleaner, cheaper. And the GM can veto anything they don't like, or that they think is out of conception or abusive.

[BobGreenwade]

Considering the examples given, I'd say that this method of just paying for the most expensive Follower, Base, Vehicle, Computer, or other "secondary" and then applying the "doubling" rule should be in the new book -- but as an alternate way of doing things at the GM's option. The current way of doing things makes it a lot easier for inexperienced (or, in my case, easily distracted) GMs to keep these things under control.

[JmOz]

Considering the examples given, I'd say that this method of just paying for the most expensive Follower, Base, Vehicle, Computer, or other "secondary" and then applying the "doubling" rule should be in the new book -- but as an alternate way of doing things at the GM's option. The current way of doing things makes it a lot easier for inexperienced (or, in my case, easily distracted) GMs to keep these things under control.

I would say the inverse, that splitting them be the alternative rule, but then I think I am the only guy saying I want as many choices and different ways to do things as possible ( I like the fuzion idea of switches and dials or what ever they called it, the terminology was lame, but the idea was good)

[CTaylor]

I understand the way Combat Sense was built, but it seems a bit excessive in price. 15 points? When you can get IR vision and see in the dark for 5 points? Granted, flash sight will blind IR vision too but is it worth 10 more points to keep working through flash? It seems like this could be a whole lot cheaper for as often as it comes up and what it does.

[Talon]

Resource Point Pools are a great idea (or at least it seems that way; I've never used them) which should go in the main rulebook. Some comments:

What is the logic behind the different costs for the Resources?
1:5 for Equipment seems reasonable; 1:2 for Vehicle/Base seems OK because it needs to be more expensive than just buying a single Vehicle/Base. The same goes for Followers (paying 1:2 instead of 1:5) -- but for Contacts, you are always better off putting your Contacts in a Resource Pool since you get double points for them. I would suggest putting Followers in with Vehicles and Bases, and making Contact Points cost 3:2 or even 2:1.

Improved Equipment Availability This Perk seems like it would be better replaced by existing Perks (Contact and/or "secret agent" like Perks).

Armory Points: There should be a way for characters to start with a larger Armory.

General Tone: In general, the text should offer more guidance and be less speculative; hopefully there is enough experience out there now to provide some real-world suggestions on how these can be used.

[AnotherSkip]

Talon I'm not sure where you get differing costs for additives, aren't they all 1:5?

if so why change it?

Bases are important but they are hardly worth 1:2,

Heck they can even be worth 0:5, depending upon the Gm.

[Netzilla]

Talon I'm not sure where you get differing costs for additives, aren't they all 1:5?

if so why change it?

Bases are important but they are hardly worth 1:2,

Heck they can even be worth 0:5, depending upon the Gm.

He's getting his point values from the Resource Pool rules in the Dark Champions book (around page 150 IIRC).

[AnotherSkip]

Ah, that explains it.

Ehhhh not worried about DC's

silver and gold here, silver and gold.

[Talon]

He's getting his point values from the Resource Pool rules in the Dark Champions book (around page 150 IIRC).

That's where I got them...are they printed in another book with different costs?

[Netzilla]

That's where I got them...are they printed in another book with different costs?

Nope. I'm guessing A. Skip is not familiar with the Resource Pool rules and was comparing your numbers to the default costs for Followers, etc. from the main rulebook.

Incidentally, I find the Resource Pool rules useful for any Heroic genre, not just Dark Champs. I've used them in Dark Champs and Sci Fi and find they work very well for keeping real equipment from getting too far out of hand. I can't imagine they'd work any worse for Fantasy, Pulp or Post Apocalypse. I do feel that they're useful in enough genres that they'd make good rules for inclusion in the main book, even if only as Optional Rules.

[AnotherSkip]

Nope. I'm guessing A. Skip is not familiar with the Resource Pool rules and was comparing your numbers to the default costs for Followers, etc. from the main rulebook.

Incidentally, I find the Resource Pool rules useful for any Heroic genre, not just Dark Champs. I've used them in Dark Champs and Sci Fi and find they work very well for keeping real equipment from getting too far out of hand. I can't imagine they'd work any worse for Fantasy, Pulp or Post Apocalypse. I do feel that they're useful in enough genres that they'd make good rules for inclusion in the main book, even if only as Optional Rules.

Spot on. Not familiar with them at all, but there may be something else bouncing aournd in my head that may be similar, just not encoded.