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.

[BobGreenwade]

Here's a thought on a new Talent sub-category.

If we can have Environmental Movement, why not Environmental Sensing? This would be just Penalty Sense Levels (or whatever) bought to offset the penalties for being in a particular type of environment. This could cover things like the ability to see in nighttime lighting conditions or underwater, the ability to hear in windy conditions, and so forth.

It's just a thought.

[JmOz]

Had a random idea or two

As some know the current builds for Regeneration and Instant Change strike a sizable group of people as to complex for what it should be, what about moving them into Talents, then we would have both the current complicated build system, but also have the simplicity some are craving...Just a random idea

Also Not that it matters much, but I think Find weakness should be a Talent not a power...(Then again it could be built as a AP type thing)

[Klaus Mogensen]

As some know the current builds for Regeneration and Instant Change strike a sizable group of people as to complex for what it should be, what about moving them into Talents, then we would have both the current complicated build system, but also have the simplicity some are craving.)
Both can be handled by the Superspeed Talent I proposed a while back. It allows a character to perform a specifíc non-combat activity much faster than normal. Each step down the Time Table costs 1 point. Examples include Ligthtning Calculator and Instant Change, but could equally well include Regeneration.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

Both can be handled by the Superspeed Talent I proposed a while back. It allows a character to perform a specifíc non-combat activity much faster than normal. Each step down the Time Table costs 1 point. Examples include Ligthtning Calculator and Instant Change, but could equally well include Regeneration.

Seems to me that moving BOD healing from recovery 1 step down the time chart for one point would be significantly underpriced. That's 4 BOD regeneration every segment for an otherwise normal person at a cost of 10 points. A 20 REC Super gets 240 BOD a turn back for a 10 point investment.

I like the idea of the Superspeed talent for other tasks like reading, housecleaning, etc. but applying it to healing would be unbalanced, in my view.

[JmOz]

Seems to me that moving BOD healing from recovery 1 step down the time chart for one point would be significantly underpriced. That's 4 BOD regeneration every segment for an otherwise normal person at a cost of 10 points. A 20 REC Super gets 240 BOD a turn back for a 10 point investment.

I like the idea of the Superspeed talent for other tasks like reading, housecleaning, etc. but applying it to healing would be unbalanced, in my view.

I could not find his original post, but I think you are starting more advance than what is being recomended (If someone could give me the number of Klaus Mogensen post so I could read it I would appreciate it)

If (and most of this is a guess) I am reading him right the talent would reduce the amount of time it takes to heal body, so for 10 points it would be you get your recovery in body per week, for 20 your recovery per day, up to 80 points per turn.

[Vulcan]

Not a bad idea defining that kind of thing for Champions. That way someone who wants to play a 'gun bunny' or 'classic wizard' can have a uniqure feel to the mechanics of their power, and not just the FX.

Granted, they're expensive, but you get a lot of flexibility for it.:thumbup:

[Vulcan]

I could not find his original post, but I think you are starting more advance than what is being recomended (If someone could give me the number of Klaus Mogensen post so I could read it I would appreciate it)

If (and most of this is a guess) I am reading him right the talent would reduce the amount of time it takes to heal body, so for 10 points it would be you get your recovery in body per week, for 20 your recovery per day, up to 80 points per turn.

I would say 5 a level, personally, and stop it at the 'per minute' level. After all, a 30 REC character with SPD 5 and per minute regen effectively regenerates 1 BODY/phase...:eek:

[Klaus Mogensen]

I could not find his original post, but I think you are starting more advance than what is being recomended (If someone could give me the number of Klaus Mogensen post so I could read it I would appreciate it).
Chris Mullins was kind enough to reformat my concept for the Rules Section: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67301

- Klaus

[megaplayboy]

Finally came up with a name for a catchall term for JMOz' and my approach to lumping followers, bases and vehicles together as one perk.
External Perks.

These are perks which are not innate or "internal" to the character, and can be taken away, interfered with or destroyed more easily.
These include:
Followers
Bases
Vehicles
Automatons
Computers

Every 1 point in external perks corresponds to 5 points worth of external perk, whether for any of the above. For every +5 points not devoted to the cost of the external perk, the character may have twice as many external perks. These may be of the same kind as the initial external perk, or may be of a different nature. Since this is a very useful perk and has a high potential for abuse, the exact nature and extent of the external perk(s) should be worked out between the GM and the player.

Steve L., can I get some feedback on that idea?

[Tonio]

I would say 5 a level, personally, and stop it at the 'per minute' level. After all, a 30 REC character with SPD 5 and per minute regen effectively regenerates 1 BODY/phase...:eek:

And it costs him 70 pts, no? For 70 pts you could get a ~23 rPD/rED Armor, which would stop (effectively regenerate) 23 BODY per hit, for most hits.

I don't think 70 pts for 1 BODY / phase regen is too unbalanced. =)

[PhilFleischmann]

A "problem" with moving BODY Recovery down (or was it up?) the time chart for Regen is that the steps on the chart are not of equal utility. It doesn't work to simply say "X points per level on the time chart" because it will always result in being too expensive at one end, or too cheap at the other.

10 points (or IMO, even 5) to Recover BODY per week, is *way* too much. It's worth almost nothing in practical terms. There's virtually no game difference between per month and per week. Either one is not merely "out of combat" time, but is "out of gaming session" time.

Buying Regen based on REC/time level is not necessarily a bad idea. It just can't be a fixed cost per level. (It seems a bit like Life Support to me.) It needs it's own table, something like this, perhaps:


Regain
REC in
BODY per Cost
Month Free
Week 1
Day 2
5-6 Hours 3
Hour 5
20 Min 10
5 Min 20
Minute 40
Turn 60
Phase 90
Segment 120

Those numbers are just rough estimates off the top of my head. Flavor to taste.

[Talon]

10 points (or IMO, even 5) to Recover BODY per week, is *way* too much.

That varies a lot by game -- in the fantasy games I run, a week vs. a month makes quite a difference.

In any event, rather than adopt a different approach for Regeneration, it would be better to alter the Time Chart more generally for cases where the line between combat and "between session" is what matters. (I would rather not see 6E go this route, but if it did I'd rather it do so in a consistent manner.)

[Vulcan]

A "problem" with moving BODY Recovery down (or was it up?) the time chart for Regen is that the steps on the chart are not of equal utility. It doesn't work to simply say "X points per level on the time chart" because it will always result in being too expensive at one end, or too cheap at the other.

10 points (or IMO, even 5) to Recover BODY per week, is *way* too much. It's worth almost nothing in practical terms. There's virtually no game difference between per month and per week. Either one is not merely "out of combat" time, but is "out of gaming session" time.

Buying Regen based on REC/time level is not necessarily a bad idea. It just can't be a fixed cost per level. (It seems a bit like Life Support to me.) It needs it's own table, something like this, perhaps:


Regain
REC in
BODY per Cost
Month Free
Week 1
Day 2
5-6 Hours 3
Hour 5
20 Min 10
5 Min 20
Minute 40
Turn 60
Phase 90
Segment 120

Those numbers are just rough estimates off the top of my head. Flavor to taste.

Looks pretty good to me, with one addition: GM's should be encouraged to pro-rate regeneration over time. That will keep high-REC characters from needing the 'per turn' or better level of regen for it to be useful in combat - and being nearly impossible to kill as a result.

[PhilFleischmann]

Looks pretty good to me, with one addition: GM's should be encouraged to pro-rate regeneration over time. That will keep high-REC characters from needing the 'per turn' or better level of regen for it to be useful in combat - and being nearly impossible to kill as a result.
Yes. Pro-rating is to be encouraged for just about any length of time more than a turn (and even if it is per turn, if the GM/player doesn't mind the extra bookkeeping). So 12 REC in BODY per Day, should be treated as 1 BODY regenerated per 2 hours.

[BobGreenwade]

Something just came up in the Powers A-E thread that warrants moving here -- a new Talent making the character harder to perceive, based on Change Environment (hence the original placing of the idea), primarily for use by characters who are smaller than normal but available to others as well.

The general rule would require a new Combat Effect for Change Environment, giving a -1 to all PER Rolls for 5 points (reflecting similar costs in Enhanced Senses). Then the character gets something like:

Imperceptibility: Change Environment, -1 to all PER Rolls, 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Inherent (+1/4) (12 Active Points); Always On (-1/2), Self Only (-1/2). Total cost: 6 points.

Thus, being harder to perceive costs 6 points per -1 to others' PER Rolls. The Size Template for being Tiny (9 inches tall) has six levels of this, for a cost of 36 points. Yes, this is a good deal more than the 20 points currently paid for +6 to Concealment, Self Only and +6 to Stealth; but it affects all attempts to perceive the character, not just his ability to be concealed and stealthy.

(If desired, a -1/4 Limitation could be added for Not Versus Mental Or Mystical Senses, bringing the cost per -1 to 5 points.)

(And thanks to Chris and Klaus for some feedback on the original idea.)

[Talon]

Say, did someone post something just now?

:)

[satyr]

I don't use perks. I really think that there pointless. If you want a character to have a contact give him/her a DNPC. The relationship of characters with law enforcement agencies can be role-played surely. 1pt for a passport? Not a chance i'm not going to let a character get on a plane cos they don't have this perk. And I think the system would be a lot 'neater' if talents were absorbed into the powers list.

[steamteck]

I don't use perks. I really think that there pointless. If you want a character to have a contact give him/her a DNPC. The relationship of characters with law enforcement agencies can be role-played surely. 1pt for a passport? Not a chance i'm not going to let a character get on a plane cos they don't have this perk. And I think the system would be a lot 'neater' if talents were absorbed into the powers list.


I on the other hand love them. Their inclusion gives lots of definition to a characters place in the world. Their expansion to me was one of the best things in 5th for our group. one of the main reasons we upgraded from 4th. I take it you just roleplay wealth and being an aristocrat etc?

[Hugh Neilson]

I on the other hand love them. Their inclusion gives lots of definition to a characters place in the world. Their expansion to me was one of the best things in 5th for our group. one of the main reasons we upgraded from 4th. I take it you just roleplay wealth and being an aristocrat etc?

OK, let's take a look at these backgrounds...

OK, Ted's character is an unknown bum with no money and no friends. Joe's character is the king of the most advanced technological nation on earth, beloved by all his people, world-famous and universally respected, indescribably wealthy and has an army at his beck and call.

Well, that all seems equal so far. Let's look at their character sheets...:(

[Markdoc]

OK, let's take a look at these backgrounds...

OK, Ted's character is an unknown bum with no money and no friends. Joe's character is the king of the most advanced technological nation on earth, beloved by all his people, world-famous and universally respected, indescribably wealthy and has an army at his beck and call.

Well, that all seems equal so far. Let's look at their character sheets...:(

I would agree that some perks seem to be there merely to fill out the list. Passport is right up there as far as utterly pointless goes, along with things like "membership in Plumbers 414" and "Golden Eagle pass to the National parks". However, there are plenty of things - important contacts, wealth, titles, etc, for which a perk makes really, really good sense.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

I would agree that some perks seem to be there merely to fill out the list. Passport is right up there as far as utterly pointless goes, along with things like "membership in Plumbers 414" and "Golden Eagle pass to the National parks". However, there are plenty of things - important contacts, wealth, titles, etc, for which a perk makes really, really good sense.

Like many items in Hero, the value depends on the campaign. The rules can only apply a default. Is it really worth 5 points for my character to have KS: Golden Age Comic Books, 14-? The rules say that is what it costs.

In one of the more general threads, Steve throws out the idea of better describing what should cost points and what should be free. I'd say that, in a typical 20th century North American game, a passport should be free. Call it an "everyman Perk".

But if your game is set in a war-torn, impoverished third world country, I'd say the character with a passport allowing entry to the United States has a considerable benefit not shared by the typical character, and should pay something (possible more than 1 point, maybe not) for the privilege. Just as I would say a concealed weapons permit costs nothing in the game of "United States of Texas", where all persons over age 12 are required to own and carry a firearm by law, or in a typical Wild West game.

[James Gillen]

OK, let's take a look at these backgrounds...

OK, Ted's character is an unknown bum with no money and no friends. Joe's character is the king of the most advanced technological nation on earth, beloved by all his people, world-famous and universally respected, indescribably wealthy and has an army at his beck and call.

Well, that all seems equal so far. Let's look at their character sheets...:(

One of them has the Psychological Disad "Played by George Bush." :D

jg

[Klaus Mogensen]

One of them has the Psychological Disad "Played by George Bush." :D
"Beloved by all his people"? "Universally respected"?
This must be some kind of alternate reality Dubya you're talking about. ;)

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

Like many items in Hero, the value depends on the campaign. The rules can only apply a default. Is it really worth 5 points for my character to have KS: Golden Age Comic Books, 14-? The rules say that is what it costs.

In one of the more general threads, Steve throws out the idea of better describing what should cost points and what should be free. I'd say that, in a typical 20th century North American game, a passport should be free. Call it an "everyman Perk".

But if your game is set in a war-torn, impoverished third world country, I'd say the character with a passport allowing entry to the United States has a considerable benefit not shared by the typical character, and should pay something (possible more than 1 point, maybe not) for the privilege. Just as I would say a concealed weapons permit costs nothing in the game of "United States of Texas", where all persons over age 12 are required to own and carry a firearm by law, or in a typical Wild West game.
This is why I favor a "hero point" system for Perks and many Disadvantages (which can then be merged as Background Traits).

You don't pay or get points up front for Background Traits. Whenever you use a Background Trait in a manner that benefits you (e.g. require a favor from a contact), you pay one or more hero points. Whenever a Background Trait disadvantages you (e.g. whenever a contact requirers a favor of you),you get one or more hero points.

- Klaus

[satyr]

OK, let's take a look at these backgrounds...

OK, Ted's character is an unknown bum with no money and no friends. Joe's character is the king of the most advanced technological nation on earth, beloved by all his people, world-famous and universally respected, indescribably wealthy and has an army at his beck and call.

Well, that all seems equal so far. Let's look at their character sheets...:(

Lol well I guess it depends on whether you want to use common sense or rules, rules, rules. I would say that in both these cases you have an equal amount of roleplay opportunities. With great power...

[AnotherSkip]

interesting take on Texas law.....

[PhilFleischmann]

Imperceptibility: Change Environment, -1 to all PER Rolls, 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Inherent (+1/4) (12 Active Points); Always On (-1/2), Self Only (-1/2). Total cost: 6 points.
I usually do this with Images, No Range, Self Only - that is "Self Only - to hide onesself". This could be because of reduced size, or camouflage, or other reasons.

[PhilFleischmann]

I don't use perks. I really think that there pointless. If you want a character to have a contact give him/her a DNPC. The relationship of characters with law enforcement agencies can be role-played surely. 1pt for a passport? Not a chance i'm not going to let a character get on a plane cos they don't have this perk. And I think the system would be a lot 'neater' if talents were absorbed into the powers list.
A contact or follower is a *very* different thing from a DNPC. I find most of the Perks quite appropriate and useful. The only one(s) that are questionable (or even silly), IMO are some of the Fringe Benefits. You're right about passport. Same with Int'l drivers' license, right to marry, etc.

[BobGreenwade]

I usually do this with Images, No Range, Self Only - that is "Self Only - to hide onesself". This could be because of reduced size, or camouflage, or other reasons.That's probably a valid way of doing it also. Whichever Steve prefers would, I think, still be better than the current build.

[steamteck]

Lol well I guess it depends on whether you want to use common sense or rules, rules, rules. I would say that in both these cases you have an equal amount of roleplay opportunities. With great power...


Maybe so but in many campaigns the one who paid for those perks gets their mileage out of them. Being a noble or gentleman/gentlewoman in my fantasy world opens lots of doors. being wealthy means you can finance the African expedition yourself.etc. Definite game effects

Contacts are great for NPCs to figure how they're connected.

All the perks in the right campaign can really be little aids and definers. Very nice part of 5th edition for us:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[nexus]

A contact or follower is a *very* different thing from a DNPC. I find most of the Perks quite appropriate and useful. The only one(s) that are questionable (or even silly), IMO are some of the Fringe Benefits. You're right about passport. Same with Int'l drivers' license, right to marry, etc.

Obviously, not all perks are going to be worth points in all campaigns. I always considered the Fringe Benefits list as a list of suggestions. International Driver's license or Right to Marry isn't going to be worth paying points for in all campaigns but in some it might be.

[nexus]

Maybe so but in many campaigns the one who paid for those perks gets their mileage out of them. Being a noble or gentleman/gentlewoman in my fantasy world opens lots of doors. being wealthy means you can finance the African expedition yourself.etc. Definite game effects

Contacts are great for NPCs to figure how they're connected.

All the perks in the right campaign can really be little aids and definers. Very nice part of 5th edition for us:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Even most games that call themselves "rule light" tend to have characters invest -something- to be vastly wealthy, highly influential, well connected, have membership in an organization that grants perk, access to rare things and other "perks". Sure there are role playing aspects to being flat busted, hated and homeless but having the former does tend to open advantages in play.

[megaplayboy]

The first license to practice one's profession should probably be a freebie. Now, if someone has both a license to practice law and one to practice medicine, that's gotta be worth something.

[AnotherSkip]

I tend to think the opposite, in the world there is a certain level of requirement to maintain the licence usually related to the skills maintainence but also you can have the skills but can be in for a world of hurt if you use those without the proper licencing.

verry important distinction.

[JmOz]

What about including it as part of the everyman skills

[AnotherSkip]

sooo Every man has a licence to practice medicine, eletricity and Boxing? plus the hundred others? uhm no.

[JmOz]

sooo Every man has a licence to practice medicine, eletricity and Boxing? plus the hundred others? uhm no.

UMM NO, What I am saying is that they get a single licence to practice, similar to how you start with an 11-. Maybe more appropriate to put it down as "1 point Job related perk"

[AnotherSkip]

I just can't see that.

Probably part of the problem stems from my Real World Experience.

It might be doable, but a lot of people just don't have that sort of perk associated with their jobs (students, mail room clerks etc...).

Maybe it should be defaulted but any differences are covered with a Social Limitation?

[BobGreenwade]

Skip's actually right -- while it may seem sensible on the surface to include a license to practice a profession with a PS, it doesn't hold up to either reality or the source fiction. I recall at least two occasions in fiction where a doctor has lost his license to practice, without losing his skills.

[JmOz]

Skip's actually right -- while it may seem sensible on the surface to include a license to practice a profession with a PS, it doesn't hold up to either reality or the source fiction. I recall at least two occasions in fiction where a doctor has lost his license to practice, without losing his skills.

Which is why I said to change it to a 1 point perk, a couple favors or a contact if the licence does not make sense seems reasonable. I mean even the McDonalds guy knows people who can make sure he gets a meal if he needs it

[Vulcan]

On the issue of Fringe Benefits not being worth the price - in particular, International Driver's Licence...

Unfortunately, I don't have personal experience with this sorta thing, but a friend of mine was in Germany recently visiting family. And apparently getting a Driver's Licence in Germany costs somewhere around the equivalent of a thousand dollars. I can't say about any other nations, but a couple more like that and suddenly the value that particular Fringe Benefit doesn't seem so trivial anymore...

[Vulcan]

Which is why I said to change it to a 1 point perk, a couple favors or a contact if the licence does not make sense seems reasonable. I mean even the McDonalds guy knows people who can make sure he gets a meal if he needs it

Or the one-point perk 'Can always find a job in his field,' which is no mean feat in the current economy.:D

[AnotherSkip]

but it can't be an everyman skill otherwise unemployment would be 0, and it isn't.

[JmOz]

but it can't be an everyman skill otherwise unemployment would be 0, and it isn't.

huhh? NOt sure I follow you. The point is what should each character start with, taking your unemplyed guy, ok he probably has his PS in scrounging, and a 1 point perk as a contact with Sister Ann who runs the eternal hope missionary down on 9th street, it works...

[Netzilla]

but it can't be an everyman skill otherwise unemployment would be 0, and it isn't.

I think what is being suggested for an Everyman Skill is a free 1 pt job-related Perk. Examples would include:

Can always find a job
Free access to a small company-provided service
1pt worth of Rank
1pt Contact in his industry
and so forth...

Not every character would have the first.

[Vulcan]

I posted 'Can always find a job in his field' for the Fast Food Worker partly in jest, but mostly because of some truly useless people I worked with as a kid. They goofed off continually unless the boss was right there directing them. And they could care less if they got fired, they just went up the street and got a job at the next Fast Food joint...

And we trust these kinda people to make our food?:nonp:

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...

[AnotherSkip]

i suppose I have to bow to your experiences with truly useless people in the world....

[Vulcan]

Believe me, it's a set of experiences I would gladly have forgeone, given the choice.

[Kraven Kor]

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.

I think it should at least be much clearer on this. When I was building bases and followers, I just never put disadvantages because it wasn't spelled out (or I just missed where it was) whether they could take disadvantages, and if you could, how many. If you buy a 50 point follower, do they get 50 points of disads? Campaign base? 25? I don't recall ever seeing that stated one way or the other in FREd. I do know that a 25 point follower may as well be a feeble old man in a wheelchair if you don't give them 25 points of disads :D

Bases tend to be underwhelming until massive point investments as well. At least if you intend to use the base for anything other than the place you plan your missions from.

I would also clarify, though I think it already is, that you shouldn't be taking power limitations on bases, vehicles, or followers to further reduce the cost below the 1 for 5 base. Don't have FREd in front of me right now, but pretty sure that is already clearly stated.

[SSgt Baloo]

I think it should at least be much clearer on this. When I was building bases and followers, I just never put disadvantages because it wasn't spelled out (or I just missed where it was) whether they could take disadvantages, and if you could, how many. If you buy a 50 point follower, do they get 50 points of disads? Campaign base? 25? I don't recall ever seeing that stated one way or the other in FREd. I do know that a 25 point follower may as well be a feeble old man in a wheelchair if you don't give them 25 points of disads :D

Bases tend to be underwhelming until massive point investments as well. At least if you intend to use the base for anything other than the place you plan your missions from.

I would also clarify, though I think it already is, that you shouldn't be taking power limitations on bases, vehicles, or followers to further reduce the cost below the 1 for 5 base. Don't have FREd in front of me right now, but pretty sure that is already clearly stated.

The way I've always done vehicles, bases and followers (VBF) in my campaigns is that the 5 points you get for each point spent are base points for the VBF. If I spend 25 points for a follower, His base points (before adding points for disadvantages) will be 125. If you wanted a VBF worth more points than the character that was buying it, you had to pay 1-for-1 for any points over your total points even if those points were also paid for by disadvantages. Another option was to get other players to donate points to your VBF with the understanding that the maximum allowed points increases by half the donating character's total and that the donating character has a proportionate interest in the VBF you got with his aid.

Example: Captain Splatt is a 300-point character and wants a really big base as his headquarters. Unfortunately, he adds so many bells, whistles, staff and vehicles, the proposed base exceeds his total points by 10. Either he pares down something else he has by enough points to cover the excess (only allowed during character creation) or he might ask for 2 points from other players so he can have his Splattcave. Of course, if he chooses the latter course, the allowable maximum increases by half the amount of the donating character(s) and while Captain Splatt has a full share of interest, each contributor has a half-share, and should be allowed at least proportional usage of the facilities (usually it was share-and-share alike, but that's the kind of crowd I used to play with).

ETA: The points spent for a VBF were not subject to advantages or limitations, though the (base and disadvantage) points that resulted could be limited or advantaged to a reasonable extent.

[nexus]

The way I've always done vehicles, bases and followers (VBF) in my campaigns is that the 5 points you get for each point spent are base points for the VBF. If I spend 25 points for a follower, His base points (before adding points for disadvantages) will be 125.

That's pretty much the way I handled it. The max disads were equal to the campaign limits. I didn't run into balance issues. You simply have to vet any disadvantages like you would for a character.

[AnotherSkip]

I think there should be good reasons for the disads and they should influence the final cost. after all SUV's are gass guzzlers and that makes it worth "less" to me than other vehicles. Others may find it no big deal and blithely go on purchasing said item.

And the Disads yes they should be realistic, but more importantly they should be FUN. Adding Com and Pre to a vehicle is fun for me and you could probably take a DF Disad for it too.

[steamteck]

I think there should be good reasons for the disads and they should influence the final cost. after all SUV's are gass guzzlers and that makes it worth "less" to me than other vehicles. Others may find it no big deal and blithely go on purchasing said item.

And the Disads yes they should be realistic, but more importantly they should be FUN. Adding Com and Pre to a vehicle is fun for me and you could probably take a DF Disad for it too.


absolutely. Gotta agree with you 100%

[JmOz]

My thoughts on the subject of disadvantages for bases, vehicles and followers (based on Steve's answer to a recent question):

I think getting rid of disadvantages giving a credit towards the cost of these perks is a mistake, while I agree that disadvantages can be abusive I think eliminating the credit is going to create more problems. While it would be nice to think that players with build everything to concept, in my experience a carrot to help players towards building in concept helps (Except for the patend Big Stick of GM Says No). The credit serves as this incentive to give a vehicle the disads that they should have

I do think that putting some kind of limitation on how many disads can be given is a good idea. Off the top of my head, I would say that allowing up to the max disads of the campeign would be ok. Maybe have something about GM's may want to set different guidelines, recomending only allowing 1/2 the Max disads

[Hugh Neilson]

I posted the question in the Disad's thread, but I think the treatment of Disad's on perks needs to parallel the changes proposed to disad's in general. If they will no longer contribute to the cost of the character, they should not reduce the cost of a perk. They should be dovetailed with the Hero Points rules.

[JmOz]

I posted the question in the Disad's thread, but I think the treatment of Disad's on perks needs to parallel the changes proposed to disad's in general. If they will no longer contribute to the cost of the character, they should not reduce the cost of a perk. They should be dovetailed with the Hero Points rules.

Agreed assuming that that actualy happens, I think that their should be consistency between the two...

[SSgt Baloo]

in nearly all of my campaigns I have tried to encourage the players to, when it suits character concept, buy vehicles, followers and/or bases. They were almost universally reluctant to pay points for something that, if severely damaged or destroyed, would mean they had payed good points for something useless to them.

What worked for me was to reduce the cost of these perks when they were not for combat use. The fast transport used by the supers to get to the action could be bought for half the cost listed in the book. Conversely, if the fast transport/base/follower was armed in any way (GM's call) the cost was normal (1 pt. for five).

I'm not suggesting that this be the official way to do things. Rather, I'm just pointing out that since HERO is a toolkit, you don't have to spell things out in excruciating detail so the Rules Lawyers™ won't get the better of the GM.

What I would like to see, is a "House Rules" supplement that not only goes into detail as to how one might customize the rules to suit a particular genre, style of play, etc., but gives examples, many of which have already been spelled out in various parts of this forum.

RE: the cost of vehicles, bases and followers, I suggest that disadvantages be permitted (but not required) to reduce the points that a particular base, vehicle, or follower costs.

[BobGreenwade]

in nearly all of my campaigns I have tried to encourage the players to, when it suits character concept, buy vehicles, followers and/or bases. They were almost universally reluctant to pay points for something that, if severely damaged or destroyed, would mean they had payed good points for something useless to them.They didn't have any repair facilities??? :confused:

[PhilFleischmann]

While it would be nice to think that players with build everything to concept, in my experience a carrot to help players towards building in concept helps (Except for the patend Big Stick of GM Says No).
Right. And while we all like to build to our concepts, those concepts are influenced by the system we build them with. "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." If the system doesn't reward you for disads, your concepts will stop having them.

And this is true for all aspects of the system, not just Perks and Talents.

And it's even true for other systems.

Building characters is like an engineering problem: There's the ideal concept want, and the constraints of the materials and tools available. The materials and tools available will dictate the concept that you implement.

[Hugh Neilson]

Phil, that's a great analogy, and I agree with the point 100%.

It goes beyond the game system. If I, as a GM, pick on some concepts and reward others, the former will disappear and the latter will multiply. If the GM treats "Unluck" as an excuse to make the character ineffective and the player miserable or bored, surprise - no one will take Unluck.

It's amazing how some GM's will bemoan the fact that their players won't play certain types of characters, but can't figure out it's because of the way their style demotivates those characters. The GM who wants all his players to "play heroic characters", then takes advantage of any character's moral codes to trample them in play, for example, or GM's who never let the PC's interaction skills, reconnaissance powers or unusual knowledge skills have any impact in play, then complain that all their players build two dimensional combat monsters. The GM works actively to take away perks, then wonders why no one buys them.

I'd like to see 6e's section on GMing focus in on making sure the characters get the benefits of their points spent, as well as suffering appropriately and in a manner than adds to the game from their limitations and disadvantages.

[SSgt Baloo]

Right. And while we all like to build to our concepts, those concepts are influenced by the system we build them with. "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." If the system doesn't reward you for disads, your concepts will stop having them.

And this is true for all aspects of the system, not just Perks and Talents.

And it's even true for other systems.

Building characters is like an engineering problem: There's the ideal concept want, and the constraints of the materials and tools available. The materials and tools available will dictate the concept that you implement.


They didn't have any repair facilities??? :confused:

Not so much, but most players figured it was easier to buy more movement powers than a vehicle. One of the other GMs believed that since you only spent 1/5 points on a Vehicle, Base, or Follower (VBF) that it was only worth the points you spent, as if it were a power. Supercars were routinely hotwired and made off with, secret bases might as well have been listed in the Yellow Pages under "Chumps", and followers might as well have been feeble DNPCs, so often were they captured as part of the introductory "hook" to an adventure.

I used incentives to get the players to buy these things with their own points and only gradually did they learn that it didn't necessarily follow that I would treat VBFs as unlucky focuses that magically got targeted each and every session. The last campaign I ran had one of the best PC characters I've ever GM-ed for, an aviator whose best power was his fast and durable airplane (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1727821&postcount=105).

[nexus]

I'd just like to say that I agree that keeping disads for VBF's is a good idea. Yes, they can abused but the process like approving disads for a character. I'd also agreed that is Disads are moved to the "Hero Point" scheme the effect should be consistent but I am not fond of that particular change, honestly.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'd just like to say that I agree that keeping disads for VBF's is a good idea. Yes, they can abused but the process like approving disads for a character. I'd also agreed that is Disads are moved to the "Hero Point" scheme the effect should be consistent but I am not fond of that particular change, honestly.

I'm not a fan of that change myself (in addition to other issues, I find it hard to reconcile with limitations saving points, rather than granting HP when they come up, and then we get to sellbacks vs disadvantages...), but clearly the system needs to be consistent.

[nexus]

I've found (and this is strictly anecdotal, IME, etc) that in games with per occurrence awards for Disadvantages and Limitations they become rarer. They don't vanish but characters generally have less. I think this is due to the overall reward being more spread out and GMs probably being wary of allowing too many drawbacks as they provide a direct and immediate in game resource (Hero Points) continuously over the life of the character.

IMO and preference, characters tend to be defined more by their limits and drawbacks particularly in Generic Effects Based systems like Hero System so a change that would make character sheets like more similar (IMO) wouldn't be a change I could get on board with. That's just a preference and I admit, I do like "complicated" character sheets. I hope I haven't gotten too far off topic.

[JmOz]

I've found (and this is strictly anecdotal, IME, etc) that in games with per occurrence awards for Disadvantages and Limitations they become rarer. They don't vanish but characters generally have less. I think this is due to the overall reward being more spread out and GMs probably being wary of allowing too many drawbacks as they provide a direct and immediate in game resource (Hero Points) continuously over the life of the character.

IMO and preference, characters tend to be defined more by their limits and drawbacks particularly in Generic Effects Based systems like Hero System so a change that would make character sheets like more similar (IMO) wouldn't be a change I could get on board with. That's just a preference and I admit, I do like "complicated" character sheets. I hope I haven't gotten too far off topic.

You have not gone off topic at all IMO

I am torn I can see a reson to go to the occurence awards route, but I am also of the "If it is not broken don't fix it" mentality, our drawback system works well so change for changes sake is not a great Idea IMO

[Markdoc]

I'm not a fan of that change myself (in addition to other issues, I find it hard to reconcile with limitations saving points, rather than granting HP when they come up, and then we get to sellbacks vs disadvantages...), but clearly the system needs to be consistent.

Add me into the camp of those who think removing points for Disads and going to Hero points is a terrible idea. It's a very metagamey approach that I cordially detest.

cheers, Mark

[SteveZilla]

Something just came up in the Powers A-E thread that warrants moving here -- a new Talent making the character harder to perceive, based on Change Environment (hence the original placing of the idea), primarily for use by characters who are smaller than normal but available to others as well.

The general rule would require a new Combat Effect for Change Environment, giving a -1 to all PER Rolls for 5 points (reflecting similar costs in Enhanced Senses). Then the character gets something like:

Imperceptibility: Change Environment, -1 to all PER Rolls, 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Inherent (+1/4) (12 Active Points); Always On (-1/2), Self Only (-1/2). Total cost: 6 points.

Thus, being harder to perceive costs 6 points per -1 to others' PER Rolls. The Size Template for being Tiny (9 inches tall) has six levels of this, for a cost of 36 points. Yes, this is a good deal more than the 20 points currently paid for +6 to Concealment, Self Only and +6 to Stealth; but it affects all attempts to perceive the character, not just his ability to be concealed and stealthy.

(If desired, a -1/4 Limitation could be added for Not Versus Mental Or Mystical Senses, bringing the cost per -1 to 5 points.)

(And thanks to Chris and Klaus for some feedback on the original idea.)

The PER modifiers from being very small don't automatically trigger a PER Roll. I.e., they don't serve as a "poor man's Invisibility", only coming into play when the character is trying to not be seen. Change Environment is usually built to force a (PER in this case) Roll. I would object to a Talent to represent being really small causing both PER penaltys and triggering a PER Roll.

Also, Shrinking PER bonuses by definition don't affect things like Mental Senses/Powers, Danger Sense, and IIRC Combat Sense.


In one of the more general threads, Steve throws out the idea of better describing what should cost points and what should be free. I'd say that, in a typical 20th century North American game, a passport should be free. Call it an "everyman Perk".

But if your game is set in a war-torn, impoverished third world country, I'd say the character with a passport allowing entry to the United States has a considerable benefit not shared by the typical character, and should pay something (possible more than 1 point, maybe not) for the privilege. Just as I would say a concealed weapons permit costs nothing in the game of "United States of Texas", where all persons over age 12 are required to own and carry a firearm by law, or in a typical Wild West game.

I agree. I consider minor things like that to be like the "Free Literacy" that usually comes with Languages in many game genres (IIRC -- all, with the exception of Fantasy is typical).

I view the full Perks list like the 1 point for Literacy. It's there if it's needed for a particular game. If it's not needed, then don't spend the points on them. :)

[SteveZilla]

The first license to practice one's profession should probably be a freebie. Now, if someone has both a license to practice law and one to practice medicine, that's gotta be worth something.

I just had a thought: Why wouldn't the Everyman Profession Skill (any PS, really) grant -- at least in an "understood" way -- the License to Practice that profession?

EDIT: Scooped by others earlier.


Skip's actually right -- while it may seem sensible on the surface to include a license to practice a profession with a PS, it doesn't hold up to either reality or the source fiction. I recall at least two occasions in fiction where a doctor has lost his license to practice, without losing his skills.

I would think that would be handled by an appropriate Social Limitation (like Disbarred)?

[SteveZilla]

... and followers might as well have been feeble DNPCs, so often were they captured as part of the introductory "hook" to an adventure.

Sounds like the Followers/DNPCs there had contracted Aquaman Syndrome. :D

[BobGreenwade]

The PER modifiers from being very small don't automatically trigger a PER Roll. I.e., they don't serve as a "poor man's Invisibility", only coming into play when the character is trying to not be seen. Change Environment is usually built to force a (PER in this case) Roll. I would object to a Talent to represent being really small causing both PER penaltys and triggering a PER Roll.Good point, though this can be covered with a further Limitation.
Also, Shrinking PER bonuses by definition don't affect things like Mental Senses/Powers, Danger Sense, and IIRC Combat Sense.This, too, can be covered with a Limitation, redefining some of those Senses (I don't think any PER Roll Modifiers currently apply to Danger Sense, though I could be wrong) or by rebuilding it to only apply to those Sense Groups that do apply.

[AnotherSkip]

I just had a thought: Why wouldn't the Everyman Profession Skill (any PS, really) grant -- at least in an "understood" way -- the License to Practice that profession?

EDIT: Scooped by others earlier.
I would think that would be handled by an appropriate Social Limitation (like Disbarred)?


actually since there are whole departments in various governments as well as reams of law that deal specifically with this issue i would say it is a large enough concern that no you can't just get those perks for free. but they can be taken away (admitedly with some difficulty) (though I would probably give a LIm AND allow the points to be respent.)

[PhilFleischmann]

actually since there are whole departments in various governments as well as reams of law that deal specifically with this issue i would say it is a large enough concern that no you can't just get those perks for free. but they can be taken away (admitedly with some difficulty) (though I would probably give a LIm AND allow the points to be respent.)
Just because there are some real-life bureaucratic hoops to jump through to get a license, doesn't mean the license needs to cost character points.

I'm not saying it shouldn't, just that the one is not a valid argument for the other.

[Hugh Neilson]

Just because there are some real-life bureaucratic hoops to jump through to get a license, doesn't mean the license needs to cost character points.

I'm not saying it shouldn't, just that the one is not a valid argument for the other.

I agree with this. If we're dealing with "how much work it is to accomplish" and "how easy it is to lose", many skills should cost way more than they do at present. Points don't reflect how quick and easy, or arduous and difficult, it is to acquire the ability. They reflect how useful the ability is in-game.

On the ability to lose these, maybe it should be possible to pay an extra +2 for Perks to buy off their inherent "independent" limitation, if we're not going to follow the usual rule that, by default, points cannot be taken away or lost for these abilities. I've lost knowledge (skills) in a lot of areas over years of practicing my profession (and I still have the license). I'm less healthy, so I've probably lost a bit of CON and/or STR during that period. Other perks have come and gone (friends and contacts made, while falling out of touch with others). Why are only some abilities susceptible to the reality that they can be lost, as well as gained?

[SteveZilla]

actually since there are whole departments in various governments as well as reams of law that deal specifically with this issue i would say it is a large enough concern that no you can't just get those perks for free. but they can be taken away (admitedly with some difficulty) (though I would probably give a LIm AND allow the points to be respent.)

Actually, that is a good point -- not all character will not have a Liscense To Practice for the same reason. Never having gained a License To Practice Law is not the same as having had it but then been Disbarred.

The first would be the lack of the Perk, the second would be the lack of the Perk and also having a Social Limitation.

Though I still think that in some games, like Literacy, there is no problem with a character being presumed to have certain Perks without paying for them.

[AnotherSkip]

A certain amount yes. keep in mind to a certain extent those perks are kinda of rare I wouldn't want perks attached to all PS's. An individual character perk is probably fine but i would expect effort to be spent maintaining it.

IIRC In Colorado it is cheaper $ to keep your RN licence than to be a non-practicing RN.


I was just thinking about how to repersent things like professional insurance (IE having malpractice insurance) and how to reasonably reflect that in the game. though it looks like Perk handwavium right now.

Really Skills pricing are not related to game effect.

[AnotherSkip]

Just because there are some real-life bureaucratic hoops to jump through to get a license, doesn't mean the license needs to cost character points.

I'm not saying it shouldn't, just that the one is not a valid argument for the other.

You also need to jump through those hoops to Keep it. Sorta a use it or lose it. those CP's repersent time and effort expended to keep up that perk. if it didn't require anything then yeah it can be free but if it takes effort to maintain then points should be spent on it.

In addition I am wary of handing out 5 pt or (more disads) for a three point (or less) skill or allowng characters to buy skills at -1 cost bacause they "can't legally use the skill" when for most adventurers it won't come up. "nothing for free"
-almost sounds like a Heroism?

[SSgt Baloo]

You also need to jump through those hoops to Keep it. Sorta a use it or lose it. those CP's repersent time and effort expended to keep up that perk. if it didn't require anything then yeah it can be free but if it takes effort to maintain then points should be spent on it.

In addition I am wary of handing out 5 pt or (more disads) for a three point (or less) skill or allowng characters to buy skills at -1 cost bacause they "can't legally use the skill" when for most adventurers it won't come up. "nothing for free"
-almost sounds like a Heroism?

Sounds like somebody's working on Papers and Paychecks Hero. :cool:

[AnotherSkip]

points balancing arguments IIRC are a viable argument about disads vs cost


sure we allready play papers and paychecks hero

[PhilFleischmann]

those CP's repersent time and effort expended to keep up that perk.
NO! CP's represent how *useful* something is in the game. The years spent in med school, or the licenses to practice, or whatever else, is irrelevent to how much something should cost in Character Points in HERO. You pay for utility, not bureaucracy.

As a simple, non-perk example, consider that with a little regular exercise, one might be able to increase one's Running ability by +1". In HERO, this would cost 2 points. For the same 2 points in HERO, you could buy 1" of Flight or Teleportation, which no amount of exercise can get you. Character Points in HERO are not about the difficulty in acquiring the ability.

[Lucius]

Joe the Plumber went to a trade school and then apprenticed to a Master to get PS: Plumber at 11 or less. That's at least a couple years to get a 2 point skill.

Then he became Joseph the Dream Master by donning an ancient garment of great power. That's 200 points of power acquired in the time it takes to find what looks like an old but serviceable jacket at the Goodwill store and try it on.

The points something costs have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of time, trouble, effort, or expense involved in acquiring the ability.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary thinks some things bear repeating: The points something costs have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of time, trouble, effort, or expense involved in acquiring the ability.

[Sketchpad]

Another random idea that may or may not have been covered. How about rules for awarded reputation? Maybe set up a Talent or Perk that could add to Rep, but have it generally be something the GM awards along with XP.

[AnotherSkip]

NO! CP's represent how *useful* something is in the game. The years spent in med school, or the licenses to practice, or whatever else, is irrelevent to how much something should cost in Character Points in HERO. You pay for utility, not bureaucracy.

As a simple, non-perk example, consider that with a little regular exercise, one might be able to increase one's Running ability by +1". In HERO, this would cost 2 points. For the same 2 points in HERO, you could buy 1" of Flight or Teleportation, which no amount of exercise can get you. Character Points in HERO are not about the difficulty in acquiring the ability.

True, to a certain extent. However most characters get far more point for point use out of 2 Cp in their 60 AC EB than several perks. The utility of the perks are far and away different than the utility of said EB. Or even Stats in most cases.


based upon Your argument a Spirit contact should not follow the FH book's rules for having spirit contacts (x3 cost right off the bat, for no explanation).


I'm not really disagreeing.

However IMNSHO many abilities require upkeep to a certain extent. You get rusty, things fall apart etc... those CP repersent a portion of the time you should spend paying attention to things that otherwise would deteriorate. that 30" of flight may becomes less if it never gets used. Fairly common in the source material by the way...

[BobGreenwade]

Another random idea that may or may not have been covered. How about rules for awarded reputation? Maybe set up a Talent or Perk that could add to Rep, but have it generally be something the GM awards along with XP.Though it's possibly not something for the core rulebook, I do think it's an idea worth exploring somewhere, and I know I'm not the only one -- I've seen ideas along these lines since 2nd Edition. Maybe if there's a book of special rules options we can see something in print.

[PhilFleischmann]

Another random idea that may or may not have been covered. How about rules for awarded reputation? Maybe set up a Talent or Perk that could add to Rep, but have it generally be something the GM awards along with XP.
That's pretty much the same as the GM awarding Favors (or other Perks), which is already covered in the book. And it also mentions other possible ideas for GM-assigned XP.


True, to a certain extent. However most characters get far more point for point use out of 2 Cp in their 60 AC EB than several perks. The utility of the perks are far and away different than the utility of said EB. Or even Stats in most cases.
I'm not sure how you measure that. How can you tell if a 2-point Perk has the same utility as 1/30 of a 60-point attack power? In the grand scheme of things, yes, these should be equal, and if they aren't, then one of them has the wrong cost.


based upon Your argument a Spirit contact should not follow the FH book's rules for having spirit contacts (x3 cost right off the bat, for no explanation).
Correct. The undefined benefit for the triple cost spirit Contact is something I [complained about] questioned a long time ago, when I first got FH.

[Lucius]

Correct. The undefined benefit for the triple cost spirit Contact is something I [complained about] questioned a long time ago, when I first got FH.

You and I are in complete agreement on that.

Lucius Alexander

Contact: Palindromedary

[Lucius]

I think the Talents section needs to be expanded and renamed.

The best name I can come up with is "Elements" but perhaps someone can find a better name for what I need.

The reason I want to do this is because the Hero System is, at heart, a SuperHero System.

Now, normally I think of the comic book game origin of Hero System as a good thing - even though I don't read comic books and prefer fantasy to supers. But it's a bad thing in one way, because it makes things complicated.

This is because the basic, default Powers are wide open unlimited and "Super." But to turn those Powers into what you really want - a science fiction device, a fantasy spell, a psychic ability - you often have to add Advantages and even more often have to use many Limitations, making for a complex looking build sometimes to do something that is in essence very simple. The idea of using a complex build for a simple idea is one of the things that turns people off.

This complexity was really brought home to me recently as I was designing a spear. The way to make a long weapon is to use Stretching, but Stretching wasn't designed for spears, it was designed for Mr. Fantastic. I therefore wound up with SIX modifiers on it:

Plus Reach Stretching 1", Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (7 Active Points); OAF (-1), Always Direct (-1/4), Limited "Body Parts" (-1/4), No Velocity Damage (-1/4), Linked (Flaming Spear; Lesser Instant Power can be used in any Phase in which greater Constant Power is in use; -1/4) (Real Cost: 2)

And that's a long way to go to just add +1" to the reach of a weapon.

We already have Talents as a reaction to the same issue, a way to have prefabricated plug and play elements that are both specialized and commonly required. I think "Reach" is a candidate for a Talent-like construct that can be used for weapons. I suspect that there are a lot of other "elements" that can be prefigured and used to put a simpler face on Hero that hopefully won't scare so many people off.

Lucius Alexander

Putting two simple faces on a palindromedary

[quozaxx]

If you keep Access. I would suggest that you break down (with examples) of what a 1 pt, 2 pt, etc. would cover.

[quozaxx]

Would the Advanced Tech (from Star Hero) Perk be added to the overall Perks?

[IndianaJoe3]

Time for my final thoughts on Talents.

Find Weakness: Now a talent.
Naked Advantage on Armor Piercing, any attack up to 60 Active Points. 0 END, RSR (Power: Find Weakness) to activate (-1/4), specified attack only (-2). 45 AP, 14 real points.
Lack of Weakness: -1 to opponent's Find Weakness Roll for 3 points.

(I'm unhappy with this FW build, but I think it adequately states that FW is based on Armor Piercing, and doesn't stack.)

[Steve Long]

Hey folx! It's time for me to start reading all the 6E threads, and that means I need to lock them.

Hopefully 15 months has been plenty of time for anyone who wanted to have a say, to have a say. ;) So please, don't start up other threads to try to continue discussions, send me PMs with points you "just have to make," or anything like that. It's time for y'all to sit back, relax, have a frosty beverage, and let me get 6E written. ;)

We definitely appreciate everyone's interest, participation, and ideas! I'm looking forward to reading the posts and seeing what nuggets of wisdom lurk therein. I have no doubt 6E is going to be even better than it would have been because of our fans' enthusiastic efforts at providing us with input and suggestions. :hex: