Perks And Talents Issues

[Steve Long]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Perks and Talents that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about Perks and Talents that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


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.

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.


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.

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.

[nexus]

Absolute Range Sense could be given some minor mechanical effect.

[Gideon]

The talent I have issue with is Universal Translator.

I think it far to inexpensive for what it does (or can do) in a campaign.

The rest, I like as is. Even light sleep and perfect pitch.

[OzMike]

Random Thought...

I feel that some fringe benefits related to ranking within organisations would be better represented as a form of the Reputation perk from 5th. Or maybe contact. Or something. But at the moment they are quite nebulous and don't really explain how they work. The Reputation mechanic might fix that.

[steamteck]

The talent I have issue with is Universal Translator.

I think it far to inexpensive for what it does (or can do) in a campaign.

The rest, I like as is. Even light sleep and perfect pitch.

depends on the campaign, I find it too expensive for the utility.

[steamteck]

Hi


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.



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.


You must use or design followers differently than me , because the disadvantages make a BIG difference in my games. Not having disadvantages on summon has always made it fairly cost ineffective to me.

You're kidding on lightsleep , right? One of the best talents an adventurer can invest in. perfect pitch is cool but probably only worth one or two points at most. I would prefer to not remove too many options like talents. There are other ways to streamline things

[Comic]

Perfect Pitch is probably perennially the most popular talent in campaigns I've seen. It works well for such a wide variety of concepts, uses and situations, clarifies so many questions, and helps GMs settle issues easily. From justifying Find Weakness with sonic powers to imitating the sentry, to being a famous world class diva, it's very useful and useful across genres.

Lightsleep.. not so much. Outside of Fantasy Hero, I don't know whether GMs are shy of being charged with player abuse by attacking them in their sleep, or if players are confident no GM would do such a dastardly thing. Maybe it's unheroic to sleep, or it's so inexpensive to not need to sleep or to have someone to watch over you that the talent isn't as attractive in comparison. It seems like one of those talents built to give 'normal' people an equivalent to a super power (like Resistance compared to Mental Defense).. Which isn't really a compelling rationale, is it?

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm probably in the minority, but I'd prefer to see Talents presented as "example powers". That's how they are constructed, so that's how it makes sense to use them.

That said, I see no reason any of them should be removed, just presented differently as examples of what you can do with the Power rules.

[eternal_sage]

first (see my Skills posts) but i think all skills that are not rolled and cannot be increased (Rapid Attack, Two Weapon Fighting, Defensive Maneuver, etc) should be made Talents. second, i feel that most, if not all, of the "Genre Talents", i.e. the Talents from the Genre books, should be included in the primary text, because i often find myself including FH talents (like animal speech) into Champions characters, and so forth. And as far as Followers, etc are concerned, i'm all for the annoying "more points than you" price differentiation thing. imho, they should either be not allowed by the text, or GMs should be strongly discouraged from allowing them, and let it go at that.

[Vondy]

I am a talent hound and strongly prefer to construct genre or package specific talents to use for heroic games than to use open-ended powers, which is more appropriate for superheroic games, IMO. The more talents the merrier. On the other hand, talents are essentially a very convenient shorthand for things built with skills or powers. As such, I would present the talents section as an alternative way of expressing the extant powers and skills formats and treat the talents theirin as examples. If you really wanted a super-extensive set of talents, they could be included in THE ULTIMATE TALENT. In terms of "all the rules in one book" (my mantra) this would be consistent because talents are built with existing mechanics (skills and powers). It would be no different than the until super-powers database, but for cook talents. And I would pay blood for that book, esp. if it incl. perks, though an Ultimate Perquisite would probably come in as a strong draw for me as well.

In terms of Perks I would like to see an option for Contact that allows for "this guy has a menagerie of old and colorful acquaintances..." It would use the X3 multiplier and the character would have to pay for the most useful and most well disposed possible contact, but accept that not all contacts will be that good, and sometimes the GM may say no. This allows a laundry list of contacts from adventures past, while giving the GM flexibility enough to throw something in to move the plot along (and make the players life "interesting" on occassion). "You rotten scoundrel, I never thought you'd show your face here again after you...." :D

I would also like to see some money options: activation or skill rolls, possible modifiers or adders, etc.

As for talents, I would like to see a talent for modifying interaction rolls. The default would probably be "good looking," but it might also be defined as other special effects like resistance is, which would impact how it was applied. Mike Hammer was defined as ugly, but still had a way with women because they responded to what amounted to "animal magnetism."

[Edsel]

I printed off all of Steve's original posts in all of the 6th Edition threads and spent hours reading them last night and thinking. It is amazing how little I came up with to respond with though. However the opinions in this post are based only on what Steve has posted in message #1 of this thread, I haven't been influenced by what others have posted subsequently since I haven't read them yet. I will try to keep my comments brief since there is a hellava lot to read in these discussions.

Q: Should Followers, Vehicles, and Bases be costed differently?
I pretty much agree with Steve's reasoning on this issue.


Q: Should we add or remove any Talents?
I see no reason to eliminate any, even if they are obscure they serve as examples for people who are building their own.

[Balok]

While they are in a sense Example Powers, I'd oppose moving them into the Power descriptions because I think that would make them too hard to find for folks whose games use a lot of them. They should probably appear after the Power descriptions, though.

[Chris Goodwin]

I vote for the Ultimate Talent!

[Lizard]

Q: Should we add or remove any Talents?


Aren't pretty much all Talents buildable with the core rules? If so, how do they differ from pre-defined "small" powers? Given that, they properly belong in genre books, apart from a set of "Everygenre" talents which are broadly universal.

[eternal_sage]

i agree, and in fact, in HEROic level games, my players don't even get to look at the Powers section of the book. they tell me what they want, imake them a talent to cover it, and we move on. the only time my players "roll their own" is for supers games, and those are somewhat rare.

[Guzalot]

I've always thought that COM was a useless characteristic. IMO it can best be represented as a perk. 1 pt=attractive, 2=good looking...5=unearthly beauty or something to that effect.

[OzMike]

I've always thought that COM was a useless characteristic. IMO it can best be represented as a perk. 1 pt=attractive, 2=good looking...5=unearthly beauty or something to that effect.

And could be based around the same costing as reputation, with similar effects.

[Lord Liaden]

Regarding Perks, I would like to raise, as an issue for discussion, the fact that HERO System costs are greatly biased toward abilities that are useful in combat versus abilities which are not. For example, for the cost of a 5d6 Energy Blast, a character can have practically unlimited wealth and be the head of state of his own country.

[steamteck]

I've always thought that COM was a useless characteristic. IMO it can best be represented as a perk. 1 pt=attractive, 2=good looking...5=unearthly beauty or something to that effect.


Not useless in my game. we use it extensively. I think it should be expanded upon not dropped.

[Guzalot]

Not useless in my game. we use it extensively. I think it should be expanded upon not dropped.
Was there ever an instance where a character in your campaign was asked to make a COM roll? Or is it more of a roleplaying thing?

[nexus]

Was there ever an instance where a character in your campaign was asked to make a COM roll? Or is it more of a roleplaying thing?

I can't speak for steamteck but I have characters make Com rolls are complimentary to some social skills pretty often.

[Guzalot]

I can't speak for steamteck but I have characters make Com rolls are complimentary to some social skills pretty often.
Makes sense to me. Couldn't a perk accomplish much the same thing? I'm just throwing it out there for discussion and not so much arguing the "right or wrong" of it.

Unlike other characteristics, COM does not have a single skill which is based of it. Not only that, but it doesn't affect a single figured characteristic. INT helps your PER roll, EGO helps your ECV. COM...nada...

[nexus]

Makes sense to me. Couldn't a perk accomplish much the same thing? I'm just throwing it out there for discussion and not so much arguing the "right or wrong" of it.


A perk could accomplish much the same thing but you'd lose the comparative number aspect of a characteristic. Everyone with Beautiful level 1 is the same. There is some value (IMO) in the additional role playing aspects of a 13 vs 15. Not a huge one I concede but one that I and my groups have enjoyed.

I forgot to mention, certain types of Pre attacks.


Unlike other characteristics, COM does not have a single skill which is based of it. Not only that, but it doesn't affect a single figured characteristic. INT helps your PER roll, EGO helps your ECV. COM...nada...

What skills are based on Con or Ego? (Seriously, I might be missing something). And with the talk of decoupling Figured Characteristics, Figured won't be an issue if that comes to pass.

Edit: looking in the core the Characteristics that have Skills based on them are Int, Pre and Dex. Str, Con, Body and Ego don't have any. I think Veil and Cloak in the Ultimate Mentalist were based on Ego. Hoist was Strength or Int and Magic skill can be Based on Ego instead of Int. But those are sort of optional (or more optional than the corebook material) and you could make up skills based on Com if desired.

[Guzalot]

What skills are based on Con or Ego? (Seriously, I might be missing something). And with the talk of decoupling Figured Characteristics, Figured won't be an issue if that comes to pass.

EGO = ECV and willpower rolls to resist/break mental attacks and/or PRE attacks.

CON has a numerical value to see if a character is "stunned' by an attack, hence it must be quantified even if there are no figured characteristics.

COM? Nothing that I can think of.

[steamteck]

Was there ever an instance where a character in your campaign was asked to make a COM roll? Or is it more of a roleplaying thing?


I can speak for Steamteck and I have characters make Com rolls are complimentary to some social skills pretty often.

The perk option doesn't give that relative number I like. I really find it a big hole in GURPS. There can be no most beautiful in the land when all you have is a few layers of perk.

[Guzalot]

There can be no most beautiful in the land when all you have is a few layers of perk.
Point taken

[nexus]

EGO = ECV and willpower rolls to resist/break mental attacks and/or PRE attacks.

CON has a numerical value to see if a character is "stunned' by an attack, hence it must be quantified even if there are no figured characteristics.


I was asking about Skills since that's what was brought up. Obviously the characteristics have a mechanical function.



COM? Nothing that I can think of.

Com can serve as a complimentary roll for Interaction Skills and certain types of Pre attacks thats suggested in the core book. It's GM discretion but because some groups chose not to use it doesn't mean its not a valid use for Com.

[nexus]

I can speak for Steamteck and I have characters make Com rolls are complimentary to some social skills pretty often.

The perk option doesn't give that relative number I like. I really find it a big hole in GURPS. There can be no most beautiful in the land when all you have is a few layers of perk.

That's pretty much how I feel about it too. Unfortunately, I think all this is moot because Steve Long seems pretty set on dumping Com.

[Steve Long]

I think all this is moot

If it were moot, I wouldn't have bothered taking the time to create this forum. I'm perfectly open to good arguments that change my mind. I have yet to see any such argument re: keeping Comeliness, but that doesn't mean changing my mind is impossible.

[BobGreenwade]

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.

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.I'm ambivalent on the issue of whether to count Disadvantages, so I won't really weigh in on this. I can see both sides. But I'm with you on the over-cost issue; it makes characters like the Golden Age Johnny Thunder much easier to build.

On another Perks-related note, I'm of the opinion that Contacts are currently a tad too expensive. I'm not sure if others would agree with me, though, so I'll see whether I'm alone before trying to sell any changes.
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.

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.Last item first: I've long been of the opinion that Absolute Range Sense, Absolute Time Sense, Perfect Pitch, and other Talents should be rolled together into a single Talent called Exact Measure. This could also allow for characters able to tell things like the exact weight of something they're holding, the exact ambient temperature, the exact color of something they're looking at, and so forth.

As for adding any, I'd support Strong-Willed and Deadly Blow, and possibly Animal Friendship, though the current build for Hotshot Pilot would make it impractical for an all-genre book.

[steamteck]

If it were moot, I wouldn't have bothered taking the time to create this forum. I'm perfectly open to good arguments that change my mind. I have yet to see any such argument re: keeping Comeliness, but that doesn't mean changing my mind is impossible.

Glad to hear it but I knew that anyway! I'll keep plugging away though I think I made my case as I see it:D
What'll I do in 6th edition about the most beautiful in the land is a valid question however. I have players who want a character as pretty as Brainiac 5 is smart and would be willing to pay much more for it than current price if need be.. a perk like GURPS just doesn't cut it for them.

[Lord Liaden]

I have my own ways of using Comeliness in-game, but since this is the Perks and Talents thread I think I'll take it over to Characteristics. ;)

[Hugh Neilson]

While they are in a sense Example Powers, I'd oppose moving them into the Power descriptions because I think that would make them too hard to find for folks whose games use a lot of them. They should probably appear after the Power descriptions, though.

Actually, moving all talents and other sample powers to their own section wouldn't hurt. Less to page through when building from scratch.

[JmOz]

I'm ambivalent on the issue of whether to count Disadvantages, so I won't really weigh in on this. I can see both sides. But I'm with you on the over-cost issue; it makes characters like the Golden Age Johnny Thunder much easier to build.


The only reason I see for keeping the over the cost is the Johnny Thunder type characters, if Thunderbolt is a 1250 point character (costing 250 points) and Johhny is a 100 point plus thunderbolt character in a 350 point game there is going to be some balance issues...I actualy would personaly like to see the overcharge be applyed to all of the 5:1 powers instead of seeing them it go away

[Enforcer84]

I am a talent hound and strongly prefer to construct genre or package specific talents to use for heroic games than to use open-ended powers, which is more appropriate for superheroic games, IMO. The more talents the merrier. On the other hand, talents are essentially a very convenient shorthand for things built with skills or powers. As such, I would present the talents section as an alternative way of expressing the extant powers and skills formats and treat the talents theirin as examples. If you really wanted a super-extensive set of talents, they could be included in THE ULTIMATE TALENT. In terms of "all the rules in one book" (my mantra) this would be consistent because talents are built with existing mechanics (skills and powers). It would be no different than the until super-powers database, but for cook talents. And I would pay blood for that book, esp. if it incl. perks, though an Ultimate Perquisite would probably come in as a strong draw for me as well.

In terms of Perks I would like to see an option for Contact that allows for "this guy has a menagerie of old and colorful acquaintances..." It would use the X3 multiplier and the character would have to pay for the most useful and most well disposed possible contact, but accept that not all contacts will be that good, and sometimes the GM may say no. This allows a laundry list of contacts from adventures past, while giving the GM flexibility enough to throw something in to move the plot along (and make the players life "interesting" on occassion). "You rotten scoundrel, I never thought you'd show your face here again after you...." :D

I would also like to see some money options: activation or skill rolls, possible modifiers or adders, etc.

As for talents, I would like to see a talent for modifying interaction rolls. The default would probably be "good looking," but it might also be defined as other special effects like resistance is, which would impact how it was applied. Mike Hammer was defined as ugly, but still had a way with women because they responded to what amounted to "animal magnetism."
So Mike was Low COM high PRE?

I like talents a lot but at the end of the gaming session they are just power builds at a heroic level IMO.

But I'd keep them and go ahead and make more, I love them

I do think there should be something of an overhaul on Perks; contacts and rep make sense, like VDM I'd like to see something done with Money and as also mentioned above I think that some of the Fringe Benefits need to be expanded on.

I've never built a follower more powerful than my hero, so I can't say yay or neigh there.
Vehicles, Followers, Computers and Bases seem fine for me.

Oh and since the alternative to COM is a talent/perk/reputation modifier, I'll sneak in again that I think the stat should stay. It's found use in my campaigns and the variance I'd want for a talent/perk/whatever would be so large as to simply make the change unnessesary. changing it from 2/1 pts to 1/1 point would make sense to me though.

[Lucius]

I can speak for Steamteck and I have characters make Com rolls are complimentary to some social skills pretty often.

The perk option doesn't give that relative number I like. I really find it a big hole in GURPS. There can be no most beautiful in the land when all you have is a few layers of perk.

And this is a problem, how?

I don't see how there really CAN be a "most beautiful in the land." Oh sure, I'm fond of stating as if it were an indisputable fact that Kris Zeimer is the most beautiful woman ever photographed, and that Gillian Anderson is the most beautiful woman ever to star in a TV show, but not everyone agrees with me. (Can you believe I can't even FIND photos of Kris Ziemer online!?! And images of that Brittany Pike person are everywhere...)

But if you have to have one (for purposes of answering the question when someone asks a magic mirror) then I don't see why it can't still be a perk. There can only be one "Head of State" in the kingdom too....

Lucius Alexander

The Palindromedary intones: In the end, there can be only One....

[TheQuestionMan]

I've always thought that COM was a useless characteristic. IMO it can best be represented as a perk. 1 pt=attractive, 2=good looking...5=unearthly beauty or something to that effect.

I second this one.

Good point

QM

[Lucius]

I want to see you rein in the rampant “Perk Inflation.” Lots of perks I don’t see a reason for existing at all. If I may quote from a recent discussion:




What the perk gives you is the ability to avoid entanglements.


I thought you used Desolidification or Teleport to avoid Entanglements?

Okay, more seriously: No, it is not quite the case that “What the perk gives you is the ability to avoid entanglements.”

What the presence of such “Perks” as “license to – (marry, practice law, practice medicine, etc.)” does is create entanglements that would never have existed in previous incarnations of the system – EXCEPT for those characters that logically should have such entanglements due to Disadvantages (Hunted by Police – definitely not a licensed PI) or background (just arrived by Time Machine from the future – your medical license is no good, it wasn’t issued yet!) or actions or events in game (now that your cover is blown and you’re known as the Masked Vigilante, you’ve lost your job at the law firm and they’re going to disbar you.)

In other words: They’re a solution to a problem that only exists because they do.

In other other words: Eliminate these kinds of perks from the game, and you eliminate the problem. They simply don’t have any need to exist.





Conversely, if I've got the Paramedic, Medical Science, and Profession: Physician skills, why would I NOT be a licensed doctor?




If supergenius X walks in the doorway and says, "Step aside, only I have the necessary skills to save this man's life!"...well, who's going to believe the guy if he has no credentials?

Which is not answering the question.

The question was, “if I’ve got Paramedic, Medical Science, and Profession: Physician skills, why would I NOT be a licensed doctor?”

The question you are answering is, “If I’m not a licensed doctor, why can’t I practice medicine?” But that’s not the question I asked.

Or to try to simplify the point:

Having a license to practice a profession (or things like Perk: Right to Marry, etc.) is nothing more or less than the SPECIAL EFFECT of having certain skills and/or background elements.



Your argument seems to be that if the player has not spent points on the Perk, the character therefore does not have a license. This is not the case. By that logic, if I have the freebie 1 pt Transport Familiarity, or even spend points on Driving skill, but don’t spend a point on Driver’s License, I’m an unlicensed driver. If my character does not have Perk: Legally Married, does that mean my character and DNPC are “living in sin?” If I don’t have Perk: BA or BS, MA or MS, or PhD, or at least High School Diploma, does it follow that my character is a dropout? Does my Faithful Dog Follower require another Perk to avoid the entanglement of the dogcatcher’s net?

Lucius Alexander

Yes, my palindromedary has a license valid in all jurisdictions that require licensing for palindromedaries, and no, I did NOT have to pay points for it!

[JmOz]

I can speak for Steamteck and I have characters make Com rolls are complimentary to some social skills pretty often.

The perk option doesn't give that relative number I like. I really find it a big hole in GURPS. There can be no most beautiful in the land when all you have is a few layers of perk.

If we model it after the Rep perk it would allow for infinite levels, it just would have moved from characteristics to Perk

Beutiful +1d6 PRE, +1 to PRE Skills, in appropriate situations

[nexus]

And this is a problem, how?

I don't see how there really CAN be a "most beautiful in the land." Oh sure, I'm fond of stating as if it were an indisputable fact that Kris Zeimer is the most beautiful woman ever photographed, and that Gillian Anderson is the most beautiful woman ever to star in a TV show, but not everyone agrees with me. (Can you believe I can't even FIND photos of Kris Ziemer online!?! And images of that Brittany Pike person are everywhere...)

But if you have to have one (for purposes of answering the question when someone asks a magic mirror) then I don't see why it can't still be a perk. There can only be one "Head of State" in the kingdom too....

Lucius Alexander

The Palindromedary intones: In the end, there can be only One....

Realistically, there is no such thing as the "Most Beautiful in the Land"; ideas and opinions on attractiveness are going to vary. (I think Halle Berry is gorgeous, my friend thinks she has the eyes of a serial killer) But Hero doesn't simulate realism and in many genre there is such a thing as the "Most beautiful/handsome" person in the kingdom, land, world, etc


If we model it after the Rep perk it would allow for infinite levels, it just would have moved from characteristics to Perk

Beautiful +1d6 PRE, +1 to PRE Skills, in appropriate situations

Fair point, it still seems a bit like reinventing the wheel to me (Com as it stands does those things and if you don't want to waste points on it you don't have to) and loses the sense of granularity that comes from having Com as a characteristic but it's better than losing the idea of it entirely since it's apparently a done deal. I won't like it but it's not a major deal breaker for me. I'd want such a perk to be open ended with no "maximum rating " at least.

[BobGreenwade]

Having a license to practice a profession (or things like Perk: Right to Marry, etc.) is nothing more or less than the SPECIAL EFFECT of having certain skills and/or background elements.Not necessarily. Having the needed knowledge and skills to be a doctor does not automatically grant a license to practice medicine, for example.

[Hugh Neilson]

Not necessarily. Having the needed knowledge and skills to be a doctor does not automatically grant a license to practice medicine, for example.

The question, I think, is not whether this is true in real life, but whether it matters in game. What does the license add, in game terms? Is it more valuable than having red hair or being left handed? Both could be written into a game if desired (just as presence or absence of a medical license can) but neither would generally be viewed as anything more than background.

[nexus]

The question, I think, is not whether this is true in real life, but whether it matters in game. What does the license add, in game terms? Is it more valuable than having red hair or being left handed? Both could be written into a game if desired (just as presence or absence of a medical license can) but neither would generally be viewed as anything more than background.

Being a licensed doctor does carry some advantages; it could make some cover story more plausible, get access to certain equipment and facilities for instance. It would be a campaign to campaign thing though and most of the advantages wouldn't be directly mechanical so the pricing should be variable but that goes without saying. In some games most perks would be a sfx in some they could be of critical importance.

[steamteck]

And this is a problem, how?

I don't see how there really CAN be a "most beautiful in the land." Oh sure, I'm fond of stating as if it were an indisputable fact that Kris Zeimer is the most beautiful woman ever photographed, and that Gillian Anderson is the most beautiful woman ever to star in a TV show, but not everyone agrees with me. (Can you believe I can't even FIND photos of Kris Ziemer online!?! And images of that Brittany Pike person are everywhere...)

But if you have to have one (for purposes of answering the question when someone asks a magic mirror) then I don't see why it can't still be a perk. There can only be one "Head of State" in the kingdom too....

Lucius Alexander


The Palindromedary intones: In the end, there can be only One....

In fiction and fairy tales there is definitely the fairest in the land. I also don't see why its OK to make this a perk but we need to know numbers of everything else. In GURPS style you could have stuff like "Strong Will", Impressive, unflappable, Hard to kill "etc in place of other characteristics. I really don't like any of that personally. IMO 6th should make it easier to model things not drop stuff and replace them with less meat.

[steamteck]

The question, I think, is not whether this is true in real life, but whether it matters in game. What does the license add, in game terms? Is it more valuable than having red hair or being left handed? Both could be written into a game if desired (just as presence or absence of a medical license can) but neither would generally be viewed as anything more than background.

I guess it depends on the GM and setting. For me in some of campaigns its meaningful in others not so but having the perk definably adds depth and flexibility.

[steamteck]

If we model it after the Rep perk it would allow for infinite levels, it just would have moved from characteristics to Perk

Beautiful+1d6 PRE, +1 to PRE Skills, in appropriate situations


I don't like that nearly as much but I could live with that. It not a bad compromise. But like Nexus said it seems reinventing the wheel needlessly. Also a little to GURPS for me where things get muddy in the wrong places for me.

[Chris Goodwin]

But if you have to have one (for purposes of answering the question when someone asks a magic mirror) then I don't see why it can't still be a perk. There can only be one "Head of State" in the kingdom too....

Slightly OT: I used to have a Perk: Best in the West. You need to have whatever it is you're Best at in the Best range. Having Best in the West means you literally are the best. So, someone with, say, 26 COM and Best in the West could literally be the most beautiful in the land.

[MicroMike]

Absolute Range Sense and Bump of Direction: Can we combine these into one talent?

Double Jointed: Trash. Buy up Contortionist and Breakfall rolls.

Lightsleep: Trash. For the same cost, I can buy LS: Diminished Sleep: No need to sleep at all.

Resistance: Trash. Buy Skill Levels with EGO.

My .02

[Polaris]

Regarding Perks, I would like to raise, as an issue for discussion, the fact that HERO System costs are greatly biased toward abilities that are useful in combat versus abilities which are not. For example, for the cost of a 5d6 Energy Blast, a character can have practically unlimited wealth and be the head of state of his own country.

I was reading thru the thread with the intent to offer my own suggestion regarding the costing of various perks... in particular 'Wealth'.

I think that two perks in particular (Head of State and Unlimited Wealth) should cost more points. I realize that wealth does not impact combat directly, but when you have the ability to hire henchmen, arm them with some exceptional equipment, buy information on the streets at a price that few criminals would refuse, etc... it can be a very impacting perk.

As an alternative idea, perhaps wealth could be done with $1,000 per week being worth something like 3 points, then each additional 3 points doubles the income? This would mean that 30 points the person would have 512,000 per week... okay, perhaps the points should be adjusted. The basic idea tho is that there is no such thing as 'unlimited wealth'.

The obvious disadvantage to this alternative is that it could cause some to get knee deep in bookeeping (keeping track of their weekly money amount).

I do believe, however, that the cost of some of the perks (extreme wealth, head of state, diplomatic immunity should be increased).

Respectfully,
William

[nexus]

If it were moot, I wouldn't have bothered taking the time to create this forum. I'm perfectly open to good arguments that change my mind. I have yet to see any such argument re: keeping Comeliness, but that doesn't mean changing my mind is impossible.

I think that particular topic is essentially moot. As far I can see every argument that can be made about has been made, the majority opinion seems to be to remove it, etc so I feel it's beating a dead horse. This forum is for more than discussion of removing Com. I'm not saying your unwilling to change your mind on any subject otherwise I would not be here but that one seems like a done deal. There is a point when discussion/debating starts to seems like beating a dead horse and its best to leave it lay. If someone else convinces you, that'll be great.

[ajackson]

For certain classes of perk, such as wealth or political perks, the cost should really depend on what it gets you -- i.e. rather than wealth itself costing a lot, you'd just say "Wealth: gives a bonus to certain types of skills, such as Bribery. Is also suitable as a special effect for other bonuses, such as paid followers, a base, etc". A lot of Perks can really be implemented as limited levels with Presence-based skills.

[moquif]

About Followers 3 things:
I'd allow disadvantages as long as they actually inhibit their usefulness. Even if it doesn't happen often, it should be allowed. For example "Loyal to PC" would be worth 0 points but "Harmful secret: working for enemy" or "reports PC's actions to superiors" should be worth something. Likewise if the follower never enters combat, "Psych Lim: Coward" would not be worth as much as if the follower was a squire, sword bearer, combat medic, or otherwise was expected to face danger just like everyone else.

Followers would not gain XP, instead the PC would be allowed to spend his own XP to increase the points of the follower.

Add a fourth item for Artifical Constructs. Calling something like a computer a follower and have it gain XP doesn't make sense especially when artifical constructs can be upgraded so easily. The term "experience points" implies having the ability to learn. That's why Monsters, Robots, and the like have Bonus instead of XP.


For Talents, I always considered talents to be 1) a way for Heroic level characters to have powers and 2) cover abilities that don't really fit under the rules. It's much like how they're being treated now. I would include the list of those that don't really fit under the existing rules and note some of the more common "powers as talents". Then I would encourage players to come up with their Talents own with a limit of say 20 active points and have the GM approval. It would keep the pages down in the core rule book (which would be big enough) and give the genre rule books something to have.

BESM has an "attribute" called Features which covers all those little things that correspond to different talents and racial abilities that in Hero are bought as powers. Homing Instinct would be bought as a variant of Bump of Direction but instead of knowing which way north is, you know which way a particular location is.

[Enforcer84]

And this is a problem, how?

I don't see how there really CAN be a "most beautiful in the land." Oh sure, I'm fond of stating as if it were an indisputable fact that Kris Zeimer is the most beautiful woman ever photographed, and that Gillian Anderson is the most beautiful woman ever to star in a TV show, but not everyone agrees with me. (Can you believe I can't even FIND photos of Kris Ziemer online!?! And images of that Brittany Pike person are everywhere...)

But if you have to have one (for purposes of answering the question when someone asks a magic mirror) then I don't see why it can't still be a perk. There can only be one "Head of State" in the kingdom too....

Lucius Alexander

The Palindromedary intones: In the end, there can be only One....
It's a problem in that we would like that level of "granularity" with the physical appearance. To some players/GM/HEROphiles, COM is cool.

[dstarfire]

I love talents, and I'd like to see more of them. They're a great way to add flavor and beneficial quirks.

I'd like to see the 'contacts' perk expanded/modified to better handle mastermind type characters (the ones that know 100 different, unrelated people in 100 different fields)

[Enforcer84]

If we model it after the Rep perk it would allow for infinite levels, it just would have moved from characteristics to Perk

Beutiful +1d6 PRE, +1 to PRE Skills, in appropriate situations
But why? We already have COM and it's nice.

[nexus]

But why? We already have COM and it's nice.

Its also pretty harmless. If you don't want to use it, tell your players don't put points into it and even the GM doesn't no one has too. If you want to do it as Limited Pre, Skill Levels, Reputation or some thing else they tools are there to implement those variation already. Com does have a mechanical function. It's in the books but allot of groups chose not to use it which is cool but I've found many enjoy it. For "useless" stat, I've rarely played with people that didn't put points into it. All dumping it seems to accomplish is depriving the people that like it of the option to use it. Yes, they can reinsert it but that's generally at least slightly more complicated than just not putting points into it/scratching of off the character sheet.

It's not like Exalted's Appearance attribute which has relatively few mechanical functions but gimps your majorly in social actions if its too low.

[steamteck]

My wife and I just played tonight and she made multiple COM rolls in several different scenes. One smoothing things out with the Police inspector. Making the NPC strong jawed hero feel protective of her character. Etc. I double cost every 5 points over 20 and cost COM 1 ans she still has thought it worth it to buy it up to 27.

[Balabanto]

I think that the cost for Followers and Bases should remain the same, with the following caveats.

A vehicle is not a substitute for the player character. The way Vehicles are designed needs to change to reflect the fact that no matter how powerful a PC is, his vehicle provides him with effectively limitless defense. Bases don't suffer from this, because a base is immobile and I can kidnap base DNPC's just as easily as I can kidnap those that belong directly to the hero.

[sbarron]

Its also pretty harmless. If you don't want to use it, tell your players don't put points into it and even the GM doesn't no one has too. ... All dumping it seems to accomplish is depriving the people that like it of the option to use it. Yes, they can reinsert it but that's generally at least slightly more complicated than just not putting points into it/scratching of off the character sheet. Dumping it would also go a long way toward removing some of the gripes about HERO from the non-HERO-gamers. "Too many stats" is the easy one. "Stats that don't do anything" is another.

HERO's many stats are a clear connection to HERO's gaming roots. And for many of us here, thats a good thing. But trying to get new gamers in means changing with the times, and that means fewer stats. COM is disposible. Every example of its in game use except one (prettiest in the land) involved COM being used as a supplement to Presence. Removing COM as a CHAR and turning it into a bonus (or reduction) to PRE based skills makes perfect sense.

[sbarron]

Lightsleep

Lightsleep could easily be purchased as a bonus to PER...

Lightsleeper: +3 to PER with all Sense Groups, only while asleep (-1), Real Cost: 4.

[Chris Goodwin]

Dumping it would also go a long way toward removing some of the gripes about HERO from the non-HERO-gamers. "Too many stats" is the easy one. "Stats that don't do anything" is another.

HERO's many stats are a clear connection to HERO's gaming roots. And for many of us here, thats a good thing. But trying to get new gamers in means changing with the times, and that means fewer stats. COM is disposible. Every example of its in game use except one (prettiest in the land) involved COM being used as a supplement to Presence. Removing COM as a CHAR and turning it into a bonus (or reduction) to PRE based skills makes perfect sense.

Good points.

However, when we start translating characters from 5e to 6e, we're going to run into an issue of translating COM. Do we do it straight across for all characters? Are we going to see a translation note of X COM = +Y bonus? For instance, every 5 COM in the old system means you buy +1 to PRE skills (where looks are an issue) in the new system.....

If we're going to do that, why not just grant the bonus to COM directly? Change the cost of COM to fit, if necessary... but I think that deciding that good looking characters get bonuses, then dropping the stat that tells you how good looking they are and having them buy the bonuses, is a tad more complicated than keeping the stat and having it grant the bonuses.

It would be like: if Figured Characteristics are decoupled, as it looks like they will be, dropping the Strength Characteristic entirely and just buying lift and HTH damage, because without Figured CHA and Leaping, that's all STR provides. Yet we could, and it wouldn't be a major change to the system, but we'd be losing a stat that we have a lot of attachment to.

[sbarron]

However, when we start translating characters from 5e to 6e, we're going to run into an issue of translating COM. Do we do it straight across for all characters? Are we going to see a translation note of X COM = +Y bonus? For instance, every 5 COM in the old system means you buy +1 to PRE skills (where looks are an issue) in the new system.....I'd just have a perk or talent called "Good Looking." Characters with this perk get bonuses, when appropriate, to their PRE based skills. Cost it out at about 2 pts per +1, figuring that +1 to PRE skills is 5 points, and it only applies to the opposite sex and when its appropriate (-1).

As far as translation, yes, I think maybe I'd go every 5 points above 10 COM gets you a +1 level in the "Good Looking" Perk. So, 20 COM would be "Good Looking" +2 to appropriate PRE skills. Since 20 com only costs 5 points anyway, getting a +2 to your skill role (assuming the -1 limit), fits nicely.

The truth is, I'm not that worried about translating 5th Ed. characters to 6th Ed. I think we're in agreement on a good method for that that makes sense. I'm much more interested in how new players coming to the game approach characteristics and make their characters. And for that, if they want their character to be good looking, then they should buy the "Good Looking" perk.

The fact that the good looking perk is doing the same thing as COM did just shows how balanced the system is. This change is mostly just about presentation. COM doesn't do anything other than modify PRE skills. So making it perk or talent that does that makes sense, and it saves a characteristic slot for everyone.

[Victim]

Good points.

However, when we start translating characters from 5e to 6e, we're going to run into an issue of translating COM. Do we do it straight across for all characters? Are we going to see a translation note of X COM = +Y bonus? For instance, every 5 COM in the old system means you buy +1 to PRE skills (where looks are an issue) in the new system.....


Why is a formal, exact conversion mechanic needed or even desireable?

[Netzilla]

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

I'm not sure how I feel about Disadvantages being “free” when it comes to these things (I'm not a fan of it for Summoning). I see the point about how it's not as limiting to the Character in question, but I think that's just as much an issue of the GM letting things slide as a GM letting a character have an over-powered follower. Perhaps the ruling should rather be that the Disadvantage does not count unless it directly impacts the PC in some way. For example, having an experimental car that the Big Evil Corporation wants to get back effectively becomes a Hunted for the PC as much as for the car itself.


Q: Should we add or remove any Talents?

It seems to me that Super Skills and Talents aren't that much different. Especially when compared with things like Combat Luck & Deadly Blow. So, I think the existing Super Skills should be re-defined as Talents just to reduce the number of categories of different things we've got.

Perhaps what we need is The Ultimate Talent book, to collect all of the talents created for the various Genre/Ultimate/Resource books that have been done for 5th edition. It would be nice to have the collection all in one place but I fear the list would get a bit too large for the core rules (especially if you include Super Skills).

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd just have a perk or talent called "Good Looking." Characters with this perk get bonuses, when appropriate, to their PRE based skills. Cost it out at about 2 pts per +1, figuring that +1 to PRE skills is 5 points, and it only applies to the opposite sex and when its appropriate (-1).

As far as translation, yes, I think maybe I'd go every 5 points above 10 COM gets you a +1 level in the "Good Looking" Perk. So, 20 COM would be "Good Looking" +2 to appropriate PRE skills. Since 20 com only costs 5 points anyway, getting a +2 to your skill role (assuming the -1 limit), fits nicely.

The truth is, I'm not that worried about translating 5th Ed. characters to 6th Ed. I think we're in agreement on a good method for that that makes sense. I'm much more interested in how new players coming to the game approach characteristics and make their characters. And for that, if they want their character to be good looking, then they should buy the "Good Looking" perk.

The fact that the good looking perk is doing the same thing as COM did just shows how balanced the system is. This change is mostly just about presentation. COM doesn't do anything other than modify PRE skills. So making it perk or talent that does that makes sense, and it saves a characteristic slot for everyone.


Why is a formal, exact conversion mechanic needed or even desireable?

Ok, maybe translation isn't important, but I was using that as a springboard for where I was going.

Why delete one stat and add a perk to replace it when we could just add utility to the stat?

[sbarron]

Why delete one stat and add a perk to replace it when we could just add utility to the stat?Ok, what utility to you plan to add to COM?

D&D did a good job giving CHA a purpose in their spellcasting (other than the original purpose of keeping people from playing paladins.) I don't really see how HERO could use that idea to build into the base system, but it might work as a house rule.

Personally, I'd just like to see the number of characteristics reduced to simplify the presentation of the game, and COM seems like an easy target. But if you can find someway to make the COM meaningful to something other than as a part time modifier to PRE and to see "who'z purtiest," I'd love to talk about it.

[Opal]

Why is a formal, exact conversion mechanic needed or even desireable?If nothing else, it's a courtesy to all the players who have invested time and effort into the existing system.

[Chris Goodwin]

Ok, what utility to you plan to add to COM?

The utility that everyone is trying to add through Perks.

Obviously there's some value to be better looking. The proposals I've seen for doing it with Perks all assume something linear; every level in Good Looking gives +1 to PRE-based Skills and interactions where appropriate. So, why not every +5 COM above 10 gives +1 to PRE-based Skills and interactions where appropriate?

[SSgt Baloo]

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.

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.

I've always ruled that points could only be spent on a follower to bring his base cost up to the character's base cost plus earned experience. After that, he either had to pay points one-for-one to increase his follower's points or use disadvantages to increase above that level. No follower could be built beyond the limits that applied to the character at the time the follower was purchased. Frex: a character built on 200 points plus 100 points of disadvantages with 16 experience points could not have a follower built on more than 216 points plus 100 points of disadvantages. If the campaign started at 200+100 and the PC opted for fewer disads, the follower would be limited to the PCs lower values. Followers earned experience points equal to half what the PC earned. Points spent to double the amount of followers reduced the followers' allowable maximum point base on a one-for-one basis.

Example: Fred Flintstone wants to buy his best buddy Barney Rubble. Fred is based on 25 points with 25 points of disadvantages. Barney costs 5 points plus any more points he has than fred is built on. Barney is still limited to 50 points total. Followers' point totals should rarely, if ever, be more than the main character. If you want a follower whose worth more points than his leader, there's nothing in the rules that says the main character can't be the follower and pay points for his leader (my preferred build for more-powerful-than-my-leader followers.) Maybe the Giant Robot paid points for Johnny Socko?


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.

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.

I think all the talents should be evaluated for utility and cost-effectiveness. Some talents, such as Perfect Pitch or Lightning Calculator, need to be explained so those of us who didn't get the memo (or haven't got a clue :o) will know how to use it in a campaign.


The talent I have issue with is Universal Translator.

I think it far to inexpensive for what it does (or can do) in a campaign.

The rest, I like as is. Even light sleep and perfect pitch.

I, for one, think it's annoying that your character has to roll versus his skill in the talent to carry on a conversation. In some genres this is too clunky. There needs to be the option of making it function for all languages the character is capable of communicating in, without a skill roll.


I've always thought that COM was a useless characteristic. IMO it can best be represented as a perk. 1 pt=attractive, 2=good looking...5=unearthly beauty or something to that effect.

If COM was eliminated, I'd be all for this. I'd still rather some thought were put into making COM worth its points.


Or to try to simplify the point:

Having a license to practice a profession (or things like Perk: Right to Marry, etc.) is nothing more or less than the SPECIAL EFFECT of having certain skills and/or background elements.

I also postulate that having the appropriate skills but no license is better represented by a social limitation.

And to perpetuate the Comeliness hijack:
I'm strongly in favor of increasing COM to a 1/1 point cost and making it directly add to PRE when sex-appeal is a factor, half it's value could be added to PRE if the potential "victim" is immune to sexual charms (most children, some aliens), and of no value when dealing with creatures with a completely different sense of aesthetics than humans have.

Examples: A member of the opposite sex (or a homosexual of your sex) might find you more intriguing than someone who isn't attracted to your sex. Small children are especially likely to react positively to "good-looking" people, and more likely to be suspicious/fearful of less-attractive folks. Your dog thinks you're wonderful even if you don't look/smell/sound like a pretty dog. The alligator, on the other hand, thinks you look kind of tasty. :eg:
[/hijack]

[nexus]

I'd just have a perk or talent called "Good Looking." Characters with this perk get bonuses, when appropriate, to their PRE based skills. Cost it out at about 2 pts per +1, figuring that +1 to PRE skills is 5 points, and it only applies to the opposite sex and when its appropriate (-1).


If we're going to be PC it should be "Appropriate sexual orientation" and I think -1 for appropriate situation might be a little high.

Edit: Actually, the benefits of appearance aren't just sexual in nature and can cross gender lines. Some studies have shown people tend to react better to physically attractive individuals than plain or, well, ugly people particularly of those people are also charismatic. So perhaps the Limitation should be Situational -(whatever the GM feels is appropriate).

[nexus]

What about Absolute Range sense? That Talent always seemed like a kind of turkey for our group. It doesn't really "do" much of anything. It seems like more of a special effect for Range PSLs

Double Jointed is neat conceptually but it really just a special effect of buying up your Contortionist Skill

To borrow from GURPS maybe Eidetic Memory should have tiers with Perfect Recall being at the top and giving a small bonus to Skills in situations where having a perfect recollection would help.

Ambidexterity: I feel this is costed too high at 9 points for Full Ambidexterity. It's cheaper to be PSLs or CSL to off set the difference and in games without hit locations (and Impairing wounds) it doesn't seem to come up enough to warrant 9 points (IMO)

[steamteck]

How I use some talents myself.

I have one character with eidetic memory and lightning calculator make hyperspace calculations in her head. Coupled with speed reading I decrease her computer hacking time accordingly also.

Absolute range sense is used for range finders. Not much use unless you want To figure out how the range is for your artillery or such. Doesn't come up much but I make it a standard on most sets of powered armor. Still mostly flavor.

Absolute time sense is rarely useful except for the infamous countdown scene. Standard powered armor thing as is bump of direction which I use very frequently.

environment movement gets all sorts of cool creative uses. fighting on ice, drunk, high heels ,on a tight rope. you name it. really like that one.

lightsleep is the wary adventurer's friend. Allows me too have the attacked in bed scene with party getting clobbered.

I get resistance but its not used much by me.

I use perfect pitch to make great singers or as a little perk for sonic powers. Mostly flavor but adds depth to characters

I use universal translator but I don't worry about languages much so mainly only if it is conceptual to have it.

I think most talents have to use if nothing else to make a character a little unique so the spread now is pretty good . I see really no big advantage to cutting myself but that's just me. Don't narrow my options seems a reasonable thought.

[Lucius]

Not necessarily. Having the needed knowledge and skills to be a doctor does not automatically grant a license to practice medicine, for example.

Having a Transport Familiarity does not necessarily grant a Driver’s License. Should I have to spend a point on that, too? If you do it for some, why not for all? If people have powers derived from being mutants or aliens, why not require an “exotic background” perk that costs points? After all, it could become very important in the game that someone is a mutant or an alien or a member of the legendary Eskimo Ninja!

If you have the skills, and are NOT licensed, the way to reflect that is with appropriate disadvantages. “Disbarred” or “Defrocked” or “License Revoked” or “Watched by Law Enforcement/AMA/Whatever.”

Remember, there was a time when Hero Syste HAD no “Perks.” People still played doctors and lawyers and Indian chiefs just fine without “license to practice” and “tribal rank.”

Things like Vehicles and Bases and Followers added something to the game that was impossible or awkward before (Batmobile? Would that be, uh, Running and Armor with a focus? Robin? Let’s do that as DNPC…?) Things like “Perk: Right to Marry” or “License to practice a profession” add nothing to the game except to eat up points of characters who should logically have such things.


For certain classes of perk, such as wealth or political perks, the cost should really depend on what it gets you -- i.e. rather than wealth itself costing a lot, you'd just say "Wealth: gives a bonus to certain types of skills, such as Bribery. Is also suitable as a special effect for other bonuses, such as paid followers, a base, etc". A lot of Perks can really be implemented as limited levels with Presence-based skills.

EXACTLY! That’s my point – many perks are nothing really but “special effects” of something else. Want Unlimited Wealth? Buy a big Base with distributed location (homes all over the world) and a big gadget pool (anything you can buy) and a variable Summon heavily limited (anyone you can hire to do something, up to and including mercenaries.) There you HAVE Unlimited Wealth in game terms. Oh, and a big bonus to social skills with a limit “only when being wealthy helps.”

You shouldn’t have to pay X points for “Mutant” before buying powers as “Mutant abilities.” Nor should you be able to pay X points for “Mutant” and then sprout all kinds of powers for free as “Mutant Abilities.” In short, paying points just for being a “Mutant” doesn’t make sense – and neither do a lot of Perks.


I'm not sure how I feel about Disadvantages being “free” when it comes to these things (I'm not a fan of it for Summoning). I see the point about how it's not as limiting to the Character in question, but I think that's just as much an issue of the GM letting things slide as a GM letting a character have an over-powered follower. Perhaps the ruling should rather be that the Disadvantage does not count unless it directly impacts the PC in some way. For example, having an experimental car that the Big Evil Corporation wants to get back effectively becomes a Hunted for the PC as much as for the car itself.

I agree. I think there should be an explicit rule that, since the player character is paying the points for the follower/base/vehicle/whatever, the value of the Disads should be judged based on how they impact the player character.
For example, perhaps “Slavishly loyal” should be the default, and “I Have a Mind of My own” should be a common Disadvantage, and “I Resent You and Only Serve Under Duress” should be a BIG Disadvantage.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary is a very Special Effect of being Lucius Alexander.

[Opal]

You shouldn’t have to pay X points for “Mutant” before buying powers as “Mutant abilities.” Nor should you be able to pay X points for “Mutant” and then sprout all kinds of powers for free as “Mutant Abilities.” I guess I have to agree. IMC, "Registers on Mutant Detectors" is a distinctive feature, and you get points for it. That establishes you as a mutant.

[Victim]

If nothing else, it's a courtesy to all the players who have invested time and effort into the existing system.

I also think it over constrains the creation of the new rules system by greatly limiting the scope for change. As long as the system is sufficiently flexible (and this is HERO), then rebuilding pre-existing characters by implementing their concept and spirit with the new mechanics will be feasible.

[nexus]

I also think it over constrains the creation of the new rules system by greatly limiting the scope for change. As long as the system is sufficiently flexible (and this is HERO), then rebuilding pre-existing characters by implementing their concept and spirit with the new mechanics will be feasible.

If possibly difficult and time consuming which could reduce interest in making the switch.

[GamePhil]

If possibly difficult and time consuming which could reduce interest in making the switch.

Well, it shouldn't be particularly difficult: just take the points and put them into whatever the new rule is.

In any event, the problem that I have with Comeliness as it stands is not that it doesn't have a mechanical effect, which could certainly be added, it's that there is no effect that can be consistently and logically applied with it. I have seen no suggestions so far that have changed my mind on it, and if a Characteristic only applies some of the time it is not a Characteristic.

Good looks are simply too much a matter of personal taste. If you have that "special something" that appeals to everyone, that can already be defined by PRE. Anything else looks to me like either limited PRE, a Rep, or possibly a new Talent.

[ajackson]

The logical mechanical effect for Pretty is essentially '+1 level with friendly interaction skills, when dealing with people who can see you and would appreciate your looks'. The cost should be variable depending on how large a group is affected, and is probably 3 for 'humans', 4 for 'everyone'; the probable skill list is acting (only to fake moods/emotions), bribery, bureaucratics, conversation, high society, oratory, persuasion, seduction, streetwise, and trading; it would not normally apply to animal handling or interrogation.

[nexus]

Well, it shouldn't be particularly difficult: just take the points and put them into whatever the new rule is.


If the system changes a great deal then the player/GM essentially have to build the character again from the ground up again then (IMO) it will be difficult and time consuming to convert characters so some guidelines on how to enact a conversion would be a nice courtesy and possibly help encourage people to make the switch, particularly GMs who will have a large number of characters to convert. It does not have to be lengthy one or two pages would probably be more than adequate. It's great to court new players but don't handwave off your old fanbase too much and the issue of conversion has been brought up as a reason some people think they won't be moving on to 6ed.

[sbarron]

So perhaps the Limitation should be Situational -(whatever the GM feels is appropriate).I can live with that. Though I'd still make it a -1 limit.

[nexus]

I can live with that. Though I'd still make it a -1 limit.

I think a sliding scale would allow better modeling for different effects. If your character's appeal isn't sexual/traditional "beauty", for instance they're just darn cute, scary looking or even pitiable.

[steamteck]

I also think it over constrains the creation of the new rules system by greatly limiting the scope for change. As long as the system is sufficiently flexible (and this is HERO), then rebuilding pre-existing characters by implementing their concept and spirit with the new mechanics will be feasible.

If the system is different enough that the concepts don't work as well or majorly differently t would be a pain to convert. Many of the proposals supposedly to "increase flexibility" especially changing stats to perks ( leave my COM alone) dropping perks combining things that shouldn't be combined will really make it hard if implemented. That's part of the game of making a new ruleset though. What has to happen is something or things have to goo "wow " enough to overcome the "OH crap" I'm still waiting but it might be there before we're done. Taking stuff away seems a really weird way to improve "the ultimate gamers toolkit'




I don't see why ANY characteristic has to go to streamline. I have a 1981 copy here of champions that's 56 pages with all the same characteristics. I think there are plenty of other places to trim fat than characteristics a significant number of us hold dear.

[McCoy]

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.

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.
I can't think of a pulp character worth his trenchcoat that didn't have Perfect Pitch.

If we are approching Talents as "example flavor powers," can this be the place to bring back Instant Change and Regeneration?

[Vondy]

Taking stuff away seems a really weird way to improve "the ultimate gamers toolkit'


While I am actively discussing some radical paradigm changes with people who propose them, I'm not necessarily in favor of a lot of them. I do think some of the "weak value stats" need to be presented in such a way that they have more perceived utility than current (your examples of using com rolls are a good way to demonstrate that stat can be worthwhile - though if used that way I'd want it to be 1:1 costwise). While I do think some streamlining needs to happen, what I really want to see is less verbosity (or, at least, more focused verbosity) and more options for using the system.

I want to be able to choose how skills are puchased (as we do with background skills at present), I want to choose which lifitng scale to use for strength (which allows me to adjust granularity without changing any mechanics)... my list could continue ad infinitum. Basically, I want the system to leverage the toolkit and flexibility approach as opposed to the universal one scale to rule them all approach. I want options. And it can do that without massive changes to the essential mechanics.

The system could be tidied up as there are some weird legacy mechanics (i.e., counting body for grabs instead of doing an opposed strength contest with mods and maneuvers and their ilk), and evaluating some long term cost imbalances and at least noting them (i.e., I've traditionally found bricks and martial artists get some huge savings, which is great for some games, but can create problems in others).

Etc.

[Markdoc]

Regarding Perks, I would like to raise, as an issue for discussion, the fact that HERO System costs are greatly biased toward abilities that are useful in combat versus abilities which are not. For example, for the cost of a 5d6 Energy Blast, a character can have practically unlimited wealth and be the head of state of his own country.

Right. But in game terms, what exactly does limitless wealth and being head of a country mean? It means you've got a lot of cool toys (most, if not all, of which are overshadowed by other people's natural abilities) and are probably going to be too busy to go adventuring. It'd be cool in a real-life setting, but game-wise it means relatively little. We've had games where PCs ended up in positions of power and wealth (or bought them from the get-go) and really, it was mostly nice background fluff, which was occasionally advantageous.

I can see it would be more useful if you were playing in a setting where social status was a real issue, but that's relatively rare: better to recost in-game, in that case than extend that unusual case to all games, IMO.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Not useless in my game. we use it extensively. I think it should be expanded upon not dropped.

Agreed


Was there ever an instance where a character in your campaign was asked to make a COM roll? Or is it more of a roleplaying thing?

Nope, COM rolls come up. Not especially frequently, but they do come up. It has a roleplaying effect as well, of course. I've even had "COM attacks" which function analogously to PRE attacks.

Given the demand for more "social interaction" rules, I'd think augmenting COM instead of getting rid of it, would be a no-brainer

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

If it were moot, I wouldn't have bothered taking the time to create this forum. I'm perfectly open to good arguments that change my mind. I have yet to see any such argument re: keeping Comeliness, but that doesn't mean changing my mind is impossible.

Well, the arguments are:
1. Continuity. Yes, the weakest argument of the lot, but not entirely useless.

2. Utility - as noted by multiple posters, a numerical number is more useful for GMs who use COM, than a small number of perk levels. It also seems odd that a physical attribute would be a Perk. What's next - dumping all CHA for a Perk? (Strong, Very strong, Unearthly strong, Cosmically strong....) Really, if I wanted to play Marvel Superheroes, I could have done so.

I agree COM should be used more than it is, but GMs who don't want to use it will ignore the perk as much as they ignore the stat. Why stiff the GMs and gamers who do use it, in favour of .... well nothing, really. I can't think of a single argument in favour of a perk that couldn't be better addressed by augmenting the existing optional rules of using it to replace PRE in some situations.

And perhaps significantly, no argument in favour of a Perk has been advanced so far on this thread - merely that "COM doesn't do much"

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

If we model it after the Rep perk it would allow for infinite levels, it just would have moved from characteristics to Perk

Beutiful +1d6 PRE, +1 to PRE Skills, in appropriate situations

Right, but as is being pointed out continuously, taking simple things away and then saying - you can add it back in with a bit more difficulty - is not streamlining. That's what was done with Regen, remember "It's a sort of healing so lets kludge it up with Healing, which is sort of Aid, even though it doesn't really act the same...." And how many people were happy with the result?

What you suggest - +1d6 PRE, +1 to PRE Skills, in appropriate situations - is pretty much what most GMs who use it do with COM now. So why not simply state that, and leave it where it is? You'd save space in the rulebook to boot.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Lightsleep

Lightsleep could easily be purchased as a bonus to PER...

Lightsleeper: +3 to PER with all Sense Groups, only while asleep (-1), Real Cost: 4.

So you'd sense things better asleep than awake?:nonp:

I can see all the other adventurers urging their rogue to take a nap and check the door while he's at it :D

cheers, Mark

"We're lost! Bury the dwarf....." :D

[Markdoc]

I do think some of the "weak value stats" need to be presented in such a way that they have more perceived utility than current (your examples of using com rolls are a good way to demonstrate that stat can be worthwhile - though if used that way I'd want it to be 1:1 costwise).

If its effect is highly dependent on context, I submit it should be less costly than PRE. ....

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

If its effect is highly dependent on context, I submit it should be less costly than PRE. ....

cheers, Mark

Yes, but you're talking to someone who would cost all primary characteristics at 2:1, change OCV-DCV to DEX/5, and cost COM at 1:1.

[Opal]

I have yet to see any such argument re: keeping Comeliness, but that doesn't mean changing my mind is impossible.I think the test for Characteristic or something else should be something along these lines:

If it is something that /all/ Characters possess, and it is something that varies substantially and smoothly in a sort of bell-curve way among the population, it's a Characteristic.

Intelligence, for isntance, people may argue about what it really is, but, clearly, some people are a little smarter than others, and a few much smarter. Comliness is much the same: most people are average, some are pretty or handsome or ugly and, among those who are above average apearance, there is still a range. It's pretty subjective, much as the true meaning of 'intelligence' can be hard to pin down, but it certainly seems more like a characteristic.

A perk would also be reasonable, if you conform to a specific cultural or time-period standard of beauty that one either has or doesn't.

[Markdoc]

Yes, but you're talking to someone who would cost all primary characteristics at 2:1, change OCV-DCV to DEX/5, and cost COM at 1:1.


Hmmm. I'd go for that, actually. It seems pretty well-balanced. I assume you then retain figureds?

Cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Hmmm. I'd go for that, actually. It seems pretty well-balanced. I assume you then retain figureds?

Cheers, Mark

Yes. I might opt out of endurance for a lot of games, but I'd keep them all. The question is: would they continue to be figured, or would they all become primary characteristics. I'm inclined to leave them as is, but could see it both ways.

[casualplayer]

Yes, but you're talking to someone who would cost all primary characteristics at 2:1, change OCV-DCV to DEX/5, and cost COM at 1:1.

That's crazy talk, my kind of crazy. :thumbup:

The only Perks, IMO, that are worth any character points are Follower and Vehicle. Every other Perk is "building spoons" in HERO, character features that don't warrant cps. The liabilities of being a Head of State more or less equal out the benefits, as do the rest of the suspicious Perks. Reputation is just limited PRE.

[sbarron]

If its effect is highly dependent on context, I submit it should be less costly than PRE. ....cheers, MarkMaybe COM shouldn't be a characteristic because it is so highly dependent on context.

Is that true of any other characteristic? STR, DEX, CON, INT and EGO all seem to apply pretty much across the board, don't they? Even if someones in a culture they don't understand, if they have a high INT, they'll figure it out quicker than normal. But if a character is in a culture in which dark skin tones = more attractive, and they have very light skin, their 18 COM isn't going to be worth anything. Heck, being pale might even make them "ugly." And this doesn't even address the space and fantansy settings, where COM is mostly only applicable to 1 or 2 races out of many.

I'm all for having COM as a stat if it somehow plays into a social interaction combat system, but it just seems so weighted down with qualifiers that I still think the a perk system is the way to go. Or maybe it should be a talent. Either way, if its a talent or a perk, depending on the game you can slap limitations on it based on how often it will be actually be helpful during the game.

1) Like in a Star Wars game, being an attractive Hutt might never come into play. Being an attractive human would frequently be helpful. So, in said game, the Hutt could be buy...

"Good Looking Hutt, +2 with PRE rolls in certain situations (-3)" for 2 points (10/4 = 2.5).

The human could buy...

"Good Looking Human, +2 with PRE rolls in certain situations" (-1) for 5 points.

2) An even better idea would be to just make a chart that costed out the PRE modifier depending on how helpful it would be for a given character in a given campaign to be good looking. Again, assuming a human centric Star Wars campaign, the Hutt could then buy the 1 pt level, since his looks won't help much, and the human can buy the 3 point level, reflecting the utility of being a good looking human in a human centric game.


"Good Looking," +1 to PRE roll, always helpful = 5 pts/level
"Good Looking," +1 to PRE skill rolls, frequently helpful = 4 pts/level
"Good Looking," +1 to PRE skill rolls, generally helpful = 3 pts/level
"Good Looking," +1 to PRE skill rolls, infrequently helpful = 2 pts/level
"Good Looking," +1 to PRE skill rolls, rarely helpful = 1 pts/level

[Vondy]

That's crazy talk, my kind of crazy. :thumbup:

The only Perks, IMO, that are worth any character points are Follower and Vehicle. Every other Perk is "building spoons" in HERO, character features that don't warrant cps. The liabilities of being a Head of State more or less equal out the benefits, as do the rest of the suspicious Perks. Reputation is just limited PRE.

I consider money and contacts to be worth points, though I would rewrite contacts a bit. I like what steve did with them in 5E, but there are some tweaks I'd like. Also, I think some of the other perks are essentially 0 pointers, but a lot of them have a value dependent on the setting, with some being more worthwhile in some settings than in others.

[steamteck]

Maybe COM shouldn't be a characteristic because it is so highly dependent on context.


I'm all for having COM as a stat if it somehow plays into a social interaction combat system, but it just seems so weighted down with qualifiers that I still think the a perk system is the way to go. Or maybe it should be a talent. Either way, if its a talent or a perk, depending on the game you can slap limitations on it based on how often it will be actually be helpful during the game.

1) Like in a Star Wars game, being an attractive Hutt might never come into play. Being an attractive human would frequently be helpful. So, in said game, the Hutt could be buy...

"Good Looking Hutt, +2 with PRE rolls in certain situations (-3)" for 2 points (10/4 = 2.5).

The human could buy...

"Good Looking Human, +2 with PRE rolls in certain situations" (-1) for 5 points.

2) An even better idea would be to just make a chart that costed out the PRE modifier depending on how helpful it would be for a given character in a given campaign to be good looking. Again, assuming a human centric Star Wars campaign, the Hutt could then buy the 1 pt level, since his looks won't help much, and the human can buy the 3 point level, reflecting the utility of being a good looking human in a human centric game.


That is so much more complicated than just leaving it as a characteristic.
I don't think there's any such thing as a good looking Hutt. Steve did say COM was from a human perspective anyway in the Bestiary.( Good looking Hutt? I should revoke your Pulp SF license):D

[Opal]

But if a character is in a culture in which dark skin tones = more attractive, and they have very light skin, their 18 COM isn't going to be worth anything.Oh, they'll still be 18 COM, they'll just be facing a social limitation. And, yes, the 5 or 10 pt disad will have more meaning than the 4 points of COM.

[jtelson]

I'm probably in the minority, but I'd prefer to see Talents presented as "example powers". That's how they are constructed, so that's how it makes sense to use them.

That said, I see no reason any of them should be removed, just presented differently as examples of what you can do with the Power rules.

I'm with you on this one. There's no need for a seperate catagory.

[sbarron]

That is so much more complicated than just leaving it as a characteristic.
I don't think there's any such thing as a good looking Hutt. Steve did say COM was from a human perspective anyway in the Bestiary.( Good looking Hutt? I should revoke your Pulp SF license):DCOM being from a human perspective doesn't make any sense in an awful lot of games, though. It assumes a human-centric game that frequently won't apply.

I also am not a big fan of leaving things so open ended. We can nail down what it means to be attractive in a very specific way using perks. COM, the way it is now, basically just has a big * next to it.

*GM decides what, if anything, this characteristic 1) does, 2) means, and 3) is worth.

I'd like characteristics to be a little bit better defined than that.

[sbarron]

Oh, they'll still be 18 COM, they'll just be facing a social limitation. And, yes, the 5 or 10 pt disad will have more meaning than the 4 points of COM.What disad? Not attractive to the Watsui tribe? That's silly. So in the examples I gave above, humans should get a disad, 5 pt Distinctive Feature - Unattractive to Hutts? :rolleyes:

The talent "Resistance" isn't a characteristic, though it does for EGO exactly what COM does for PRE. Its an occational modifier. Until COM is something more than an occational modifier to PRE rolls, I don't see how you can justify it being a characteristic.

[casualplayer]

I consider money and contacts to be worth points, though I would rewrite contacts a bit. I like what steve did with them in 5E, but there are some tweaks I'd like. Also, I think some of the other perks are essentially 0 pointers, but a lot of them have a value dependent on the setting, with some being more worthwhile in some settings than in others.

Hmmm, Money comes with drawbacks equal to its benefits. If you have money people who want money will be Watching you, not the least of which is the government. Bruce Wayne should have 20 paparazzi following him at all times.

Contacts are one of those roll-playing contrivances that bug me to no end, turning NPC interaction into a die roll. I love the concept of NPCs who will help you due to your history; I dislike it being a crapshoot.

[nexus]

COM being from a human perspective doesn't make any sense in an awful lot of games, though. It assumes a human-centric game that frequently won't apply.


Human centric games are the most common in my experience. Every other Characteristic is based on the Human Norm in Hero terms. An "Average Wookie" is a very strong human, but the game doesn't call 10 a weak strength.

Edit: Actually, I can't think of a Hero game I've been in or seen in recent memory where the assumption was the characters would not be human (or derived from humans) with aliens, other races (dwarves, elves. Ki-rin), etc as possibilities not the norm.

[Opal]

COM being from a human perspective doesn't make any sense in an awful lot of games, though. It assumes a human-centric game that frequently won't apply.So you lot play sentient fungi from Yugoth 'frequently,' then? ;)

I've rarely seen a game that was primarily neither human nor human-like (Star Treck aliens, Tolkien Elves, etc). I mean, it's an occassional schtick for a one shot, like at a convention. Play trolls or kobolds or whatever. That's about it.


I played in one Champions campaign a long time ago (3rd ed), in which the premise was that earth's dimension was something of a backwater, and humans generally looked down upon - but playing humans was an option, just not encouraged. I was the only one that didn't play a human, but my character was still a very human-apearing higher-dimensional alien being.

[Vondy]

Hmmm, Money comes with drawbacks equal to its benefits. If you have money people who want money will be Watching you, not the least of which is the government. Bruce Wayne should have 20 paparazzi following him at all times.

In the real world, maybe. But do the drawbacks of having 20 billion dollars really balance it out. You can pay a pittance and write it off to deal with most of them. And, this is a game world. If I didn't take watched, then it shouldn't be much of a probelm in game for me, whereas the spending power can make and break some scenarios, or open doors.


Contacts are one of those roll-playing contrivances that bug me to no end, turning NPC interaction into a die roll. I love the concept of NPCs who will help you due to your history; I dislike it being a crapshoot.

Contacts can have a very powerful effect on play and are worth points. I also dislike the crapshoot aspect of contacts. Not only because its a roleplaying opportunity, but because its a tool for me - the GM - to use to add flavor to the game and push things along if I need to. I just build them with adders and debits(?) defining their usefulness and any complications that come along with them and ignore the roll.

[Vondy]

COM being from a human perspective doesn't make any sense in an awful lot of games, though.

Have you noticed alien babes look a lot like human babes? That's because human babes are the galactic gold standard of babaliciousness. Why do you think so many aliens, humanoid or octopoid or whateveroid, want to invade our planet? Because they want our women. :D

[sbarron]

Have you noticed alien babes look a lot like human babes? That's because human babes are the galactic gold standard of babaliciousness. Why do you think so many aliens, humanoid or octopoid or whateveroid, want to invade our planet? Because they want our women. :DUnfortunately, I was also aware of the inherant flaw that developed with my argument regarding Hutts, specifically when the discussion turned to their opinions on humans. Given Jabba's excellent taste in human women (http://outpost22.jtree.net/images/movie/return/03-leia-carrie-fisher.jpg), I barely have a leg to stand on...

[nexus]

Unfortunately, I was also aware of the inherant flaw that developed with my argument regarding Hutts, specifically when the discussion turned to their opinions on humans. Given Jabba's excellent taste in human woman (http://outpost22.jtree.net/images/movie/return/03-leia-carrie-fisher.jpg), I barely have a leg to stand on...

We might not agree but I have to rep you for this lol

[sbarron]

Oh, and I agree that most games are going to be human centric. And COM works fine in those games (for what little it does). But COM really seems to lose itself in games where there are multiple races or cultures that define beauty in different ways. Then you get into discussions like, "do humans find elves more attractive than they find humans? What about dwarves and orcs? How do dwarves view humans, elves, and orcs...you know, in attractiveness?" Then you end up creating special rules to account for how attractive each race finds the other, just to mitigate COM's lack of universal application.

Moving aways from all that fuzzyness would be a good thing. And I don't think defining the entire universe in terms of how attractive humans find it makes any sense at all. :ugly:

[Vondy]

Oh, and I agree that most games are going to be human centric.

And elf-babes, and dwarf babes, and giant babes all seem to have human standards of beauty... why is that? :eg:

[Susano]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Perks and Talents that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about Perks and Talents that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


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.

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.

Oh, yes please. It does end up skewing point totals to try build Elric when you discover Stormbringer is more points than Elric himself is (and Stormbringer is a Follower, not a simple foci).



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.

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.

I think the flavor of things like "Lightsleep" and "Perfect Pitch" gives people incentive to create characters who have more than combat stats. It also (to me) helps give a certain feel to characters. I like the Talents and could see many of them (esp. the three you mention) being listed in the core rulebook.

[SSgt Baloo]

http://www.megsminiatures.com/hacla%20maime%20fr.jpg

Sure, she's an ork, but just look at her! http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/Boing.gif

[James Gillen]

If it were moot, I wouldn't have bothered taking the time to create this forum. I'm perfectly open to good arguments that change my mind. I have yet to see any such argument re: keeping Comeliness, but that doesn't mean changing my mind is impossible.

Maybe we can split the difference by giving COM an actual Reputation-like effect. ;)

JG

[James Gillen]

I think the test for Characteristic or something else should be something along these lines:

If it is something that /all/ Characters possess, and it is something that varies substantially and smoothly in a sort of bell-curve way among the population, it's a Characteristic.

Intelligence, for isntance, people may argue about what it really is, but, clearly, some people are a little smarter than others, and a few much smarter. Comliness is much the same: most people are average, some are pretty or handsome or ugly and, among those who are above average apearance, there is still a range. It's pretty subjective, much as the true meaning of 'intelligence' can be hard to pin down, but it certainly seems more like a characteristic.

A perk would also be reasonable, if you conform to a specific cultural or time-period standard of beauty that one either has or doesn't.

I will say there's one reason for keeping COM as a 'spectrum' measurement (a Characteristic) rather than something some people have and others don't (a Perk): We'd have to figure out how many points a PC gets for being "Ugly".

JG

[Lucius]

That is so much more complicated than just leaving it as a characteristic.
I don't think there's any such thing as a good looking Hutt. Steve did say COM was from a human perspective anyway in the Bestiary.( Good looking Hutt? I should revoke your Pulp SF license):D

Which is an excellent reason to eliminate it as a characteristic.

Thanks. You're helping me firm up my opinion. :D

Lucius Alexander

So, what does COM mean to a palindromedary?

[Lucius]

Human centric games are the most common in my experience. Every other Characteristic is based on the Human Norm in Hero terms. An "Average Wookie" is a very strong human, but the game doesn't call 10 a weak strength.


Yes, but if the Wookie's STR is 25, then his STR is TWENTY FIVE. How much he can lift may change with the local gravity, but picking up his 75 kg Wookie son is no harder or easier than picking up a 75 kg Human princess. How far he can throw a rock doesn't depend on whether he's throwing it at another Wookie, a Human, or a Hutt. He's evenly matched armwrestling against another Wookie of STR 25, or a cybernetically enhanced Human of STR 25.

How much STUN damage it takes to Stun him depends on what his CON is. It doesn't matter if he is hit by a Wookie or a Human or fuzzy green thing from Alpha Centauri, his CON works the same way.

I could go on down the list, but you know where this is heading - last stop on Primary Characteristic Row, COMeliness. Suddenly it makes a difference not only what species we're talking about, it even makes a difference what culture, subculture, and even individual personality (our poor Wookie hero has a crush on a girl who won't even rub noses with him because she just doesn't like the gargwofl smell of his personal pheromones. What, you thought Wookie attractiveness was mainly visual? Fortunately for him most Wookie females like the smell of gargwofl and he'll be very popular once he buys off that Psych Lim: Crush) Humans of course can't smell Wookie pheremones at all - which goes to show you that Wookie comeliness is as meaningless to Humans as Human comeliness is to Wookies.

That doesn't look (or smell) like a characteristic to me. It feels a lot more like the Reputation Perk (although I'd probably call it a Talent.) A Wookie could buy a +1/+1d6 level with a roll of <= 14 (if he smells like that famous hero, Chewbacca) or +3/+3d6 with a roll of <= 8 if he smells arkhoocha which most Wookies don't care for but it drives others absolutely wild.


Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary asks if, if there is comeliness, there should not also be goliness?

[nexus]

One of the main dividing lines seems to be those that don 't think Com is "realistic" and those that think its fitting for a game based in "dramatic realism". I really don't think that can be resolved as it's subjective. I'll stick with my general opinion on things like this: In a system striving to be as universal as it can be it's best to install a toggle instead of a block. And Com has that already. If you don't want to use it, there's no reason too. If it's axed completely. its difficult to reinstall. Particularly for anyone coming into the system fresh who actually might want a more scaled type of appearance measure. I don't think the people that have spoken up here are the only gamers that weren't satisfied with the GURPS style perk/advantage.

Com doesn't take up that much space in the book or the character sheet (possibly less than explaining the Per/Talent Appearance might). Apparently, there have been allot games running where Com isn't used and they could continue unaffected if it was still in 6th. If it's dropped the games that do use it either have to write it back in, don't convert or switch to something not as satisfactory but those that don't like Com as a characteristic get to be "officially" right.

But both sides can get what the want. I doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

[nexus]

Here's my idea for a possible way Com could be written up.

Comeliness: This characteristic measures the character's aesthetic appeal. It may represent beauty, impressiveness or anything else that appeals to the senses. Every 5 points of Com over 8 gives a +1 bonus on Interaction skills and +1d6 to Inspirational/Positive Pre attacks in situations where the GM feels it’s appropriate. Otherwise Com’s effects are primarily role playing. Hero System assumes Com is based on Human ideals but this will not be true for all campaigns. GMs wishing a more “realistic” simulation can ignore this characteristic and instead have the player purchase Skill Levels and Pre Bonuses Limited as appropriate. Comeliness costs 1 point per point of Characteristic.


The increased cost is due the complimentary roll being replaced by set bonuses. It comes in at 106 words and its off the top of my head but I think could provide a good starting point at least.

[Susano]

I like it.

[steamteck]

You know I do.

[rjcurrie]

Here's my idea for a possible way Com could be written up.

Comeliness: This characteristic measures the character's aesthetic appeal. It may represent beauty, impressiveness or anything else that appeals to the senses. Every 5 points of Com over 8 gives a +1 bonus on Interaction skills and +1d6 to Inspirational/Positive Pre attacks in situations where the GM feels it’s appropriate. Otherwise Com’s effects are primarily role playing. Hero System assumes Com is based on Human ideals but this will not be true for all campaigns. GMs wishing a more “realistic” simulation can ignore this characteristic and instead have the player purchase Skill Levels and Pre Bonuses Limited as appropriate. Comeliness costs 1 point per point of Characteristic.


The increased cost is due the complimentary roll being replaced by set bonuses. It comes in at 106 words and its off the top of my head but I think could provide a good starting point at least.

It works for me but I could see objections based on it behaving differently than other characteristics.

[BobGreenwade]

It works for me but I could see objections based on it behaving differently than other characteristics.Some of what Nexus posted could be modified to fix that objection, such as saying that a character can use his COM Roll as Complementary to Interaction Skills (instead of +1 per 5 points over 8). But I think he has a good idea overall.

[nexus]

It works for me but I could see objections based on it behaving differently than other characteristics.

Com already works like other Characteristics though (A Com roll is complimentary to Interaction skills and Pre attacks when the GM thinks its applicable) and there's no reason you couldn't base skills on Com aside from preference yet one of the main complaints seems to be that "it has no function" so I thought to give it more solid benefits to find some sort of happy medium.

[Niles]

On another Perks-related note, I'm of the opinion that Contacts are currently a tad too expensive. I'm not sure if others would agree with me, though, so I'll see whether I'm alone before trying to sell any changes.
Contacts are too expensive, likewise access, anonymity and deep cover (which could probably be folded into a single more general perk) and the 1 point fringe benefits.

[rjcurrie]

Contacts are too expensive, likewise access, anonymity and deep cover (which could probably be folded into a single more general perk) and the 1 point fringe benefits.

I have no problem with any of them.

[sbarron]

I still say that the Hutt PC that spent 10 points to get a 20 COM is going to get screwed. The GM is rightly never going to think its "appropriate" for a Hutt to get a bonus to his Interaction skills with humans because of the Hutt's "aesthetic appeal." But if you give the Hutt the bonus anyway (because he did spend the points), then really all he bought was +2 to all Interaction skills for 10 points, which has nothing to do with "aesthetic appeal" at all.

More importantly, Nexus, I don't think you can include "impressiveness" in your definition of COM. PRE is already defined as "a character's forcefulness, charisma, bravery, and leadership qualities -- in short, his impressiveness." All that leaves us with is "beauty and anything else that appeals to the senses." Which brings us back to the problem of universal appeal vs. cultural/racial appeal that is at the root of why I don't think COM should be a stat.

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like we're going in circles here. :D The good news is we only have another 18 months to go... :nonp:

[nexus]

I still say that the Hutt PC that spent 10 points to get a 20 COM is going to get screwed. The GM is rightly never going to think its "appropriate" for a Hutt to get a bonus to his Interaction skills with humans because of the Hutt's "aesthetic appeal." But if you give the Hutt the bonus anyway (because he did spend the points), then really all he bought was +2 to all Interaction skills for 10 points, which has nothing to do with "aesthetic appeal" at all.


First that is kind of a extreme example. How many players that are familiar with Star Wars are going to buy a Hutts' Com through the roof, at least not without some reason? As I said in my suggested write up Com is based on human ideals.

Secondly if it does come up and doesn't work the GM should inform the Hutt's player to spend his points differently and talk with him about what he's trying to achieve. Hero is very flexible but with that flexibility comes comes responsibility.
Hutts don't have high Com from a human standpoint. If that's not true in the campaign (Most if not all of the characters will be Hutts or some other race that might find obese big eyed slugs more aesthetically pleasing, for example) then Com should be based on that standard and the Hutts' 20 Com might be fine. There is also the odd possibility there is "something" about this Hutt that is aesthetically more appealing than others, odd as that is but it's a possibility. Maybe he has really beautiful skin coloration, eyes and a melodic pleasing voice. Hero is all about sfx and high Com doesn't necessarily mean you want to date it. To get slightly more complicated, if the GM feels it's appropriate there is no reason he can't give the Hutt character a small limitation on their Com if he feels it's going to be even more limited than the default. These things should be talked out with the GM.





More importantly, Nexus, I don't think you can include "impressiveness" in your definition of COM.


You never heard or known someone that looked impressive but really didn't have that strong a personality? Pre represents actual personality, IMO. Com is is appearances.



All that leaves us with is "beauty and anything else that appeals to the senses." Which brings us back to the problem of universal appeal vs. cultural/racial appeal that is at the root of why I don't think COM should be a stat.


It's been my experience that in the "dramatic" genres that appeal is more or less universal. The blonde white Jungle Queen is incredibly beautiful...even to the natives that look almost nothing like, Twi'leck dancers are "teh hawt" even though they have tails growing out of their heads and completely bald, etc. I'm not claiming its "realistic" but it does fit under "dramatic simulation" IMO. And the reason I explicitly put in the option to use limited Pre and Skill level in write to cover those that wanted more "realism" in their setting/game.



Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like we're going in circles here. :D The good news is we only have another 18 months to go... :nonp:

Mainly I'm trying to come up with compromise that keeps the game accessible and fun for as many players as possible, myself included and addresses at least some of the issues raised about Com. But if a GM or group doesn't want to use Com they don't have too, apparently quite a few have been doing just that for years and having it listed in 6th edition would in no way change that.

I don't see how it ruins the game to keep it in the book at all, lump it under optional characteristics and leave a blank line or two on the official character sheets to write in optional characteristics and I'll be okay with it. Like I said earlier, it does not have to be either/or and have an official "right" answer. If you don't like Com as a characteristic don't use it but let those that do like it have it. It only becomes an issue if you play in their games. And even then you don't have to invest points in it and they can't in yours.

You are correct though, I don't think any minds are going to be changed and I'm also pretty sure it's going to axed regardless so I wouldn't worry too much at this point. Those that want it gone have probably already "won".

Edit Some don't like Comeliness as a concept. That's cool and I don't think any argument will convince them otherwise. To be fair, I don't think I could be talked into disliking it either. Unfortunately for some of us, Steve Long seems to be one of the former. At best I'm hoping he'll consider keeping Com as an optional characteristic.

[Susano]

It's been my experience that in fiction, particularly more "dramatic" genres that appeal is more or less universal. The blonde white Jungle Queen is incredibly beautiful...even to the natives that look nothing like her. Twi'lecks are "teh hawt" even though they have tails growing out of their heads, etc. I'm not claiming its "realistic" but it does fit under "dramatic simulation" IMO. The reason I put in the option to use limited Pre and Skill level in write to cover those that wanted more "realism" in their setting.

Dejah Toris is the most beautiful woman in the solar system, despite being red, a Martian, and laying eggs.

[steamteck]

Dejah Toris is the most beautiful woman in the solar
system, despite being red, a Martian, and laying eggs.


Perfect example. Also,Think of all these feline aliens who show that are supposedly so incredibly hot and beautiful. Even Vincent "Vincent" from beauty and the beast was described by a woman ( not Catherine) as "beautiful just different".

[Susano]

Perfect example. Also,Think of all these feline aliens who show that are supposedly so incredibly hot and beautiful. Even Vincent "Vincent" from beauty and the beast was described by a woman ( not Catherine) as "beautiful just different".

Catgirls = teh hotness! :love:

[Lucius]

Perfect example. Also,Think of all these feline aliens who show that are supposedly so incredibly hot and beautiful. Even Vincent "Vincent" from beauty and the beast was described by a woman ( not Catherine) as "beautiful just different".

Ah yes, Vincent. The cat boy from before cat girls got so popular.

Lucius Alexander

So, how much COM does a palindromedary have?

[GamePhil]

Even Vincent "Vincent" from beauty and the beast was described by a woman ( not Catherine) as "beautiful just different".

Indeed, a perfect example of someone who made the 8- roll for his exotic look, not an example of a character necessarily high COM. But, yes, for any game that doesn't want to take into account different cultures, species, and tastes, COM is a reasonable substitute.

[nexus]

Indeed, a perfect example of someone who made the 8- roll for his exotic look, not an example of a character necessarily high COM. But, yes, for any game that doesn't want to take into account different cultures, species, and tastes, COM is a reasonable substitute.

That last sentence seems a little snarky but maybe I'm just misunderstanding your tone?

But I'd say its more that games that are aiming for a more cinematic than "realistic" style or where there aren't going to be major differences in culture or species (taste is hard to take into account. If I give a character +5 "Beauty" and describe her as Paris Hilton there will be disagreement) Com is fine. If the GM feels that yes, it's an abstraction but just as much of one as other characteristics, prefers the granularity it offers and will adjust as he sees fit, its fine too. There should be a "realism" (or just opinion) toggle instead of just axing something some people enjoy. It doesn't seem to gain that much streamlining, is an imposition one side and eliminates some flexibility.

[nexus]

Dejah Toris is the most beautiful woman in the solar system, despite being red, a Martian, and laying eggs.

And Raven (thought I know you're not a fan of the books ;)) who was the most beautiful woman in her world even impressing the "elves" of the setting with her raw physical appeal.

[GamePhil]

That last sentence reads as a little snarky but that could unintentional.


Really? It was surely unintentional, as those games are going to be many. Most games I've been in don't need those levels of detail in them, and in such games, COM (or, if COM gets dropped, an Automatic Perk, or whatever) is surely the way to go.

[nexus]

Really? It was surely unintentional, as those games are going to be many.

I could be just grouchy and oversensitive right now, if so I sincerely apologize and withdraw the comment.

[steamteck]

Indeed, a perfect example of someone who made the 8- roll for his exotic look, not an example of a character necessarily high COM. But, yes, for any game that doesn't want to take into account different cultures, species, and tastes, COM is a reasonable substitute.


I love that show and can tell you the number of times he made that roll, he had majorly loaded dice then.:eek::eek::eek:

[steamteck]

There should be a "realism" (or just opinion) toggle instead of just axing something some people enjoy. It doesn't seem to gain that much streamlining, is an imposition one side and eliminates some flexibility.


quoted for something that needs to be thought about by the "everything must go crowd"

[steamteck]

And Raven (thought I know you're not a fan of the books ;)) who was the most beautiful woman in her world even impressing the "elves" of the setting with her raw physical appeal.


Don't forget legendary mythological types like the myths version of Helen of Troy.

[GamePhil]

I love that show and can tell you the number of times he made that roll, he had majorly loaded dice then.:eek::eek::eek:

I don't remember that happening more than once, but as you wish. I didn't watch it much, but if it happened a lot he'd just need to have a higher roll. Still doesn't demonstrate that COM has to stay, just because some stories don't take into account that level of detail.

But that's just going to go around and around. I'd prefer a COM mechanic that allows me to make it work precisely how I want, including working on it all the time. COM isn't it, and the proposals for COM so far aren't it. A change such as the proposal will make me happy, and can be used for what you want, except it won't be in the Characteristic block, if it's done right. I'm sorry it's such a game breaker for you, but I'm going to drop this now.

[GamePhil]

I don't think Com is a "deal breaker" for anyone. There are changes I'm much more concerned about personally. It is something I've enjoyed and gotten use out of a great deal, that I think works and it's disappointing to see it axed.

I said "game breaker" as in, "the game is broken without COM". Not "deal breaker", as in, "I will leave if this is taken out".

I'm sorry, I just see the change as something that will help me a great deal and won't necessarily hurt anyone else (we haven't seen the actual plan, so I must admit it might). I'm not sure why having it on the Character Block is so important, or why this specific mechanic is so important. Or are you just nervous you won't like the replacement? That can't and won't be answered, it's much too soon.

[nexus]

I don't think it's a "deal breaker" as in it'll seal the deal on getting 6th edition if its dropped. Some players, including myself, have gotten a great deal of use and enjoyment out of the Com characteristics and are hoping it won't be dropped. The forum is to discuss rules and changes. Like I said earlier, I'm pretty sure it will be but I'm hoping to get it included as optional so it can be something of a win/win for the most players except those hypothetical few that just object to comeliness even being mentioned in the book.

[nexus]

I said "game breaker" as in, "the game is broken without COM". Not "deal breaker", as in, "I will leave if this is taken out".


And I don't think its even a deal breaker in that sense. The game can work without Com. It can work without Spd for that matter. But some feel it will be lessened without Com.



I'm sorry, I just see the change as something that will help me a great deal and won't necessarily hurt anyone else (we haven't seen the actual plan, so I must admit it might). I'm not sure why having it on the Character Block is so important, or why this specific mechanic is so important. Or are you just nervous you won't like the replacement? That can't and won't be answered, it's much too soon.

If the replacement if a Flat bonus Perk/Talent. I know I won't like it because I haven't liked it in any other system where its been used and that made me appreciate Com more. I think other have said it before. The rp aspects of having a "Com Score" and not just X levels of Presence/Interaction skills is a positive for them. I can't understand why so many seem to desperate to have it axed when they can ignore it and use Limited Pre and Skill Levels already so I guess its fair.

[GamePhil]

The rp aspects of having a "Com Score" and not just X levels of Presence/Interaction skills is a positive for them. I can't understand why so many seem to desperate to have it axed when they can ignore it and use Limited Pre and Skill Levels already so I guess its fair.

I spoke with Nexus and rescind part of my post. However, this will still be my last post on the matter of COM vs. Perk (or whatever), I'm going to sum up my position and then bow out, as argument is pointless.

I would like Characteristics to both have a use, and to have a use that is consistent. Having COM only apply some of the time, arbitrarily, does not work for me. It does nothing for me in the characteristic block. It can easily be simulated in other ways, all of which are mechanically superior and more flexible and more intuitive to me. And if I'm running a game where the details of "good looks" don't matter, it is easier to simulate that with one of the other suggestions than it is to make COM work in a game where the details do.

If COM is left in, I won't be using it. I might allow people to buy it simply to match the rules, but always mentally translate it into a 1-5 pt Perk: Good Looking. And you know, I'm fine with that, so again see no further reason to argue. If it is axed, the game will match my game better. If it's left in as an option, I'm fine with that, too.

[steamteck]

It not a "game breaker' for me despite my rather passionate arguments. although stacked with no-figures its a powerful one-two. I just really like the role playing aspects of having a COM score. Our group even added a primitive version of it to the old game by Steve Jackson "The fantasy trip".We went ot HERO because it had all the stuff our homebrew campaign that evolved from that had and could model even more stuff.:thumbup:

( Also if I do run 6th, I've had to promise both my wife and best friend I'll put COM back in and not go to "that crap like GURPS")
Maybe there's a brilliant alternate mechanic waiting to be revealed. the version scaled like Rep isn't bad but my lovely spouse gave it the "look":eek: when she saw the idea.

[nexus]

So, COM isn't "just X points of COM", but what I'd like to see is "just X levels of PRE/Interaction Skills" (or a Perk, I really like the Perk)? What I want has no "rp aspects" but what you want does. Therefore, I see no common ground at this point to continue discussion, so this will be my final post on the matter.


I didn't say any other method had no role playing value. The tiered Talent or Perk has less granularity from a role playing sense than a Com score. There's more of a range in Characteristics than in 1 to 5 levels* of Talent or Perk for purposes of comparison. I (and others) find that important in our games, others disagree so I'd like to see both included as options. That's way I included it in my proposed Com write up.

*not that there has to be an arbitrary cap, that just seems to be the most common suggestion.

[SylvanSnake]

Makes sense to me. Couldn't a perk accomplish much the same thing? I'm just throwing it out there for discussion and not so much arguing the "right or wrong" of it.

Unlike other characteristics, COM does not have a single skill which is based of it. Not only that, but it doesn't affect a single figured characteristic. INT helps your PER roll, EGO helps your ECV. COM...nada...

COM could be combined with PRE quite easily as both traits theoretically would work much the same way. Perks or Limitations could be added for special cases where someone is likeable, but not so good looking or vice versa.

[JmOz]

COM could be combined with PRE quite easily as both traits theoretically would work much the same way. Perks or Limitations could be added for special cases where someone is likeable, but not so good looking or vice versa.

Actualy I would HATE for them to be combined...sort of, see my upcoming post it characteristics, one thing I love about Hero is that they make a distinction between good looking and a strong Presense, I have known a lot of people who demanded respect (high PRE) but were not pretty, and vice versa

[Susano]

COM could be combined with PRE quite easily as both traits theoretically would work much the same way. Perks or Limitations could be added for special cases where someone is likeable, but not so good looking or vice versa.

Which would lead to the D&D assumption that all characters with a high Charisma are good looking.

[sbarron]

My whole problem with COM can be boiled down to one question...Mary Ann or Ginger? You can't have this argument in HERO, because "technically" the movie star Ginger would have the higher COM. This in the face of direct evidence that people find Mary Ann (http://www.ginger-or-mary-ann.com/cgi-bin/justresults.pl) more attractive. If this ageless argument isn't "dramatic realism," I don't know what is! :thumbup:

[nexus]

Ginger doesn't have the default higher Com because she's a movie star. There's no game based reason why she would. If Com was replaced by Talent "Beautiful" if Ginger got +2 and Mary Anne got +3. Same difference with even more sharp definition. The game cannot take "taste" into account with either system. All the characteristics are generalizations and abstractions. There are many types of strength, Dexterity covers many things, Intellect, well there's talk of redefining but there are many types of intelligence. Does the Professor have high Intellect (a fast thinker. Probably not since he couldn't figure out how to patch a hole on the boat :D) or a high "Science!" skill roll? The "Ginger vs Mary Anne" arguments makes assumptions

Also, it's not important with the "audience" thinks. There is no audience for an rpg. How do the characters in the show/game treat as more attractive/appealing would be what determines Com (Or Beauty/Handsome for that matter). You can give them the same amount of both and let role playing decide in either case. You argument seems to be more to get rid of any mechanical measure of appearance at all.

[BobGreenwade]

No, Ginger doesn't have the default higher Com because she's a movie star. There's no game based reason why she would.Ginger would tend to have a higher PRE and Seduction, but I'd give the two roughly the same COM.

(OTOH Mary Ann is a farm girl, so there may be some kind of fetish working in the poll there....)

[nexus]

Ginger would tend to have a higher PRE and Seduction, but I'd give the two roughly the same COM.


Yep, that's one way to do it and it fits with what I remember from the show. Both were treated as "pretty" but Ginger tended to vamp it up more while Mary Anne was more sweetness and girl next door. I might give them roughly the same Pre (neither had a particularly more forceful or strong personality, maybe Mary Anne a bit higher...) but Ginger has Seduction, Acting and other Pre skills to use hers in more ways. That's what I was saying about granularity. You -could- give Ginger slightly more Com, a point or so) if you felt she "should" have it as an actress without a big game impact but giving her another level of flat perk would make her decidedly more attractive than Mary Anne.

Mary Anne put most of her points into domestics/farm PSs. :)

But what I'm saying is its not a foregone conclusion that Ginger would have the higher Com and that opinions outside the "setting" really don't matter unless you want to ditch mechanical impact of appearance at all.



(OTOH Mary Ann is a farm girl, so there may be some kind of fetish working in the poll there....)

Not gonna touch that one. :D

[nexus]

I’d like to apologize if I’ve come across like a fanatic or if I’m derailing the thread. Some people don’t like Comeliness as a concept and I don’t think I’ll change their wrong. It’s a valid opinion and I don’t want to shut down their fun and preferences. What I’d like is to have Comeliness included in 6th because it would be one less reason (however small) for me to avoid it and if I do pick it up, less of a headache to convert too if it’s present even as an optional characteristic. Actually, I’m somewhat surprised I feel so strongly about it. But to be fair the discussion belongs in the Characteristic thread anyway.

[SAVeira]

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

The changes suggest sound good.


Q: Should we add or remove any Talents?

Add the Universal "Enhancers" from The Ulitmate Skill. I have been using those for years before as house rules.

[dsatow]

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

I'd agree. However, I've seen a lot of people create vehicles which are just a way to get more actions in a turn or to do more damage. i would suggest that any autonomous Follower of Vehicle(AI-robot) should be run by the GM to prevent this kind of twiddlyness.


Q: Should we add or remove any Talents?

Actually, I think you should keep in the core any talent which crosses genres. As an example, if it crosses Fantasy, Sci-Fi, and Modern, it should be included. Lightsleep might be used in all three and should be kept. Beast speech really isn't used much in modern or sci-fi and shouldn't.

I also add "Heavysleep" to my list. It allows a character to get a good nights rest anywhere with a slight side effect of not easily aroused when things go wrong. A common trick as a GM to make a player weary is to keep them waking each night or make getting to sleep hard in the enviroment. A players like this isn't affected by such problems, they can sleep anywhere. Example: Hicks in Aliens is sleeping during the drop.

I think "Wealth" is really broken as described. I would remove the dollar amounts from the wealth description or do like they do in other games and make it a like a skill check.

[PhilFleischmann]

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.
I have to strongly disagree with this. A Disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage isn't would any points, but a Disadvantage the IS a disadvantage should be worth points. All other things being equal, a Follower who is afraid of heights is less useful than one who isn't. All other things being equal, a Summoned servant that is Vulnerable to holy water is less useful than one that isn't. All other things being equal, a Base that comes with frequent government monitoring and meddling is less useful than one that doesn't.

Yes, it may be a very good idea, as some others have said, to include some text about what kinds of Disads should really count for these Perks (and Summon) and which shouldn't. A Follower with a Code vs. Killing is not a disadvantage if the PC also has CvK, since you shouldn't want your follower to kill any more than you would. But there are plenty of truly meaningful, disadvantageous Disadvanteges that should reduce the cost of Followers, Bases, Vehicles, and Summoned beings.

Also, particularly on the subject of Bases, a few suggestions:

1. Just like you said on the General Rules thread, you don't want characters to pay for ordinary items like cell phones and cars. The same should hold true for houses. If a base is nothing more than a place to hold meetings and press conferences, with bedrooms and maybe a kitchen, then it's just a house. If it's an actual fortress, with extraordinary defenses, or concealment, complete with the Crime-Alert computer and a criminology lab, then you pay for it.

2. Eliminate the Size cost of Bases. The size of a base has no game-useful purpose, therefore it shouldn't cost anything. The *content* of the base is what's important, not the floorspace, nor the size of the grounds. It goes along with #1, above - don't make characters buy bathrooms and bedrooms and hallways and ordinary kitchens. A criminology lab that grants a 17- Criminology roll is game-functionally the same regardless of whether it takes up 100 square feet or 1000 square feet. Yes, the size of Vehicles matters, since it determines how much cargo/passengers you can transport, but empty space in a Base (or spaces with ordinary things like toilets and beds) has no game effect. A Base's cost should only be determined by its defensive capabilities, its weapons, special sensors and other equipment, its hidden-ness, and its labs - not by how big the front yard is, or how many people the diningroom can accomodate.

3. I've never quite agreed with the location costs listed for Bases. It seems to me that more remote locations are less useful (and should cost less, not more). The closer the Base is to where you need to go, the closer to "where the action is", the better.

4. There should be some provision for mobile bases - as distinct from vehicles. By this I mean a base that can be moved with some difficulty or very slowly. If it can move at "combat-useful" speed, then it's a Vehicle. But a mobile Base would be considered a stationary object with respect to combat. For example, a floating island - sure you could move it from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but it would take weeks or months to do so. Likewise an orbiting space station - you can, with effort, change its orbit from equatorial to polar, or its altitude, etc.

One Talent problem I noticed: Simulate Death should have a Limitation to the effect that the character can't move or do anything or sense his surroundings while in simulated death. Nothing in the mechanics of its current build prevents the "dead" person from acting and sensing as a normal person.

[BobGreenwade]

I have to strongly disagree with this. A Disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage isn't would any points, but a Disadvantage the IS a disadvantage should be worth points. All other things being equal, a Follower who is afraid of heights is less useful than one who isn't. All other things being equal, a Summoned servant that is Vulnerable to holy water is less useful than one that isn't. All other things being equal, a Base that comes with frequent government monitoring and meddling is less useful than one that doesn't.

Yes, it may be a very good idea, as some others have said, to include some text about what kinds of Disads should really count for these Perks (and Summon) and which shouldn't. A Follower with a Code vs. Killing is not a disadvantage if the PC also has CvK, since you shouldn't want your follower to kill any more than you would. But there are plenty of truly meaningful, disadvantageous Disadvanteges that should reduce the cost of Followers, Bases, Vehicles, and Summoned beings.I'd just been thinking recently along the same lines. If the cost of Disadvantages isn't figured into the cost of a Follower, Vehicle, etc., then there's no real reason (other than concept) to give them Disadvantages. If my Follower is Hunted by Doctor Destroyer, then by golly that's a Disadvantage! It contributes to story complexity, and it complicates not only the Follower's life but the senior hero's life as well. Similarly, if my space explorers have their own starship (and pay points for it), then there should be a cost break if it can't enter atmospheres, takes extra damage from plasma weapons, or has a curse of bad luck.

Like Phil says, there should be some clarifying text as to what Disadvantages are appropriate, but the default method should be that Disadvantages do give a cost break, not that they don't.

[nexus]

I'd just been thinking recently along the same lines. If the cost of Disadvantages isn't figured into the cost of a Follower, Vehicle, etc., then there's no real reason (other than concept) to give them Disadvantages. If my Follower is Hunted by Doctor Destroyer, then by golly that's a Disadvantage! It contributes to story complexity, and it complicates not only the Follower's life but the senior hero's life as well. Similarly, if my space explorers have their own starship (and pay points for it), then there should be a cost break if it can't enter atmospheres, takes extra damage from plasma weapons, or has a curse of bad luck.

Like Phil says, there should be some clarifying text as to what Disadvantages are appropriate, but the default method should be that Disadvantages do give a cost break, not that they don't.

I agree here. I house ruled it in fact for followers, duplication, summon and multiform.

[SAVeira]

I'd just been thinking recently along the same lines. If the cost of Disadvantages isn't figured into the cost of a Follower, Vehicle, etc., then there's no real reason (other than concept) to give them Disadvantages. If my Follower is Hunted by Doctor Destroyer, then by golly that's a Disadvantage! It contributes to story complexity, and it complicates not only the Follower's life but the senior hero's life as well. Similarly, if my space explorers have their own starship (and pay points for it), then there should be a cost break if it can't enter atmospheres, takes extra damage from plasma weapons, or has a curse of bad luck.

Like Phil says, there should be some clarifying text as to what Disadvantages are appropriate, but the default method should be that Disadvantages do give a cost break, not that they don't.
This is one of the reason, I have have been think that perhaps, the purpose of Disadvantages should change. Now we could see how a Follower's Disadvantages would work, but then how would a Vehicle's or Base's work? Just how would Heroic Points work for non-character?

[ajackson]

Q: Should Followers, Vehicles, and Bases be costed differently?
It might be nice to have a way of distinguishing between KITT, who shows up in every adventure, and various vehicles which might be theoretically available but are pretty much never used.

[SAVeira]

It might be nice to have a way of distinguishing between KITT, who shows up in every adventure, and various vehicles which might be theoretically available but are pretty much never used.
I would argue that KITT is a character in his own right, rather then a normal vehicle.

[ajackson]

I would agree that KITT is a character in his own right, rather then a normal vehicle.
Same thing goes for vehicles in most mecha games. I've seen this be a problem in supers games -- if character A builds his giant mecha as OIF suit, and character B builds his giant mecha as a vehicle, character B will be a lot more powerful.

A variant I've been pondering is some sort of 'pay as you go' scheme. Basically, the vehicle itself would be rather cheap, but you'd need to pay to make use of it in the adventure, using plot points or something. This also works for equipment, and really for a wide variety of advantages that come up really rarely, but are very significant when they appear. Thus, if you have an alien spaceship in your basement, it doesn't cost you very much most of the time, but if you bring it out of the basement and start using it for orbital fire support, it suddenly costs a bunch more.

[steamteck]

I agree here. I house ruled it in fact for followers, duplication, summon and multiform.


I probably should do that for summon myself.

[Tech]

I can speak for Steamteck and I have characters make Com rolls are complimentary to some social skills pretty often.

The perk option doesn't give that relative number I like. I really find it a big hole in GURPS. There can be no most beautiful in the land when all you have is a few layers of perk.

Agreed. What I find most amazing is how many people scream/shout/foam at the mouth (:rolleyes:) when talking about COM and how useless it is. Let's see, a 16 COM costs 3 points. Okay, it costs 3 points. Why spend those points? For the reason you just mentioned. I've found creative uses for COM as other GM's have. It's like the perk Lightsleep: it's not used often but it does has it's uses.

[GamePhil]

That's pretty much how I feel about it too.

You know, I said I would stay out of this discussion from now on, and then went back to change the post where I said that because you told me in a private message that you weren't saying that the Perk could not be used in RP where COM could. You said in that post I was originally talking about that the alternatives can't replace the RP aspects of COM, and now you agree that it can't be used to represent "the fairest in the land". Very consistent, so I'm assuming now that you did, in fact, mean it.

COM is a number. It's a mechanic for representing that the character is good looking, or not. It can be used to represent the Fairest of the Land by the simple expedient of buying it up higher than anyone else has it.

If changed to a Talent, a Perk, or anything else, it will be a number. It will be a mechanic for representing that the character is good looking. It will be ablet to be used to represent the Fairest of the Land by the simple expedient of buying it up higher than anyone else has it.

Moreover, it has the potential of having greater flexibility to represent the subjective nature of Comeliness, while still being usable for games where that subjective nature is unnecessary by simply buying up the role or what have you. But nevermind all that.

Either way can be role-played. Either way can be made to represent the Fairest in the Land, assuming you believe that being able to represent such doesn't have to do with role-playing. Unlike GURPS, I seriously doubt that Steve is going to set it up so that you have a maxed out level at 25 points, so you can always buy it higher if you need to for that "special someone".

I understand that there is, for whatever reason, affection for the COM characteristic, but don't believe for a second that another option can't be used for the same thing, since COM is, ultimately, still just a number, just like any of the alternatives.

[Opal]

While I like the idea of keeping COM a characteritic- IMHO, if everyone possesses an attribute, an that attribute varies smoothly among the population, it should be a characteristic (I'm for SIZE, too, for the same reason) - I certainly don't object to the idea of perks, either.

While beauty is famously subjective, there are actually common threads - facial symetry, signs of health, etc - that transcend individual preference and cultural norms. These could be represented by COM.

Conformance to a cultural norm or ideal could be represented by a perk. So could having good publicist. There were more beautiful women in the world than Norma Jean Baker, but as Marylin Monroe, she set a standard of beauty that only she conformed to perfectly. Unlike COM, which someone could always buy a little more superhumanly beautiful than you, a perk could establish you as the pinacle of beauty in your culture.

Similarly, having beautiful but currently unfashioanble attributes could be represented by a minor social disadvantage.

[nexus]

You know, I said I would stay out of this discussion from now on, and then went back to change the post where I said that because you told me in a private message that you weren't saying that the Perk could not be used in RP where COM could. You said in that post I was originally talking about that the alternatives can't replace the RP aspects of COM, and now you agree that it can't be used to represent "the fairest in the land". Very consistent, so I'm assuming now that you did, in fact, mean it.


As I said in the PM and I've said before in this thread: The other option can be used but I don't feel it does as good a job as Com does now. It's not as granular particularly if it's arbitrarily capped say +1 to +5. You could buy it higher for a "special" character but with some GMs it's difficult to get them allow something that's not "official" in the books. SO no, I don't feel it represents "The Fairest in the Land" as well as Com does not that CAN'T Note that in what you quoted I said "pretty much" not totally and completely agree with every thing you said without exception.

You seem really bound and determined to take this personally on some level and feels like you trying to pick a fight at this point. I think the characteristic does a better job. You do not. I've proposed that both can be included. I'm NOT trying to insult you and your playstyle. I have a different preference and I'd like to try and see it included in 6th edition since its less of headache for me.

And I don't think Com has to be axed for others to get what they want because it's easier to put in an potential new Talent/Perk than to write a characteristic back in if its axed. Put Com under optional characteristics would be fine.

[Opal]

The only downside to allowing both the stat and the perk is that a player whose concept calls for the perk may not notice it and neglect to buy it.

[nexus]

You know, I said I would stay out of this discussion from now on, and then went back to change the post where I said that because you told me in a private message that you weren't saying that the Perk could not be used in RP where COM could. You said in that post I was originally talking about that the alternatives can't replace the RP aspects of COM, and now you agree that it can't be used to represent "the fairest in the land". Very consistent, so I'm assuming now that you did, in fact, mean it.


And another thing is that is something I posted back on page 3 of this thread before we even discussed and (I thought) resolved any personal issues on the matter. I’ve discussed, debated, even tried to offer a compromise on the matter and frankly, this post implies that I’m lying about how I felt about it (in a PM for some odd reason.

Here was what I’d like to see for Com in 6th edition



.

Comeliness: This characteristic measures the character's aesthetic appeal. It may represent beauty, impressiveness or anything else that appeals to the senses. Every 5 points of Com over 8 gives a +1 bonus on Interaction skills and +1d6 to Inspirational/Positive Pre attacks in situations where the GM feels it’s appropriate. Otherwise Com’s effects are primarily role playing. Hero System assumes Com is based on Human ideals but this will not be true for all campaigns. GMs wishing a more “realistic” simulation can ignore this characteristic and instead have the player purchase Skill Levels and Pre Bonuses Limited as appropriate. Comeliness costs 1 point per point of Characteristic.


Now tell me again how I really feel about the issue?

[nexus]

The only downside to allowing both the stat and the perk is that a player whose concept calls for the perk may not notice it and neglect to buy it.

I'd think it would be a campaign dependent thing not both would be used in all campaigns. The GM says "I'm using Com" or I'm using the Good Looking Talent" depending on the level of detail they want.

And you can make Com more subjective either by GM's discretion (Elf Com is much the same as Humans but Kobold less so) and/or if it seems like the character's Com is going to be -very- limited say, the hypothetical Hutt supermodel earlier, it can always be purchased with a limitation based on how much more limited it's going to be. Maybe for "realism" other races can get can limitations on their Com that are campaign specific with Human as the default - 0. Humanocentric but that was addressed earlier.

[GamePhil]

While beauty is famously subjective, there are actually common threads - facial symetry, signs of health, etc - that transcend individual preference and cultural norms. These could be represented by COM.

Similarly, having beautiful but currently unfashioanble attributes could be represented by a minor social disadvantage.

Not only an actually new argument (as far as I know), but one I can get behind. This could be a good basis for a COM score if it's kept. I'm not sure it's sufficient to warrant a whole Characteristic, as it's such a subtle thing, but it is at least something that is across the board and would affect people equally (probably not much, but equally).

If kept on this basis, you'd then take other bonuses/penalties based on the more subjective/cultural aspects of your good looks.

[IndianaJoe3]

Similarly, having beautiful but currently unfashioanble attributes could be represented by a minor social disadvantage.
The more I think about it, being the, "Fairest in the land" works out to being a disadvantage - you're always being kidnapped by marriage-minded royals or threatened by evil witches (Which is ridiculous 'cause witches they were persecuted Wicca good and love the earth and women power and I'll be over here). It's probably a Distinctive Feature, but the case can be made for it being a Social Limitation instead.

[James Gillen]

I've found creative uses for COM as other GM's have. It's like the perk Lightsleep: it's not used often but it does has it's uses.

It's not used often, but it HAS uses. ;)

JG

[rjcurrie]

The more I think about it, being the, "Fairest in the land" works out to being a disadvantage - you're always being kidnapped by marriage-minded royals or threatened by evil witches (Which is ridiculous 'cause witches they were persecuted Wicca good and love the earth and women power and I'll be over here). It's probably a Distinctive Feature, but the case can be made for it being a Social Limitation instead.

You could always take it as both a positive (Perk) and negative (Disad) Reputation.

[nexus]

Here's my idea for a possible way Com could be written up.

Comeliness: This characteristic measures the character's aesthetic appeal. It may represent beauty, impressiveness or anything else that appeals to the senses. Every 5 points of Com over 8 gives a +1 bonus on Interaction skills and +1d6 to Inspirational/Positive Pre attacks in situations where the GM feels it’s appropriate. Otherwise Com’s effects are primarily role playing. Hero System assumes Com is based on Human ideals but this will not be true for all campaigns. GMs wishing a more “realistic” simulation can ignore this characteristic and instead have the player purchase Skill Levels and Pre Bonuses Limited as appropriate. Comeliness costs 1 point per point of Characteristic.


Alternatively

Attractive: This Talent represents a character’s physical attractiveness. It normally applies only to their own and similar species. Attractiveness need not be sexual in nature. It can represent beauty, impressive looks or any certain “something” that is aesthetically pleasing. Each levels of Attractive acts a +1 to Interaction Skills and +1d6 to Positive/Motivational Pre attack when the Gm feels it’s appropriate. GMs wishing for a more granular but arguably less “realistic” measure of appearance can use the optional Comeliness characteristic. Attractive cost 5 points a level.

Personally, I feel that Attractive fits more under Talents since Perks tend to be things that the character is granted or earns from their society or an organization. In this case Comeliness would be under alternate characteristics in another section of the book. Either one can be purchased with limitations to reflex extremely social/cultural specific traits and/or the character can get a DF or some other Disadvantage to reflect those.

[pinecone]

While I like the idea of keeping COM a characteritic- IMHO, if everyone possesses an attribute, an that attribute varies smoothly among the population, it should be a characteristic (I'm for SIZE, too, for the same reason) - I certainly don't object to the idea of perks, either.

While beauty is famously subjective, there are actually common threads - facial symetry, signs of health, etc - that transcend individual preference and cultural norms. These could be represented by COM.

Conformance to a cultural norm or ideal could be represented by a perk. So could having good publicist. There were more beautiful women in the world than Norma Jean Baker, but as Marylin Monroe, she set a standard of beauty that only she conformed to perfectly. Unlike COM, which someone could always buy a little more superhumanly beautiful than you, a perk could establish you as the pinacle of beauty in your culture.

Similarly, having beautiful but currently unfashioanble attributes could be represented by a minor social disadvantage.

Very well said, I could see breaking it into two. Coml is "Universally good looking" and the Talent/Perq. is "Prefered by 5 out of six perverts" ;) it handles stuff like a certain culture placing a high value on a particular thing (like say the nape of your neck) and preferance.

"Sure she's hawt, but I like short brunettes, the Gothier the better"

[Doctor Agenda]

Not only an actually new argument (as far as I know), but one I can get behind. This could be a good basis for a COM score if it's kept. I'm not sure it's sufficient to warrant a whole Characteristic, as it's such a subtle thing, but it is at least something that is across the board and would affect people equally (probably not much, but equally).

If kept on this basis, you'd then take other bonuses/penalties based on the more subjective/cultural aspects of your good looks.

The Comeliness stat actually does a good job of accounting for taste: if you want to know whether one character finds another character attractive, that character makes a Comeliness roll. If you make it, you're their cup of tea, if you don't, you're not, even if you have an 18 Com, with gradations depending on how much you make or miss the role by. You can buy extra Com with a limitation to show that your looks appeal to fewer individuals than expected, like the example of being very attractive in an out-of-date way or exotic way (like Vincent). The Comeliness roll is a great complementary roll under the right circumstances for skills like Conversation, High Society, and of course, Seduction. I wouldn't roll it frequently, your first roll to see if the person finds you attractive could determine what bonus (if any) you get to appropriate uses of interaction skills.

In the Real World (tm) Comeliness is a VERY important attribute that colors many social interactions, your income, how you're treated by the legal system, not to mention how hard you have to work to get laid. GMs can ignore the stat, but that doesn't mean it is ACTUALLY unimportant. Turning it into a Perk won't break the game, but would make 6th E 'less attractive' to me. I'm all for 'looks-based' Perks that add distinctive utility to a character, but don't see a need to toss out the stat to get them.

[Doctor Agenda]

What about Absolute Range sense? That Talent always seemed like a kind of turkey for our group. It doesn't really "do" much of anything. It seems like more of a special effect for Range PSLs

Double Jointed is neat conceptually but it really just a special effect of buying up your Contortionist Skill

To borrow from GURPS maybe Eidetic Memory should have tiers with Perfect Recall being at the top and giving a small bonus to Skills in situations where having a perfect recollection would help.

Ambidexterity: I feel this is costed too high at 9 points for Full Ambidexterity. It's cheaper to be PSLs or CSL to off set the difference and in games without hit locations (and Impairing wounds) it doesn't seem to come up enough to warrant 9 points (IMO)

I agree about Ambidexterity, the perk has vanished from my games with the new, tripled cost. No one wants partial Ambidexterity either, they either want the whole thing or not at all. Nine points to cover you in case you can't use your dominant hand? Too pricy. I found it kind of odd that the 5th edition gave superheroes a hundred more points to spend on noncombat stuff, then increased the cost of so many abilities that infrequently affect combat. We used to be able to get Full Life Support for 30 points, now it costs freakin' 90 points if you want it to work against space cooties, too! :nonp:

[nexus]

Very well said, I could see breaking it into two. Coml is "Universally good looking" and the Talent/Perq. is "Preferred by 5 out of six perverts" ;) it handles stuff like a certain culture placing a high value on a particular thing (like say the nape of your neck) and preferance.

"Sure she's hawt, but I like short brunettes, the Gothier the better"

Hm now that's an interesting idea...

[BobGreenwade]

Very well said, I could see breaking it into two. Coml is "Universally good looking" and the Talent/Perq. is "Prefered by 5 out of six perverts" ;) it handles stuff like a certain culture placing a high value on a particular thing (like say the nape of your neck) and preferance.

"Sure she's hawt, but I like short brunettes, the Gothier the better"I really like this approach -- it kind of addresses both camps, and anyone who doesn't want to use either side doesn't have to use it.

[nexus]

Maybe it could be called something like "Enchanting Feature"

[casualplayer]

Maybe it could be called something like "Enchanting Feature"

In games that have this it's usually called "Dangerous Beauty."

[James Gillen]

I agree about Ambidexterity, the perk has vanished from my games with the new, tripled cost. No one wants partial Ambidexterity either, they either want the whole thing or not at all. Nine points to cover you in case you can't use your dominant hand? Too pricy. I found it kind of odd that the 5th edition gave superheroes a hundred more points to spend on noncombat stuff, then increased the cost of so many abilities that infrequently affect combat. We used to be able to get Full Life Support for 30 points, now it costs freakin' 90 points if you want it to work against space cooties, too! :nonp:

Hear Hear to all that.

JG

[James Gillen]

Alternatively

Attractive: This Talent represents a character’s physical attractiveness. It normally applies only to their own and similar species. Attractiveness need not be sexual in nature. It can represent beauty, impressive looks or any certain “something” that is aesthetically pleasing.

"'E must be the King... 'e'asn't got $#!t all over 'im."



Personally, I feel that Attractive fits more under Talents since Perks tend to be things that the character is granted or earns from their society or an organization. In this case Comeliness would be under alternate characteristics in another section of the book. Either one can be purchased with limitations to reflex extremely social/cultural specific traits and/or the character can get a DF or some other Disadvantage to reflect those.

My standard: "Average" STR still reflects a certain quantity. "Average" 10 DEX still reflects a certain game stat and base for DEX Skills. Average appearance has no game effect. If not everyone gets the bonuses of good looks, it should be some kind of a Talent (even if our build model works better as a Perk) and if not everyone suffers from ugliness, that should be some level of Disad.

JG

[nexus]

My standard: "Average" STR still reflects a certain quantity. "Average" 10 DEX still reflects a certain game stat and base for DEX Skills. Average appearance has no game effect. If not everyone gets the bonuses of good looks, it should be some kind of a Talent (even if our build model works better as a Perk) and if not everyone suffers from ugliness, that should be some level of Disad.

JG

I don't want to get back into the argument about whether Com should be a characteristic or not; that was getting too heated but trying to present options that will allow both sides to be at least somewhat mollified. Hero System will not be objectively broken by removing Comeliness. but it isn't objectively broken by having it. There are players that don't like it though and presenting an option for them is a good decision, IMO.

[Lucius]

While beauty is famously subjective, there are actually common threads - facial symetry, signs of health, etc - that transcend individual preference and cultural norms. These could be represented by COM.


Do they transcend species?

But the thing I really, really don't understand: All this "Fairest in the Land" business. I don't see how having COM vs. having a Perk vs. any other solution really, relates to that.

If two characters BOTH have 26 COM, who is "Fairest?"

If you buy yours up to 28, what prevents someone else from doing so? Or going up to 30? Before you know it we have someone with 70 COM...wait, didn't we already see one of those?

If it's a Perk, settle the question by asking who has most points in the Perk. If it's a Characteristic, ask who has most points in the Characteristic. Looks like the same process either way.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary wonders why we're still discussing the issue....

[nexus]

The palindromedary wonders why we're still discussing the issue....

People keep replying to posts on the topic, like you just did and I am now.

[CTaylor]

I heartily, strongly, loudly concur: ambidexterity is way too spendy but with the multiple power attacks rule it might be a reasonable cost.

[nexus]

I heartily, strongly, loudly concur: ambidexterity is way too spendy but with the multiple power attacks rule it might be a reasonable cost.

I think 3 points is about right and I've House Ruled Ambidexterity to that cost. My players seem happy with and get it if it fits their concept.

I'd like to make Double Jointed something more than essentially flavor text/sfx for being more levels with Contortionist since I like the idea behind the Talent but I haven't been able to think of anything.

[RobCRogers]

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.

Boy, I really disagree with this one. To my mind, it discourages players from assigning disadvantages to followers, vehicles, bases, etc., thus making them less well-rounded and interesting. I'll grant that it makes some things less confusing (like what do you pay for a bunch of followers who net out at 0 points because they've got Skills, increased Characteristics, etc., but also Disadvantages). But it's also counterintuitive--you think that the Disadvantages have to be worth something, so it's confusing to find out that they're not. Anyway, please consider letting the Disadvantages have some impact here.


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.

I agree completely.


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.

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.

I agree with this--I don't think that you should eliminate the two you mentioned, though; I actually see a lot of characters created with both of those (granted, not every character with a musical background needs to have Perfect Pitch, but a lot of players tend to use this one). They're flavorful.

[nostromo]

I like variety, so I have looked at other sources for idea's. Now I have to convert many of them which can be hard to figure what is right for the point cost, but it does add flavor.

[James Gillen]

Do they transcend species?

But the thing I really, really don't understand: All this "Fairest in the Land" business. I don't see how having COM vs. having a Perk vs. any other solution really, relates to that.

If two characters BOTH have 26 COM, who is "Fairest?"

The one who can get her assassin to rip out the other one's heart, of course.

JG

[Lord Liaden]

Another alternative way to handle Comeliness would be as a Talent, based on Presence, Limited to only affect Interaction Skills in situations where attractiveness would be a factor, and/or Presence Attacks which persuade or inspire, rather than frighten or intimidate. That way people whose character concept justifies extra benefits from attractiveness can purchase it; and it can be quantified for those who want "the fairest in the land." ;)

Those restricted uses for Interaction Skills and Presence Attacks are fundamental to my own use of the Comeliness Characteristic. In my games I use Comeliness at its official cost, but apply it differently. Each point of Comeliness over 10 adds to the character's Presence total on a 1 point per 1 point basis, solely for the uses that I described above. In essence the character has two Presence scores, one for all situations and the other only for certain circumstances. However, every point of Comeliness below ten subtracts from the character's PRE by the same amount for the same purposes. I like this not just because it reflects what I think is a valid separation of physical attractiveness from impressiveness, but also because it provides game mechanical effects to buying Comeliness down as well as up.

[CTaylor]

There's really no argument for comeliness that's better than just using the stat as is. If you don't care about it, don't bother with it in your game, it's cheap enough to be pretty meaningless anyway.

[Tech]

Boy, I really disagree with this one. To my mind, it discourages players from assigning disadvantages to followers, vehicles, bases, etc., thus making them less well-rounded and interesting. I'll grant that it makes some things less confusing (like what do you pay for a bunch of followers who net out at 0 points because they've got Skills, increased Characteristics, etc., but also Disadvantages). But it's also counterintuitive--you think that the Disadvantages have to be worth something, so it's confusing to find out that they're not. Anyway, please consider letting the Disadvantages have some impact here.

I agree completely.

I agree with this--I don't think that you should eliminate the two you mentioned, though; I actually see a lot of characters created with both of those (granted, not every character with a musical background needs to have Perfect Pitch, but a lot of players tend to use this one). They're flavorful.

The HeroSystem is about being to build what you want; it's about being to build any power, any skill. As the 5th edition title states: The Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit. If there are some talents that add a little flavor here and there, it's useful to keep them because it gives flavor to some characters that buy them and are available to the player who wants them. Perfect Pitch, Lightsleep, Comliness, etc., are useful and should be kept because of the flavor they add. The system is about opening up possibilities of powers, skills and talents - making them available to the player who is going to create a character. It is not about limiting the player in his or her choices during character creation.

Just as there are optional rules that are rarely used, yet still included in the system, there will be talents and perhaps a characteristic that should be available to a player who wants to use them. That's what the Hero System is about.

[RobCRogers]

The HeroSystem is about being to build what you want; it's about being to build any power, any skill. As the 5th edition title states: The Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit. If there are some talents that add a little flavor here and there, it's useful to keep them because it gives flavor to some characters that buy them and are available to the player who wants them. Perfect Pitch, Lightsleep, Comliness, etc., are useful and should be kept because of the flavor they add. The system is about opening up possibilities of powers, skills and talents - making them available to the player who is going to create a character. It is not about limiting the player in his or her choices during character creation.

Just as there are optional rules that are rarely used, yet still included in the system, there will be talents and perhaps a characteristic that should be available to a player who wants to use them. That's what the Hero System is about.

Yes, I agree with you here. On the Comeliness thing, I think I've come around to the idea that Comeliness can easily be replaced by a talent without losing flavor, but I like the idea in general of having a variety of Talents available.

[GamePhil]

Currently, when a Perk is lost, so too are the Character Points spent on it. I would like to see this eliminated, as it creates an odd metagaming aspect to Perks in that they are not connected to the character. Perks that are lost should have the points refunded to be spent again when the GM and player think it is appropriate.

The exception to this is special GM rewards, which come and go at whim anyway. However, I don't think that such rewards should be limited to Perks alone, but to whatever the GM decides.

[nexus]

I want Com to remain because it does what I want it to do better than than the proposed alternatives not because of "nostalgia" and stubbornness blinding me to the obvious superiority of the alternatives. I understand it doesn't work for others and I believe the reasons it doesn't. Thats what I wanted to propose a compromise. Hero System isn't broken without Comeliness (just lessened, IMO) but it isn't broken with it either (don't like it, don't use it)

And yeah, I am posting about it again.

[GamePhil]

I want Com to remain because it does what I want it to do better than than the proposed alternatives not because of "nostalgia" and stubbornness blinding me to the obvious superiority of the alternatives. I understand it doesn't work for others and I believe the reasons it doesn't. Thats what I wanted to propose a compromise. Hero System isn't broken without Comeliness (just lessened, IMO) but it isn't broken with it either (don't like it, don't use it)

And yeah, I am posting about it again.

Then by all means, post a summation of objective benefits of keeping it as a Characteristic over making it something else. I'm afraid "My arbitrary number is better than your arbitrary number for RPing" just isn't one, neither is "It feels better, the alternatives are vanilla". I don't remember anything other than Opal's posts that were even an attempt, and I don't ultimately accept that reasoning that it's appropriate for reasons I've said enough times. I doubt Steve's going to, and I'm even more sure that subjective pleas will meet with failure.

And as for the compromise of "leave it in and if you don't like it don't use it", that's as much of a "compromise" as "take it out and if you want it put it back".

[Opal]

Do they transcend species?The studies I heard of only dealt with human reaction to human faces. But I'd guess that to an extent, they probably do, particularly as far as signs of health go. It's often easy to tell a diseased or deformed member of another species, for instance, and the gut reaction to them is negative - or, at least, more negative than to ordinary members of that species.

Species-specific and cultural takes on it would, IMHO, be better represented with a perk or disad.



But the thing I really, really don't understand: All this "Fairest in the Land" business. I don't see how having COM vs. having a Perk vs. any other solution really, relates to that.
I'd think that the perk would be better-suited to that, since perks tend to top out. 10 pts of a beauty perk - so good-looking, it's as valuable as leadership of a country or a liscence to kill - would probably be as far as it goes, and it would respresent a pincacle state like that, even if someone with a higher COM did make an apearace. With that kind of perk, you're not only beautiful in a visceral sense, you /define/ beauty.


So, I'd really like to see both. COM for the universal statistic that represents factors like symetry and the apearance of good health. Perks for conformity to cultural ideals, or just really good PR.

[GamePhil]

So, I'd really like to see both. COM for the universal statistic that represents factors like symetry and the apearance of good health. Perks for conformity to cultural ideals, or just really good PR.

I fear I just don't see those factors as universal enough to define a Characteristic, and if they are that important, the COM you're talking about should be based on CON and possibly BODY, not a Primary Characteristic.

That said, I honestly don't care if it's kept. I just don't care if it goes, and I have seen no arguments that appear to be good enough that Steve will keep it. Maybe it will get put somewhere in the back under examples of "How to add a Characteristic" and the theory behind actually making a Characteristic that has impact.

[Opal]

I fear I just don't see those factors as universal enough to define a Characteristic, and if they are that important, the COM you're talking about should be based on CON and possibly BODY, not a Primary Characteristic.You've seen through my ploy to create /more/ figured characteristcs! ;)


That said, I honestly don't care if it's kept. I just don't care if it goes, and I have seen no arguments that appear to be good enough that Steve will keep it.I don't know. It's been given very little mechanical impact, but IRL, how you look makes a big difference. I guess, when a lot of us play an RPG, though, RL is what we're trying to get away from. I know I am.

As far as 'dramatic realism' goes, you don't get a lot of ordinary looking people in the genres Hero tends to be used to emulate. A lot of very good looking ones, and some very nasty looking ones, though. I suppose to model that you could give the stat/perk more impact or make it cheap - or otherwise a 'good deal' - so that more players will choose to have good-looking heros.

As it stands, COM is often ignored, even though it's a stat, right there on your character sheet. I'd suspect a perk would see even less investment, unless it did have some mechanical impact that was a good deal for it's cost.

[GamePhil]

As it stands, COM is often ignored, even though it's a stat, right there on your character sheet. I'd suspect a perk would see even less investment, unless it did have some mechanical impact that was a good deal for it's cost.

Plenty of Reputations out there, don't see any reason that good-looking will be particularly ignored if done some other way, at least not any more than it is already. As for the "dramatic realism" aspect: if everyone is good looking and healthy, it's nothing special. 10 COM, or otherwise no cost. You have to stand out to buy it up or down.

[pinecone]

I think 3 points is about right and I've House Ruled Ambidexterity to that cost. My players seem happy with and get it if it fits their concept.

I'd like to make Double Jointed something more than essentially flavor text/sfx for being more levels with Contortionist since I like the idea behind the Talent but I haven't been able to think of anything.

I slit the diff and set it at 5 pts....

[MPT]

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

Whilst I would say that most player's of HERO are not power-gamers, if you do not include Disadvantages in the cost then such player's will not use them.

Also, one of the core ideas of the HERO system is that you pay for anything that is useful. If the Disadvantages are not included in the costs then the player is effectively getting items with a lack of disadvantage for free.

I do not allow characters to buy Perks that are more powerful than themselves and so have no GM basis on which to commment on removing the cost break for high cost items. My feeling, however, is that this is needed to stop silly situations --- theoretically a 150 pt Hero could spend nothing on their stats and buy a 750pt vehicle to ride around iin.

Q: Should we add or remove any Talents?

Keep all the existing Talents, and I also vote for "The Ultimate Talent".

Whilst all the Talents can be created using the other rules the fact that many are common abilities found in other RPGs means that it makes far more sense for then to be written once in an easily accessible place (i.e. the core rules) rather than players having to work it out themselves.

You only have to look at the number of Feats available for the D20 system to see how popular the whole idea of talents is. (I know that not all Feats are what HERO would call Talents, but there is some overlap).

[Sketchpad]

Q: Should we add or remove any Talents?

Keep all the existing Talents, and I also vote for "The Ultimate Talent".

Whilst all the Talents can be created using the other rules the fact that many are common abilities found in other RPGs means that it makes far more sense for then to be written once in an easily accessible place (i.e. the core rules) rather than players having to work it out themselves.

You only have to look at the number of Feats available for the D20 system to see how popular the whole idea of talents is. (I know that not all Feats are what HERO would call Talents, but there is some overlap).

You know something, I agree with the whole Feats thing. I think that Feats allow some good flavor to d20 characters and Talents should be the same for Hero characters. I'd love to see a big list of talents in the 6th ed book, as well as something expanding on it later on akin to an Ultimate Talent :)

[GamePhil]

Actually, that post belongs in Characteristics.

[Trebuchet]

Makes sense to me. Couldn't a perk accomplish much the same thing? I'm just throwing it out there for discussion and not so much arguing the "right or wrong" of it.If COM is dropped as a Characteristic, I think it would be a better fit as a Talent since it appears more of an innate ability. Perks seem more to be something "tacked on" to a person which grant certain privileges.

I'd prefer to keep COM. We do see a use for it in role-playing in our campaigns.

[Sketchpad]

For COM ... I would just make an Attractive Talent (+2 to PRE based skills vs. the opposite sex). Maybe allow it to be bought a few times.

[pinecone]

For COM ... I would just make an Attractive Talent (+2 to PRE based skills vs. the opposite sex). Maybe allow it to be bought a few times.

Except I don't think thats in any way accurate...Endless studies have shown peoples preferance for "Good looking" people.

Casting it as sexual is a oversimplification. I'd see no problem with a high comliness robot.

It's a robot, but it looks dang nice, many a fortune has been built on understanding that a hot looking item sells better than a "just as good" functional one.

I am hetrosexual, but that does not mean a good looking guy won't gain all sorts of cultural advantages in his interactions with me...or anyone else for that matter......

[JmOz]

For COM ... I would just make an Attractive Talent (+2 to PRE based skills vs. the opposite sex). Maybe allow it to be bought a few times.

I think if you look at the reputation perk you see a decent method for replacing COM. You still can buy it at levels, it has a direct effect on PER in certain situations, even includes adding to PRE attacks in the right cercumstances (Being extremly ugly can help cause fear)

[Sketchpad]

Except I don't think thats in any way accurate...Endless studies have shown peoples preferance for "Good looking" people.

Casting it as sexual is a oversimplification. I'd see no problem with a high comliness robot.

It's a robot, but it looks dang nice, many a fortune has been built on understanding that a hot looking item sells better than a "just as good" functional one.

I am hetrosexual, but that does not mean a good looking guy won't gain all sorts of cultural advantages in his interactions with me...or anyone else for that matter......

I agree and disagree ;) Attractive may not be accurate, but really, neither is COM. Otherwise, I agree ;)


I think if you look at the reputation perk you see a decent method for replacing COM. You still can buy it at levels, it has a direct effect on PER in certain situations, even includes adding to PRE attacks in the right cercumstances (Being extremly ugly can help cause fear)

Not a bad build idea :)

[CTaylor]

I would just make an Attractive Talent (+2 to PRE based skills vs. the opposite sex). Maybe allow it to be bought a few times.

Which again is different than just buying Comeliness how?

[ajackson]

Which again is different than just buying Comeliness how?
It has defined game mechanics. Com doesn't have solid game mechanics, and if used, it relies on a complementary skill roll, which is a rather annoying secondary mechanic.

[BobGreenwade]

For COM ... I would just make an Attractive Talent (+2 to PRE based skills vs. the opposite sex). Maybe allow it to be bought a few times.


Which again is different than just buying Comeliness how?

For one thing, Sketchpad's Talent only works vs the opposite sex, whereas COM would often affect everyone with little regard for gender. (It'd arguably work better on members of the opposite sex in most circumstances, but many aspects of aesthetics, and their effects, are pretty universal.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Which again is different than just buying Comeliness how?


It has defined game mechanics. Com doesn't have solid game mechanics, and if used, it relies on a complementary skill roll, which is a rather annoying secondary mechanic.

So how is it different from simply defining mechanics for COM? If we can either change the game by defining mechanics for COM, or by creating a new replacement for COM an ddefining mechanics for that, it seems to me that the former is the simpler approach. And I generally lean to the simplest approach that will get the job done.

[ajackson]

So how is it different from simply defining mechanics for COM?
Okay, how's this: 'Com: acts as +X Pre, which only applies to friendly persuasion tests towards people who would care about human standards of appearance'.

The basic problem with Com is that it really isn't anything but limited Pre.

[Chris Goodwin]

It has defined game mechanics. Com doesn't have solid game mechanics, and if used, it relies on a complementary skill roll, which is a rather annoying secondary mechanic.

So why not define mechanics for COM rather than removing it?

[ajackson]

So why not define mechanics for COM rather than removing it?
Because stats should be independent, and Com isn't -- there is essentially nothing that would be affected by Com that isn't also affected by Pre. Thus, Com is Pre -- it's just a limited form of it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Because stats should be independent, and Com isn't -- there is essentially nothing that would be affected by Com that isn't also affected by Pre. Thus, Com is Pre -- it's just a limited form of it.

This depends on what mechanics we add for COM. PRE attacks require a 0 phase action. An attractive physical specimen often attracts attention just by walking into the room, and sometimes doesn't even know it. A "no action" PRE type attack would be a new mechanic.

Basing some interaction skills on COM, with PRE as complimentary would also add a new mechanic for COM.

[CTaylor]

For one thing, Sketchpad's Talent only works vs the opposite sex, whereas COM would often affect everyone with little regard for gender. (It'd arguably work better on members of the opposite sex in most circumstances, but many aspects of aesthetics, and their effects, are pretty universal.)

... I don't see anything about comeliness that requires it to be equally effective to everyone with little regard to gender. I really don't get this problem people have with comeliness, it's a stat for appearance, Presence is a stat for force of personality. Each one has its place, and each one works in the games as is. If you cannot work out how to role play someone who's really good looking I guess the rules could come up with charts and hard rules for how to do so, but I can't figure out what kind of person would be unable to figure out what it's supposed to do.

Unless you're the kind of person who sees the entire world in terms fo combat effectiveness.

[OzMike]

Maybe vehicles should also have a COM stat. You know - nice looking car, ugly car, Volvo ...






*ducks*

:D

[BobGreenwade]

Maybe vehicles should also have a COM stat. You know - nice looking car, ugly car, Volvo ...As mentioned on page 16 of TUV (and twice in the thread on Characteristics).

[ajackson]

This depends on what mechanics we add for COM. PRE attacks require a 0 phase action. An attractive physical specimen often attracts attention just by walking into the room, and sometimes doesn't even know it. A "no action" PRE type attack would be a new mechanic.
A high presence person could easily attract attention by just walking into a room.

Basing some interaction skills on COM, with PRE as complimentary would also add a new mechanic for COM.
Yes, but it would fail to make any sense.

[pinecone]

I agree and disagree ;) Attractive may not be accurate, but really, neither is COM. Otherwise, I agree ;)



Not a bad build idea :)

I remember posting an idea just like that in a thread, so the thing is doable as is...but I've never tested it in actual play...so it might need work...

[Hugh Neilson]

A high presence person could easily attract attention by just walking into a room.

Not under the rules as written.


Yes, but it would fail to make any sense.

As always, insightful and constructive criticism of the concept is very useful and much appreciated.

[ajackson]

Not under the rules as written.
Under the rules as written, a high Com person can't do that either.

As always, insightful and constructive criticism of the concept is very useful and much appreciated.
Pre is your ability to influence people. Having an influence skill that isn't based on your ability to influence people doesn't make sense. Certain non-influence skills might be based primarily on Com, but the game role for Modeling and Beauty Pageant skills is quite limited.

[CTaylor]

The rules don't cover every single situation because the game presumes a GM: someone who runs the game and covers reactions and interaction with NPCs, making them come to life and behave based on the character's stats and actions.

I honestly don't know what some of you want, a MMOG? Where the actions are all pre-programmed?

[Hugh Neilson]

Pre is your ability to influence people.

No. PRE is not your ability to influence people. Let's take it from the source:


Presence represents the character's forcefulness, charisma, bravery, confidence, bearing and leadership qualities - in short, his impressiveness. PRE allows characters to impress or awe others and to resist the effects of another's high PRE.

Now, that sounds like something that would impact one's ability to intimidate and to inspire.

Interaction skills influence people.

It seems quite appropriate that skills like bureaucratics, high society, interrogation and oratory would be enhanced by being impresive. But other skills which fall under the interaction skills list might just as well, or even better, be primarily guided by one's physical appearance. Certainly, a pleasant physical appearance better opens the door to seduction or conversation. In fact, it seems quite appropriate that more subtle forms of interaction would, if anything, be reduced in effectiveness of the user is impressive and intimidating. Have you ever tried to have a chat or a drink after work with someone who does, in fact, intimidate you?

[Trebuchet]

The rules don't cover every single situation because the game presumes a GM: someone who runs the game and covers reactions and interaction with NPCs, making them come to life and behave based on the character's stats and actions.You know, it occurs to me that COM may be as much a shorthand for the GM of a character as the character's actual player. It's a shorthand for "This is how I want other characters to perceive my character and react to him/her." The GM can see a COM number and make an educated guess as to how the character is likely to be perceived, and to some extend reacted to, by NPCs in the game; making allowances for gender, PsychLims, PRE, and other factors. But COM is often going to be what makes that important first impression.

[GamePhil]

No. PRE is not your ability to influence people.

Let me make sure I understand: Forcefulness, charisma, bravery, confidence, bearing and leadership qualities do not influence people? I do believe at this point we have such vastly different definitions for that list that we're not going to agree, so I'll just bow out.

[Trebuchet]

Let me make sure I understand: Forcefulness, charisma, bravery, confidence, bearing and leadership qualities do not influence people? I do believe at this point we have such vastly different definitions for that list that we're not going to agree, so I'll just bow out.I think he means PRE isn't the sole Characteristic or factor that influences people.

Charisma and leadership qualities are both clearly traits of PRE that influence others. The other ones may or may not be directly influential but might still factor into a person's ability to influence others. There are clearly other traits that can influence others; including things like wealth, position, physical attractiveness, and ideology. All are relevant factors and this list is hardly comprehensive.

COM may be a lesser factor for many in determining reaction and influence than PRE or some others, but it clearly isn't irrelevant.

[nexus]

I think what Hugh was saying is that Pre doesn't let you influence people beyond the relatively blunt stick of Pre attacks. If you have a Pre of 100 and no Interaction skills you're not better at influencing and manipulating others than someone with a Pre of 8 but you have allot of potential.


Somewhat off topic but it seems like Pre and Ego overlap.

If Pre is your Bravery then why do you roll Ego to overcome fear in most cases except for Pre attacks (which you can use the higher of the two). A charismatic person is not necessarily a brave one; same thing with confidence. The tends to be an Ego roll. Perhaps that stems from an endemic misunderstanding of the system or perhaps the problem doesn't lay solely with Comeliness but all the mental/social characteristics could use refining and better definition.

[Hugh Neilson]

Let me make sure I understand: Forcefulness, charisma, bravery, confidence, bearing and leadership qualities do not influence people? I do believe at this point we have such vastly different definitions for that list that we're not going to agree, so I'll just bow out.

I did not disagree that they can influence people. You may note, if you read my entire post, that I cite several interaction skills that are approrpiately based on those qualities - ie Presence.

I did, however, disagree with your assertion that PRE, by definition, represents the ability to influence people. It does not. I quoted the definition, and it does not refer to the ability to influence people. It represents impressiveness. That impressiveness may, in many cases, influence people. But not in every way that people can be influenced. As well, it is not the only thing PRE can do. As such, I consider your definition of PRE = Influence as being inaccurate.


I think he means PRE isn't the sole Characteristic or factor that influences people.

Charisma and leadership qualities are both clearly traits of PRE that influence others. The other ones may or may not be directly influential but might still factor into a person's ability to influence others. There are clearly other traits that can influence others; including things like wealth, position, physical attractiveness, and ideology. All are relevant factors and this list is hardly comprehensive.

COM may be a lesser factor for many in determining reaction and influence than PRE or some others, but it clearly isn't irrelevant.

Bingo - and a lot depends on HOW you influence them. I didn't look up the book definition of COM, either. Practically, this could include qualities such as poise and even friendliness (sincere or otherwise). These "first blush" traits can be very influential in initial and brief encounters, and could last for years if you never get to know the real person underneath. They make an excellent basis for several of the present interaction skills.


I think what Hugh was saying is that Pre doesn't let you influence people beyond the relatively blunt stick of Pre attacks. If you have a Pre of 100 and no Interaction skills you're not better at influencing and manipulating others than someone with a Pre of 8 but you have allot of potential.

Very true - PRE alone grants little ability to influence people. Modifying some interaction skills to be based primarily on COM (with, perhaps, a complimentary PRE roll) would also mean COM grants potential, but requires an understanding of how to use your attractiveness to good advantage in order to fully realize that potential.


Somewhat off topic but it seems like Pre and Ego overlap.

If Pre is your Bravery then why do you roll Ego to overcome fear in most cases except for Pre attacks (which you can use the higher of the two). A charismatic person is not necessarily a brave one; same thing with confidence. The tends to be an Ego roll. Perhaps that stems from an endemic misunderstanding of the system or perhaps the problem doesn't lay solely with Comeliness but all the mental/social characteristics could use refining and better definition.

All good questions, and something it would be beneficial to see clarified in 5e. In particular, I'd like to see overlaps limited or removed. Perhaps EGO might become complementary to PRE attack resistance in some way (or PRE become complementary to EGO). It bugs me that a character with a 30 PRE, 10 EGO or a 30 EGO, 10PRE gets the same resistance to PRE attacks as one with 30 PRE and 30 EGO. The 30/30 character isn't getting the full benefit from one of those stats, but he pays the same cost for both. I'm going to copy the above (Nexus' last quote and my reply) to the Characteristics thread, as it appears to fit better there.

[CTaylor]

I think what Hugh was saying is that Pre doesn't let you influence people beyond the relatively blunt stick of Pre attacks. If you have a Pre of 100 and no Interaction skills you're not better at influencing and manipulating others than someone with a Pre of 8 but you have allot of potential.

Let's put that more accurately: there are no rules at present for how to simulate a person interacting with the world differently lacking these skills. A GM can change how people react and even use just straight up presence rolls to represent how people treat someone with that kind of force of personality, a good one will. There's just nothing in the book holding your hand and telling you how to do it. Maybe there ought to be.

[casualplayer]

I think what Hugh was saying is that Pre doesn't let you influence people beyond the relatively blunt stick of Pre attacks. If you have a Pre of 100 and no Interaction skills you're not better at influencing and manipulating others than someone with a Pre of 8 but you have allot of potential.

Yeah, Galactus is impressive but he can't pick up hotties to save his life.

[nexus]

Let's put that more accurately: there are no rules at present for how to simulate a person interacting with the world differently lacking these skills. A GM can change how people react and even use just straight up presence rolls to represent how people treat someone with that kind of force of personality, a good one will. There's just nothing in the book holding your hand and telling you how to do it. Maybe there ought to be.

That would fall under my earlier post about Characteristic rolls and the "Social mechanics" needing to be expanded on.

[CTaylor]

Yeah, Galactus is impressive but he can't pick up hotties to save his life.

Tell that to Frankie Rae

[megaplayboy]

I think there's different aspects to Comeliness, if we break it down a bit.

For example, a femme fatale has sex appeal, while a puppy is adorably cute. The effects of the two on characters' reactions are dramatically different.

The main perk I'd like to see changed quite a bit is Money.

At the moment, it seems more like a prerequisite (to justify various other perks or equipment or background) than a perquisite.

In a heroic level game, being a multi-millionaire or multi-billionaire should be immensely valuable, since in theory you could just have a stockpile of useful equipment. In a superheroic game, it mostly seems to be a background detail explaining why you can afford your own superbase and flying vermin suit, flying vermin car, flying vermin utility belt, etc.

In the real world, making 100,000 dollars a year is worth just a tad more than 1 point. 5 points of wealth(half a million dollars a year) gives you a million dollar home in a gated community, a 100+ K Mercedes or Lexus(and maybe a Hummer too), the ability to vacation in Europe 2-4 weeks a year, invites to exclusive parties, etc.
At that level, you are in roughly the top .5% of the population.

10 points of wealth(5 million dollars a year) gives you a decent sized mansion or several mcmansions, a yacht and one heck of a rolodex. At that level, you are in roughly the top .01% of the population. Only about 20,000 people in the US are this rich.

15 points of wealth(?more than 50 million?) puts you in Forbes 400 territory. You are one of the 400 wealthiest Americans(real world, this group averaged 213 million a year last year) and live in a mega-mansion, own a mega-yacht, a private jet, possibly your own island, etc.

I guess the real problem is that, in a supers game, lots of people take it because, role-playing wise, it's pretty darn useful, and in a heroic game, those extra 5-15 points might be better spent elsewhere.

If there is a wealth perk, I think there should be an option to set up a "wealth pool", basically similar to an equipment pool--if you have the money to get some piece of equipment, you "buy" it out of your wealth pool.

[BobGreenwade]

I think there's different aspects to Comeliness, if we break it down a bit.

For example, a femme fatale has sex appeal, while a puppy is adorably cute. The effects of the two on characters' reactions are dramatically different.Much of which is discussed at some length in the Characteristics thread (which, quite responsibly, is where you put most of what you have to say about this.)
If there is a wealth perk, I think there should be an option to set up a "wealth pool", basically similar to an equipment pool--if you have the money to get some piece of equipment, you "buy" it out of your wealth pool.I like this idea very much. At the very least, some suggestions on how Wealth can affect the game mechanically (such as expanding one's Resource Pool) would be helpful. :thumbup:

[CTaylor]

It's been my experience that people tend to ignore wealth in superheroic games and buy it for heroic, where it actually has tangible effect.

[Trebuchet]

For example, a femme fatale has sex appeal, while a puppy is adorably cute. The effects of the two on characters' reactions are dramatically different.Different, yes, but both reactions based on appearance are still positive. That suggests a commonality to these aspects (and perhaps others) of COM.

I could see even giving some animals high COM. A tiger is a beautiful animal, although you might not admire his appearance if he's about to pounce on you. But in the abstract, one can admire how handsome the predator is. I would suggest as a default making COM the rating from the human viewpoint just for the sake of providing a frame of reference. If something or someone is handsome by the standards of its species (like a squid) but not from the human viewpoint, that might be the appropriate place to use a Perk or Talent to supplement COM.

[BobGreenwade]

It's been my experience that people tend to ignore wealth in superheroic games and buy it for heroic, where it actually has tangible effect.I, for one, do not -- though most people I've played with do tend to overlook (rather than ignore) the Perk.

Perhaps future genre books can go into some specific details on how this Perk can affect play.

[Vondy]

It's been my experience that people tend to ignore wealth in superheroic games and buy it for heroic, where it actually has tangible effect.

It hasn't been mine. But then, I've always used the mundane non-combat stuff is free if your character would be able to afford it. And, my players, for whatever reason, have seldom been interested in playing "peter parker can't hold a job because of his superheroing" characters. Its not something they tend to want to bother with. A point or two of wealth gets them a house, car, laptop, cell-phone, wardrobe, small investment portfolio... and more of course gets them a penthouse, a couple of sports cars, a lease on a lear jet, and that sort of thing. I only require points signature equipment or things only the hero has access to - though mundane combat gear and agency equipment comes from resource points. In "pay points for everything" campaigns wealth may have less impact, but I can think of several ways to use it (for instance: at least one JLA scenario involved batman using his wealth to make a hostile takeover of a business lex luthor was using to finance a supervillian team). I don't know. I don't run one. But it seems to me a creative GM can find uses for it - even when people pay for most of their stuff with points.

[nexus]

I think I fall somewhere in the middle. My players tend to get Wealth if they think it fits the concept and I try to make it useful (or at least fun) for them. To be fair, not having Wealth doesn't mean your character is dead broke, it means they don't have an outstanding income. Poor and Destitute are Disadvantages.

[Vondy]

To be fair, not having Wealth doesn't mean your character is dead broke, it means they don't have an outstanding income. Poor and Destitute are Disadvantages.

I agree. My players, however, seemed to think 1-2 points of wealth was a kick: something of an empowerment fantasy.

[pinecone]

I agree. My players, however, seemed to think 1-2 points of wealth was a kick: something of an empowerment fantasy.

And that is in my opinion, the point of role playing games, is it not?

[BobGreenwade]

I agree. My players, however, seemed to think 1-2 points of wealth was a kick: something of an empowerment fantasy.


And that is in my opinion, the point of role playing games, is it not?

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