Characteristics Issues

[steamteck]

Weird. From what I can tell, 6E is not "clearly" headed in any direction whatsoever....


weird seems it is to me.

[megaplayboy]

If you are unable to see the difference between External Environmental consequences due to the laws of campaign physics and the Internal Mental Choice of a character by the player (basically the very soul of the character), then there is not much I can do to explain it to you.

Either one sees the difference, or they don't.

And I have no problem with anyone who does or does not see it and running their games based on that.

It seems some do have problem that I do see a difference. Oh well.

- Christopher Mullins

I guess what I'm trying to suss out is the exact nature of this "Social Contract"--is it some implicit agreement/understanding that players have absolute control over their characters' actions/reactions in social situations and dramatic/traumatic encounters, regardless of whether they might be genre-inappropriate, out of character, destroy the roleplay/story illusion, or whatnot? Therefore, PRE skills are useless/superfluous, COM is useless/superfluous, and PRE attacks are useless/superfluous in your game, etc. ?
Just trying to get clarification on that.

[StGrimblefig]

I guess what I'm trying to suss out is the exact nature of this "Social Contract"--is it some implicit agreement/understanding that players have absolute control over their characters' actions/reactions in social situations and dramatic/traumatic encounters, regardless of whether they might be genre-inappropriate, out of character, destroy the roleplay/story illusion, or whatnot? Therefore, PRE skills are useless/superfluous, COM is useless/superfluous, and PRE attacks are useless/superfluous in your game, etc. ?
Just trying to get clarification on that.
Of course, you will have to ask schir and Chris for their definitions of "social contract," but one of the better discussions of the subject that I have read is over at (the unfortunately dormant) Treasure Tables site, in a post entitled "Social Contracts for RPG Groups." (http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/06/social-contracts-for-rpg-groups)

[Chris Goodwin]

Thank you.


The Social Contract as I've defined it is the default for my games, and also any type of RPG I've run, not just Hero. This is the default before the book is even opened.

Thus, PRE is a violation of this Default Premise for the games I run. Simple as that. If you don't understand or agree with it, fine. I'm not saying you have to.


Perfectly valid rule if one wants to redefine the Social Contract for their games.

This doesn't change the fact that if one player removes another player's character from being part of a critical part of game play then the player of the affected character will feel cheated. Especially if it happens often. Same thing if NPCs do it also.

If this is too foreign an idea to make sense to some people, there is not much more I can do to explain.

There is a reason why I haven't removed it from my games. My players have only occasionally used it against low level thugs. Fortunately, they have never tried to use it on one another (probably due to the fact that they wouldn't want it used on them that way). So it hasn't been a problem so far.

So I do understand what you are saying, and I'm sure it works fine for you r games. So if you want to run your games that way, great, but you've not presented anything new to convince me that the way I run things is less fun/correct than any other.

- Christopher Mullins

Ok, for your games, that's cool.

But in that case, why are we talking about it here, as in the 6e discussion forum?

[Chris Goodwin]

I guess what I'm trying to suss out is the exact nature of this "Social Contract"--is it some implicit agreement/understanding that players have absolute control over their characters' actions/reactions in social situations and dramatic/traumatic encounters, regardless of whether they might be genre-inappropriate, out of character, destroy the roleplay/story illusion, or whatnot? Therefore, PRE skills are useless/superfluous, COM is useless/superfluous, and PRE attacks are useless/superfluous in your game, etc. ?
Just trying to get clarification on that.

Of course, you will have to ask schir and Chris for their definitions of "social contract," but one of the better discussions of the subject that I have read is over at (the unfortunately dormant) Treasure Tables site, in a post entitled "Social Contracts for RPG Groups." (http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/06/social-contracts-for-rpg-groups)

Chinn's definition in that article is pretty much what I think of when I hear the words "social contract" in the context of tabletop RPGing.

[Paragon]

then I'm going to gather that there are no horrors that frighten anyone in your games


This is just playing the dozens; the fact there are no mechanics to _force_ a character to respond to something horrific does not require that no character respond to it. It simply means its at the discretion of the player whether they do or not, and that's frankly how a fair number of players see it _should_ be.

This is really not that complicated to understand, people. Its not a view I share but its not a hard one to get, and I'm honestly getting the feeling a lot of people just don't want to here.

[Paragon]

(Emphasis mine.) Ok, I get that you don't like the Presence Attacks rule, but calling it a "violation of the social contract" is kind of far fetched to me. Presence Attacks are specific mechanics, and any "GM control" over a player character is entirely through those mechanics.



I think you either missed or are ignoring the fact that he explicitly said it was a violation of his group's social contract; I don't see anywhere where he's ever said (or even implied) it was a violation of the social contract for gaming groups in general.

[Paragon]

What I see is a huge rationalization for "I don't like PRE attacks so I will remove them."

You can see what you want, but his attitude reflects quite a few people's view of the appropriate barriers of player control. You aren't required to like it, but let's not act like its not a coherent position.

[Paragon]

Mental Powers and Presence Attacks are both 'External Environmental consequences due to the laws of campaign physics'.

No, actually, they aren't. Presence attacks are a social mechanism, nothing more; they have no "existance" in the game world in the sense a physical process does. Once your policy is that how people respond to social situations is entirely in player control, they serve no purpose.

I'm really astonished at the level of hostility and attempt to negate the difference coming out of people here; I'm not even vaguely in Chris' camp here, but I have no trouble understanding the distinction he's making, as I've seen it made any number of times over the years by a variety of players in a variety of systems.

[Netzilla]

I'm really astonished at the level of hostility and attempt to negate the difference coming out of people here; I'm not even vaguely in Chris' camp here, but I have no trouble understanding the distinction he's making, as I've seen it made any number of times over the years by a variety of players in a variety of systems.

Paragon beat me too it (and so gets repped) but I do have to re-iterate his point:

Schir made it plan that he's talking about his group specifically and not Hero Gamers in total. He's repeatedly stated that he has no interest in forcing his play style on anyone else, so I really don't understand why others feel the need to do it to him (even if it's not your intent that's the way you're coming across). As for why he's discussing this here, he also explained that several posts ago (msg 2468 (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1628137#post1628137)):

My posts started out to simply give my opinion on the current discussion. Just another perspective for other posters to read. If I've crossed some line that I shouldn't have by doing that, then it was due to ignorance.

Cut the guy some slack, folks. Sure, he doesn't play the game the same as you (or I) do. So what? I've never played in or even heard of any rpg group that didn't use house rules to some degree or another. We just all deviate from the rules in different ways.

[Chris Goodwin]

I think you either missed or are ignoring the fact that he explicitly said it was a violation of his group's social contract; I don't see anywhere where he's ever said (or even implied) it was a violation of the social contract for gaming groups in general.

I did miss that, but that takes it entirely out of the realm of "things that should be discussed in the 6e forums".

[Tonio]

I did miss that, but that takes it entirely out of the realm of "things that should be discussed in the 6e forums".

I disagree. If his view is common enough, it might be a good idea to include it as an optional rule, or to at least mention it in the GM-ing section. In any case, a different point of view is always welcome; it can help shed light on the discussion at hand. Even if we agree Chris Mullin's method isn't appropriate as a core rule, the fact that he and others prefer it that way can help point out problems with the current method, which can, in turn, help improve it.

[Chris Goodwin]

I disagree. If his view is common enough, it might be a good idea to include it as an optional rule, or to at least mention it in the GM-ing section. In any case, a different point of view is always welcome; it can help shed light on the discussion at hand. Even if we agree Chris Mullin's method isn't appropriate as a core rule, the fact that he and others prefer it that way can help point out problems with the current method, which can, in turn, help improve it.

I don't see it as a problem with the rule. I see it as someone not liking the rule and choosing not to use it. I don't think that means the rule needs to be changed. And him not using the rule is the first I've heard, ever, of someone not using the Presence Attacks rule.

[Tonio]

I don't see it as a problem with the rule. I see it as someone not liking the rule and choosing not to use it. I don't think that means the rule needs to be changed. And him not using the rule is the first I've heard, ever, of someone not using the Presence Attacks rule.

Note how he's been accused of "just because you don't like the rule doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the book", while he's done nothing of the sort, and you're now saying that because you don't see a problem with the rule, discussions about problems with it, or about not using it, are out of place.

[Chris Goodwin]

Note how he's been accused of "just because you don't like the rule doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the book", while he's done nothing of the sort, and you're now saying that because you don't see a problem with the rule, discussions about problems with it, or about not using it, are out of place.

That he doesn't like the rule is not in dispute (by me, at least).

That he doesn't use the rule is not a matter for dispute.

That the one follows the other is not in dispute.

Is he saying it shouldn't be in 6e (or should be modified)? If yes, then the 6e forum is the place to discuss it. If no, then it isn't.

He's literally the only person, ever, I've seen who had a problem with the rule.

[Paragon]

I did miss that, but that takes it entirely out of the realm of "things that should be discussed in the 6e forums".

Let me know how precisely policing topicality goes for you there. :rolleyes:

[Paragon]

That he doesn't like the rule is not in dispute (by me, at least).

That he doesn't use the rule is not a matter for dispute.

That the one follows the other is not in dispute.

Is he saying it shouldn't be in 6e (or should be modified)? If yes, then the 6e forum is the place to discuss it. If no, then it isn't.

He's literally the only person, ever, I've seen who had a problem with the rule.

That you've not seen it before does not make it uncommon; Steve Long is aware enough of the attitude there's a whole section in the Ultimate Skill talking about addressing the issue in regard to social skills, so evidently he didn't think it was that uncommon.

[Hugh Neilson]

This doesn't change the fact that if one player removes another player's character from being part of a critical part of game play then the player of the affected character will feel cheated. Especially if it happens often. Same thing if NPCs do it also.

A character can be removed from being part of a critical part of the game in many ways. PRE attacks or interaction skills are two possibilities. Being KO`d by a lucky shot is a third. Mind control is another. This is the source of my confusion: the PRE attack or interaction skills are not the sole cause of the problem you cite. They serve an in-game function to simulate certain effects seen in fiction.

In fiction, the author decides whether the hero hits or misses. In a game, the dice decide. The player does not.

In fiction, the author decides whether the hero is KO`d or weathers a blow. In a game, the dice decide. The player does not.

In fiction, the author decides whether the hero is unimpressed or terrified. In a game, there is no compelling reason not to let the dice decide, just like they decide the success or failure of the character`s desired actions.

As I read the social contract posited, PRE attacks and interaction skills are no more a violation than attacks which KO, remove the character from the vicinity or mental powers which change his ability to interact. They are all mechanics of the game which cause the character`s ability to act to be curtailed.

Mental Powers and Presence Attacks are both 'External Environmental consequences due to the laws of campaign physics'. Arbitrarily defining Presence Attacks otherwise and then giving that as a reason for removing them does not constitute an explanation for removing them: Since an already existing desire to remove them is the apparent reason for construing them as 'Internal Mental Choice', this construal would be a result rather than a cause of your desire to remove them.

Exactly.

[schir1964]

I'm amazed how that parts of my posts are read and remembered with crystal clarity, yet other portions of the exact same posts are ignored as though I had never posted them.

1) I made a post about COM and why it never existed in my games and why it will never affect my games whether it is in the rule book or not. (This is the reason I posted, to give another perspective on the existence of COM in the rules or not)

2) I never suggested or even hinted at PRE ever would (or even should) be removed from the rules. (Some seem to pounce on this even though it was not the reason why I posted in the first place, it was simply additional info for clarification of my reasons for COM. Some seemed to feel I had to justify my position on PRE. Why? I don't know.)

3) PRE exists in my games, I don't advocate that it should be removed from the rules.

4) I'm still waiting for someone to give a convincing argument that COM (the mechanic not the concept) in its current incarnation in the rules is as valid as the other primary characteristic mechanics especially STR and DEX. (The lack of such suggests that COM may not be suitable to remain as is)

Now if people want continue on talking about PRE, which exists in my games, which I don't advocate to be removed from the rules, and which I didn't initially post about, you'll have to do it without me since I see not purpose in doing so since this thread is about changes to the rules.

(Thanks Chris Goodwin)

- Christopher Mullins

[BobGreenwade]

4) I'm still waiting for someone to give a convincing argument that COM (the mechanic not the concept) in its current incarnation in the rules is as valid as the other primary characteristic mechanics especially STR and DEX. (The lack of such suggests that COM may not be suitable to remain as is)As far as I can tell, even those vying for COM to remain as a Characteristic are seeking game mechanics and other statements to show what it does in life and in fiction. I, for one, think that that's been done a few times over. And that does take COM beyond "its current incarnation" (good phrase, BTW) into something a bit more evolved, without making what really is a radical -- and, in our opinion, unnecessary -- change to the character sheet and rules system.

[Chris Goodwin]

INow if people want continue on talking about PRE, which exists in my games, which I don't advocate to be removed from the rules, and which I didn't initially post about, you'll have to do it without me since I see not purpose in doing so since this thread is about changes to the rules.

(Thanks Chris Goodwin)

- Christopher Mullins

For what it's worth, I was talking specifically about your "no Presence Attacks against player characters" rule, and nothing else.

[nexus]

4) I'm still waiting for someone to give a convincing argument that COM (the mechanic not the concept) in its current incarnation in the rules is as valid as the other primary characteristic mechanics especially STR and DEX. (The lack of such suggests that COM may not be suitable to remain as is)


While I (and I imagine others) are still waiting for a convincing reason that it is not as valid as a characteristic as Strength or Dexterity. Arguments have been made (and repeated often) on both sides. No one seems likely to change their minds at this point and I'm fairly certain they all consider their argumetns convincing. There isn't a magic button point to make on either side, just what the reader chooses to consider "valid". It's a really subjective topic which is why I suggest compromise in some form. People feel strongly about it on both sides or there wouldn't over a hundred pages of debate about it.

But in the end it doesn't matter if any of one in this thread is convinced. It only matters what one person considers a valid, convincing argument for keeping or ditching Comeliness as it stands: Steve Long. And he's been silent on the matter since fairly early in the thread. Though there have been multiple claims of "victory"

[nexus]

Is this an argument for or against "universal" Comeliness?

http://x23.xanga.com/6f9c612b53333194810637/w150374149.jpg

[megaplayboy]

Is this an argument for or against "universal" Comeliness?

http://x23.xanga.com/6f9c612b53333194810637/w150374149.jpg

"So, actually, she said 'I wanna suck your brains out'..."

[nexus]

"So, actually, she said 'I wanna suck your brains out'..."

"... I'm still not seeing the downside here."

"Wait, let me start over at the beginning..."

[BobGreenwade]

Moving on to something else altogether....

CON and BODY:

I've been thinking lately that CON is used too frequently for various effects. While CON "represents a character's health and hardiness," and BODY "represents how much damage a character can take before dying" (quotes from 5ER pages 36-37), I think some of the functions that CON has performed in the past might be better done with BODY. The main thing that comes to mind is that poisons and venoms might work better as Drain BODY than Drain CON.

It might even serve to give slight re-definitions of CON and BODY (with a sidebar noting the fact); CON becomes "the character's general resilience and resistance to pain," while BODY becomes "the character's general health and life-force." This way some drugs and can, instead of Mental Powers Based On CON, be Mental Powers Based On BODY. This redefinition would also give a way to represent "pure pain" Powers that don't do any actual damage: just Drain or Suppress CON. If CON goes below 0, then the character is in constant pain, and always Stunned.

This would also mean that some cases where a CON Roll is currently called for would instead call for a BODY Roll.

If nothing else, it's something to think about.

[Beast]

not a bad suggestion
question is will Steve read or even see it in this thread

Moving on to something else altogether....

CON and BODY:

I've been thinking lately that CON is used too frequently for various effects. While CON "represents a character's health and hardiness," and BODY "represents how much damage a character can take before dying" (quotes from 5ER pages 36-37), I think some of the functions that CON has performed in the past might be better done with BODY. The main thing that comes to mind is that poisons and venoms might work better as Drain BODY than Drain CON.

It might even serve to give slight re-definitions of CON and BODY (with a sidebar noting the fact); CON becomes "the character's general resilience and resistance to pain," while BODY becomes "the character's general health and life-force." This way some drugs and can, instead of Mental Powers Based On CON, be Mental Powers Based On BODY. This redefinition would also give a way to represent "pure pain" Powers that don't do any actual damage: just Drain or Suppress CON. If CON goes below 0, then the character is in constant pain, and always Stunned.

This would also mean that some cases where a CON Roll is currently called for would instead call for a BODY Roll.

If nothing else, it's something to think about.

[BobGreenwade]

not a bad suggestion
question is will Steve read or even see it in this threadIf I had any doubt of it I wouldn't even bother posting to this section of the board.

[AnotherSkip]

I'm fairly certain he is ghosting so it doesn't get too outta hand when he has to view it.



Here try combining Stun and End,

With End/Stun loss from attacks and long term end

[Beast]

would be nice if we could hear some of his thoughts on the subject
to know what he thinks might help end some of these squables
even your article was a very good and enlightning

If I had any doubt of it I wouldn't even bother posting to this section of the board.

[GamePhil]

Moving on to something else altogether....

CON and BODY:

I've been thinking lately that CON is used too frequently for various effects. While CON "represents a character's health and hardiness," and BODY "represents how much damage a character can take before dying" (quotes from 5ER pages 36-37), I think some of the functions that CON has performed in the past might be better done with BODY. The main thing that comes to mind is that poisons and venoms might work better as Drain BODY than Drain CON.


Well, poisons and venoms generally do an NND Killing Attack plus a CON Drain, so I'm not sure how that would be a change. Could you explain further? The only ones that would do a pure CON Drain and do no Body damage would be drugs that make you woozy, and thus easier to Stun, and I don't see why those would change, while if they already do Body damage I'd prefer not to double up. I also am a bit leary of re-defining Body in such a way as to make one loss of Body mean you are closer to death, while another loss of Body means you are less healthy in some other sense, which is also why I don't want to see Body and CON merged.

Personally, though, I'd prefer lethal poisons to just do damage. Being shot can also have all kinds of secondary effects in game terms, and yet we don't buy a laundry list of secondary Powers for them.

[Vulcan]

I'm amazed how that parts of my posts are read and remembered with crystal clarity, yet other portions of the exact same posts are ignored as though I had never posted them.

Sorry 'bout that. I led the charge early before I understood why you were posting, and it looks like a bunch of other people jumped onto what I was saying.

1) I made post about COM and why it never existed in my games and why it will never affect my games whether it is in the rule book or not. (This is the reason I posted, to give another perspective on the existence of COM in the rules or not)

2) I never suggested or even hinted at PRE ever would (or even should) be removed from the rules. (Some seem to pounce on this even though it was not the reason why I posted in the first place, it was simply additional info for clarification of my reasons for COM. Some seem to feel I had justify my position on PRE. Why? I don't know.)

As is your right and responsability as a GM, to make things fun for you and your players.

3) PRE exists in my games, I don't advocate that it should be removed from the rules.

4) I'm still waiting for someone to give a convincing argument that COM (the mechanic not the concept) in its current incarnation in the rules is as valid as the other primary characteristic mechanics especially STR and DEX. (The lack of such suggests that COM may not be suitable to remain as is)

Our group finds it invaluable as is. The power-armor guy in our group draws heavily from Iron Man, including asking, "Is she hot?" every time the GM describes a female character. And you have to hear the difference in his reaction beween 12-14 COM vs. 20+ COM to believe it.

But that's our group. And I think that if COM is removed in 6E, we will likely grandfather it back in - assuming that other changes don't drive us out of 6E entirely (which I'm guessing, so far, that it won't).


Now if people want continue on talking about PRE, which exists in my games, which I don't advocate to be removed from the rules, and which I didn't initially post about, you'll have to do it without me since I see not purpose in doing so since this thread is about changes to the rules.

(Thanks Chris Goodwin)

- Christopher Mullins

Let's give this guy a break, here. I know I was pretty hard on him earlier, but in his own words he said he was just posting to provide an alternate view. Sure, I disagree, but I don't think he's really trying to get PRE removed from the game, he just doesn't use it much (if at all) in his game.

[Paragon]

Here try combining Stun and End,

With End/Stun loss from attacks and long term end

Are you advocating removal of regular END usage then? Because I've seen games that make fatigue/stun effects the same unit before and I thought they had some unedifying consequences (it really makes people shop for non-fatiguing effects and tends to give those that do a really disproportionate loiter time).

[Vulcan]

I don't really like the idea of combining END and STUN, but it wouldn't be a 'make or break' issue for me. Besides, we already sorta do have it, in that you can burn STUN when you're out of END. I've seen more than one character literally knock themselves out when there was no time to take recoveries. (It happened to our force-based energy-projector a lot - force walls and 'Protecive of Innocents,' and he pushed FW a lot when it was defending bystanders. But no one could ever say he wasn't 'in character.":thumbup:)

[Paragon]

I don't really like the idea of combining END and STUN, but it wouldn't be a 'make or break' issue for me. Besides, we already sorta do have it, in that you can burn STUN when you're out of END. I've seen more than one character literally knock themselves out when there was no time to take recoveries. (It happened to our force-based energy-projector a lot - force walls and 'Protecive of Innocents,' and he pushed FW a lot when it was defending bystanders. But no one could ever say he wasn't 'in character.":thumbup:)

Sure. But the arrow doesn't go both ways; you can't damage END directly (barring Drains obviously), which means someone who gets clobbered in the first round with a massive Stun hit, but doesn't go down doesn't spend the rest of the fight trying to figure out what to do with himself because he has nothing to fuel his abilities off of.

[Vulcan]

There is that.

[BobGreenwade]

Well, poisons and venoms generally do an NND Killing Attack plus a CON Drain, so I'm not sure how that would be a change. Could you explain further?The explanation is simple: I screwed up, and forgot about this point you just made. Oops. :o

[Klaus Mogensen]

Here try combining Stun and End,
With End/Stun loss from attacks and long term end
Well, it would make it easier to make End-spending optional. OTOH I would very much like to see slower Stun recovery for non-super campaigns, and merging Stun with End would make that harder.

Also, if the combined characteristic is based on Stun, End cost would become 1 per 20 active points, which may be a bit too coarse-grained. It would cut down on bookkeepong, though.

Not without problems, but worth considering.

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

of course it would make some problems but in my game (the one I am running) many of the characters avoided any kind of END tracking.

Besides the real advantage is it "cleans up the clutter on the character sheet" while removing a stat that is even listed as optional in the speeding up combat rules while leaving a stat that has only been suggested as optional (AFAIK) here.


since End utility has been replaced....'
oop other thread idea

[schir1964]

Our group finds it invaluable as is. The power-armor guy in our group draws heavily from Iron Man, including asking, "Is she hot?" every time the GM describes a female character. And you have to hear the difference in his reaction beween 12-14 COM vs. 20+ COM to believe it.
I'm just asking this out of curiosity.

Does the GM simply tell the player the COM value and that's all?

Does the GM describe the woman in detail and also give the COM value?

If it is the first, I would find it very odd, although perfectly valid way to handle things.

If it is the second, they what difference does it make if the GM were to say the woman is (Ugly, Below Average, Average, Above Average, Hot) and then describe them in detail?

Again, I'm not saying you should change your games or anything, just curious as to why one method is preferred over the other.

- Christopher Mullins

[Vulcan]

He usually gives a brief description, and just about the time he's done the playboy's player interrupts and asks "Is she hot?" The GM will look at the character sheet and reply with her COM score, and the playboy takes it from there. If the COM score is 8-10, he'll be nice to her. If it's 12-14, he'll flirt with her but not really press things. If it's 16 and up, he'll invite her to join him on a all-expense paid trip to (wherever she seems interested in) sometime in the course of the conversation.

I suppose the best part about using COM is that the GM can give a general description and a COM score, and let the player's imagination fill in the details. This saves the GM a lot of time from having to write up really detailed descriptions of everyone. At the same time, it also has a lot of granularity to it, so you can decide exactly how pretty or ugly your character is.

Are there other ways to do that? Sure there are. You can use skill levels built as powers, you can use disads, you can make custom talents, and you can even use reputation to simulate the effects of COM. But that's the best part about this game, in my opinion. Having multiple ways to do something allows you to make exactly the character you want.

[steamteck]

we describe the character and give the COM number. also often I describe how much They "failed their resistance to the characters beauty, handsomeness" ( uh oh, I'm really far gone!)It gives a much better feel than any one method. The player then decides what they'll do with the info.

[Vulcan]

Wow. This thread got really quiet all of the sudden. Are we actually done with it?

[BobGreenwade]

Wow. This thread got really quiet all of the sudden. Are we actually done with it?For now, possibly. But sooner or later someone will come up with a new idea, or will decide to weigh in on either the COM or Figured Characteristics issue. (Do we really think everyone is going to make a successful EGO Roll, even at +4?) ;)

[nexus]

For now, possibly. But sooner or later someone will come up with a new idea, or will decide to weigh in on either the COM or Figured Characteristics issue. (Do we really think everyone is going to make a successful EGO Roll, even at +4?) ;)

I was typing as you posted...

:D

[Vulcan]

Wow. I had forgotten there was a whole other issue being debated here. It's been all about the COM for so long...

Personally, I think figured CHAR makes sense, but it's not a big enough deal for me to make a big deal about.

(Did that actually make sense?)

[AnotherSkip]

Heck there are figured charactersitics to be tracked that aren't even listed! like LTE.

[rreay]

Hey... Thanks for reminding me. I have some thoughts on figureds.

I would prefer that 6th divorce leaping distance from STR. Not all strong characters in source material can leap to match their strength. Hulk can, The Thing can't. Before supes could fly he could, now it doesn't matter. Rhino can't, Absorbing Man can't, Spiderman can. It's all over the place.

Removing leaping distance leaves the damage dealing parts of strength intact without limiting those damage dealing parts. A +50 STR no leaping (-1/4) still does +10d6 in all the same ways even though it costs me 10 less.

I can't think of an equivalent on energy blasts where a limitation is applied removing some secondary effect and not limiting the primary power.

In general I don't like allowing limitations on STR because of this.

[AnotherSkip]

I thought th real way to build it was as a Physical limitation?

besides Spidey has extra superleap, same for The Hulk (She Hulk and Doc Sampson included here since prev offical writeups had additional leaping powers)and alot of the "big guy don't jump" field has Di and Growth related str increases, which doesn't grant extra leaping (the Blob, the Thing and Rhino for example). Leaping seems to be 'throwing yourself' thus mo better strength at less weight = further tossing of self.

Some of these may be related to not destroying the environment, as many heroes that do care (like the Thing in NYC) may teach themselves to not jump to avoid either environmental destruction (Reed Richards just rebuilt Baxter Tower the fifth time this year after the Thing restarted his calesthenics program....) or villians may care about easy tracking (okay, that is the fifth crater heading for Picanune NY, call them there and send in a superteam). The Blob like many overweight people may have concerns that his own weight could kill him if he isn't careful.

[Hugh Neilson]

I can't think of an equivalent on energy blasts where a limitation is applied removing some secondary effect and not limiting the primary power.

While I agree with de-linking STR and Leaping, for the same reasons you cite - it's not universal among high STR characters...

Cannot be Spread (-1/4) leaves the core of EB untouched. Many players never use that ability to Spread. The EB still does 10d6 at the same range, but it costs 25% less - just like STR without Leaping.

[rreay]

Cannot be Spread (-1/4) leaves the core of EB untouched.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not quite the same. Cannot be spread removes combat options even if those combat options aren't ever used anyway. It's possible the player could learn to use them. No leaping and similar STR limitations don't remove any combat functionality from STR.

[Hugh Neilson]

I understand what you're saying, but it's not quite the same. Cannot be spread removes combat options even if those combat options aren't ever used anyway. It's possible the player could learn to use them. No leaping and similar STR limitations don't remove any combat functionality from STR.

It removes leaping move throughs - I see those used at least as often as spreading energy blasts, even by Bricks who don't generally get around by leaping.

[Omnigames]

Personally, I would like to see characteristics broken up into Primary and Secondary categories. (Secondary is not the same as Figured -- Figured is dependent on a primary characteristic, Secondary is one that provides more granularity to a given trait or ability, such as Comeliness combined with Strength determines your "Persuasiveness".) While I understand the granularity of having 8 Primary and 6 Figured characteristics, that's simply too many to deal with on a continuous basis.

In my opinion, there should only be 4 (or at most 5) primary characteristics that are required to play the game -- all other characteristics should be optional and only needed to increase the granularity of certain campaigns and characters.

I've researched lots of RPG systems and although I honestly believe HERO is the most flexible of any of them, that flexibility comes at a price. Here's a list of those 4 characteristics, along with alternate names (in parentheses)...

1. Strength (power, might, brawn, etc.)
2. Dexterity (agility, flexibility, nimbleness, etc.)
3. Intelligence (mind, mana, magic, intellect, wisdom, focus, etc.)
4. Constitution (health, stamina, endurance, energy, vitality, etc.)

These 4 are the core of any RPG system. All other characteristics should be secondary (or figured) and totally optional at the GM's discretion.

Thank you.
PS -- please don't flame me! :smoke: :idjit: :hush:

[Vulcan]

I should point out that if you don't want to be flamed, don't bathe in gasoline...

Even D&D adds a score for willpower (which they call Wisdom as a nod to the priests) and personality (Charisma). We can streach ourselves at least that far without strain.

And if someone can't cope with the number of characteristics, how are they going to deal with the number of skills/talents/perks/powers/advantages/limitations/disads that come up later in the book?

[AnotherSkip]

didn't tri stat try to get away with three?

[Vulcan]

I guess.... I've never heard of it, though.

[Klaus Mogensen]

didn't tri stat try to get away with three?
Yes: Mind, Body, Soul.

In any case, I think Omnigames' list is skewed too much towards the physical. I would add at least a Spirit characteristic, which would cover willpower and presence.

Also, I often find that having very few characteristics can make things more complex because you then need to add talents or some such to distinguish between different aspects of characteristics. Tri-Stat for instance has 'Attributes' for dexterity and strength, even though both are a part of Body. Gurps has a similar Willpower advantage.

I have in the past designed games with just four stats (Brawn, Agility, Wits, Spirit), but Hero is a high-granularity game and should have more characteristics to reflect that (though some, like EGO and COME, may be made optional). Also, even though I don't mind radical changes to the game, I think it should still be recognizable as Hero, so the majority of primary characteristics should stay, even if what they cover may be changed somewhat.

- Klaus

[Balabanto]

It is my belief that figured characteristics are part of the game, because of what I like to refer to as the invisible costs of character building.

The only person the granular, no figured characteristics benefits is the GM, and here's why.

As a player, you only have one character to worry about. You do the characteristic math once, maybe two or three times over the course of your character's entire career. In most cases, it's not particularly difficult.

But, players should be building towards the average, not towards the extremes. For those few who are lower or higher, you can always pay more points or subtract a few. Very few people in a 10-12d6 superhero game will step radically away from the average numbers, and the few people who do have a point penalty on a figured characteristic won't make it very large, unless your game is so ridiculously optimized that it breaks half of the Hero System rules anyway.

If the GM is just assigning stats and putting down point values. (Or, in the case of more plot driven GMs, just writing stuff down) then it hardly matters whether his effort is driven by the math or not. I've learned that doing the math keeps my mind in the game and focussed on running it. It may not be the same for everyone, but I think that's a key point.

It also forces you to change the cost of certain characteristics, and leads to different kinds of optimizations. For instance, CON no longer grants 4 figured characteristics, you HAVE to drop the cost to 1.

But the tradeoff on this is that since you have to drop the cost to 1, you then have to decide what your gameworld is going to look like. Will no one ever be stunned if CON is x1? If you leave it at x2, does it become an undervalued characteristic? Even though this is kind of cruel to Steve, I think some design playtesting might be in order

[Klaus Mogensen]

The only person the granular, no figured characteristics benefits is the GM, and here's why.

As a player, you only have one character to worry about. You do the characteristic math once, maybe two or three times over the course of your character's entire career. In most cases, it's not particularly difficult.

But, players should be building towards the average, not towards the extremes. For those few who are lower or higher, you can always pay more points or subtract a few. Very few people in a 10-12d6 superhero game will step radically away from the average numbers, and the few people who do have a point penalty on a figured characteristic won't make it very large, unless your game is so ridiculously optimized that it breaks half of the Hero System rules anyway.
This seems like a great argument against Figured Characteristics:

It's much easier for the poor GM if there aren't any.
Players tend to buy average Figureds - ergo, they don't actually use the opportunity to customize their characters.
Seems to me that we might as well just have fixed derived characteristics that you can't buy up or down, then. I could live with that.

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

Limited Characteristics set for mooks

I think it is worth considering making it easier to make minor characters (thugs, agents, minor monsters, whatever). A step towards this is to limit the number of Characteristics required to describe them (as in the Buffy game).

I think mooks can be sufficiently described by this limited Characteristics set:
Brawn (Str, Con, Body)
Dex
Mind (Int, Ego, Pre)
DEF (PD, ED)
SPD
Stun
No End: They are assumed to have enough. No Rec: They only recover Stun between scenes (and they stay down once you knock them out).

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

Kinda like only buying dex for the paperboy.

[nexus]

didn't tri stat try to get away with three?

That's why they call it "Tri-stat" :)

[Vulcan]

Limited Characteristics set for mooks

I think it is worth considering making it easier to make minor characters (thugs, agents, minor monsters, whatever). A step towards this is to limit the number of Characteristics required to describe them (as in the Buffy game).

I think mooks can be sufficiently described by this limited Characteristics set:
Brawn (Str, Con, Body)
Dex
Mind (Int, Ego, Pre)
DEF (PD, ED)
SPD
Stun
No End: They are assumed to have enough. No Rec: They only recover Stun between scenes (and they stay down once you knock them out).

- Klaus

That's not a bad idea... It'll have to be an optional rule (probably in the sidebar in the characteristics section), I think, but it would make a GM's job a bit easier.

Taking it a step further, it could be used for a 'Intro to HERO System' rules set, to help flatten out the learning curve... A good idea for the 6E 'Sidekick' rules.

But whatever you do, DON'T make it a regular part of the game. I like the granularity pretty much as-is for most things.

[Balabanto]

This seems like a great argument against Figured Characteristics:

It's much easier for the poor GM if there aren't any.
Players tend to buy average Figureds - ergo, they don't actually use the opportunity to customize their characters.

Seems to me that we might as well just have fixed derived characteristics that you can't buy up or down, then. I could live with that.

- Klaus

You missed the entire point. If you're just assigning values, and you have infinite points, who cares who much the NPC costs?

By contrast, the players have to feel a sense of fairness and like they aren't being upbraided. The point was that the few who do have lower or higher than average can pay for it or subtract. As it stands, this is going to create millions of characters with 0 END, Persistent Force Fields, because it's no longer useful to buy PD or ED, or, for that matter, END.

[Paragon]

This seems like a great argument against Figured Characteristics:
[LIST]
It's much easier for the poor GM if there aren't any.
Players tend to buy average Figureds - ergo, they don't actually use the opportunity to customize their characters.


They buy the average for the main derived from. I'd say its an argument at best for not having figureds adjusted seperately, not for not having them connected.

[Vulcan]

They buy the average for the main derived from. I'd say its an argument at best for not having figureds adjusted seperately, not for not having them connected.

Ahh.... isn't that why we start from 10 instead of 0?

And a lot of the characters I've seen buy figured characteristics up from base...

[Paragon]

Ahh.... isn't that why we start from 10 instead of 0?

And a lot of the characters I've seen buy figured characteristics up from base...

In Champions its very common because people want such high Stun, REC and PD and ED compared to what they'll usually get from the main attributes, but I've seen any number of heroic scale characters who felt what they got from those was fine.

As to starting from 10--that still doesn't say you have a PD or Stun that shows you're Strength is 20.

That's the thing with the figured argument; there are three or four different issues involved, and they aren't the same. I don't care necessarily if figureds can be adjusted seperately, but I _do_ think there's a reason for them to have a relationship to the core attributes, and the eliminate-figured-relationship crowd pretty much just seems to be wanting to make them serve my purposes worse so they can serve theirs better. That's why I say this pretty much turns on perception and taste rather than anything that can really be argued rationally.

[Vulcan]

Or less balanced characters, in the case of concepts that aren't characterstic-heavy (especially energy projectors) vs. concepts that are (bricks and martial artists).

[Tonio]

[...]the eliminate-figured-relationship crowd pretty much just seems to be wanting to make them serve my purposes worse so they can serve theirs better. That's why I say this pretty much turns on perception and taste rather than anything that can really be argued rationally.

There really isn't, as far as I can tell, an "eliminate-figured-relationship" crowd. There's an "eliminate-free-figured" or "eliminate-forced-average-characters" crowd which argues that if it makes sense that a character with such-and-such STR should probably have around such-and-such PD, then he should buy that much PD, rather than: a) getting it for free, and b) possibly losing the opportunity to not have that much PD, if he chose to (because of the problem with selling back multiple figureds). And if selling back figureds is not a problem, then figureds or no figureds is mathematically the same... we'd just be talking about whether you want to force everybody to do the math or not. I'd rather not... I'd rather just those people who were interested in the math did it. ;)

[Southern Cross]

Actually,the reason I don't hold with the scrapping of figured characteristics is that it unfairly penalizes bricks and martial artists (but especially bricks).Take a look at Steve's first post.Characters with lots of points in Characteristics are going to be heavily penalised in 6E,if Steve tosses figured characteristics in the trash.:help::thumbdown:eek::mad::no::stupid::fear: :angst::weep::slap:

[Klaus Mogensen]

Characters with lots of points in Characteristics are going to be heavily penalised in 6E,if Steve tosses figured characteristics in the trash.
1) Nobody's taliking about tossing figureds; at most about decoupling them.

2) Many (myself included) think characters without lots of points in Characteristics are heavily penalized now. Decoupling figureds (and getting rid of Elemental Control, which seems to be the consensus) will de-penalize non-bricks more than penalize bricks.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

1) Nobody's taliking about tossing figureds; at most about decoupling them.

2) Many (myself included) think characters without lots of points in Characteristics are heavily penalized now. Decoupling figureds (and getting rid of Elemental Control, which seems to be the consensus) will de-penalize non-bricks more than penalize bricks.

This all comes down to experiences with the system. Mine is that Bricks, martial artists or other characteristic-heavy characters have not dominated the game, and are reasonably balanced at present. Rework the game so that there is an extra 75 point spread (say) between the Brick and Energy Projector, so there must be some combination of Brick losing 75 points or EP gaining them, and that balance will be lost.

The solution would be reducing the cost of several of the figured characteristics, as well as the decoupled primaries (CON for sure; likely DEX to account for the 1 point SPD loss and probably BOD).

[Starlight]

1) Nobody's taliking about tossing figureds; at most about decoupling them.

2) Many (myself included) think characters without lots of points in Characteristics are heavily penalized now. Decoupling figureds (and getting rid of Elemental Control, which seems to be the consensus) will de-penalize non-bricks more than penalize bricks.

The first comment is disingenuous at best. If you decouple figured characteristics then they may still exist as characteristics but they most assuredly are no longer figured characteristics. Speaking plainly, in such a case you -are- tossing figureds. There is no question about that.

Eliminating figured characteristics AND Elemental Controls may actually be a good compromise solution. It doesn't matter is that is a consensus view however. All that matters is what Steve Long decides. From his initial posting of intents and preferences it's clear that he sees figured characteristics going and does not make any such comment or observation about Elemental Controls. I have not seen any change in this initial position from Mr. Long. Neither would I expect to before he is ready to move the situation forward. However short of any such change in stated intent, discussion can only sensibly be based on the initial stated position. Figured characteristics are the balancing structure for the beneficial effect of Elemental Control and, to a lesser extent, Multipower Frameworks. Given the wide range of characters that Hero system can generate the current balance between those disparate characters is remarkably good. Amazingly good in fact. To remove one (figured characteristics) without removing the other (frameworks) will unbalance what is a well designed and proven game system.

[Hugh Neilson]

Figured characteristics are the balancing structure for the beneficial effect of Elemental Control and, to a lesser extent, Multipower Frameworks. Given the wide range of characters that Hero system can generate the current balance between those disparate characters is remarkably good. Amazingly good in fact. To remove one (figured characteristics) without removing the other (frameworks) will unbalance what is a well designed and proven game system.

Well said - the system works now and there is no testing to support it working later. Why put a lot of effort in to change one element, then rebalance the entire system, if it's working now. IOW, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

To me, this is the biggest problem with 6e. To be worthwhile (both to create and to purchase) it has to be a significant change from 5e. But I don't see any compelling need for a significant change from 5e, which makes it tough to see 6e as worthwhile.

Unfortunately, RPG Economics are such that a new edition is probably commercially necessary.

[AnotherSkip]

Sooooooo anyone have a By the Book copy of an EB with Ec &/or Mp to see how the costing changes would compare between bricks and Eb's?

[Paragon]

There really isn't, as far as I can tell, an "eliminate-figured-relationship" crowd. There's an "eliminate-free-figured" or "eliminate-forced-average-characters" crowd which argues that if it makes



Adds up to the same thing to me.

[Vulcan]

I was with you right up to the last sentence, then the last bit flew right over my head. Can I get you to go over it in a little more detail, please?

Aside from that, the rest doesn't look too atrocious... I like the characteristics the way they are, but your suggestion I could live with (albiet grudgingly).

[Hugh Neilson]

Sooooooo anyone have a By the Book copy of an EB with Ec &/or Mp to see how the costing changes would compare between bricks and Eb's?

From the opening post, here's the Brick and MA examples used by Steve (along with a Pulp example).

Here’s a theoretical brick’s Characteristics under the 5E rules:

Val Char Cost
60 STR 50
20 DEX 30
30 CON 40
25 BODY 30
10 INT 0
10 EGO 0
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0

30 PD 18
30 ED 24
5 SPD 20
25 REC 14
60 END 0
70 STUN 0
Total Cost: 236

Here’s the same character with no Figureds:

Val Char Cost
60 STR 50
20 DEX 30
30 CON 40
25 BODY 30
10 INT 0
10 EGO 0
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0

30 PD 28
30 ED 28
5 SPD 30
25 REC 42
60 END 20
70 STUN 50
Total Cost: 358

So, that’s 122 more points — and a final cost that, exclusive of anything else, can’t be achieved for a standard 350-point starting superhero.

Now here’s a high-end martial artist, such as you might find in a Champions or wuxia campaign, under the 5E rules:

Val Char Cost
20 STR 10
25 DEX 45
20 CON 20
15 BODY 10
15 INT 5
15 EGO 10
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0

15 PD 11
10 ED 6
6 SPD 25
10 REC 4
40 END 0
40 STUN 5
Total Cost: 161

Now with no Figureds:

Val Char Cost
20 STR 10
25 DEX 45
20 CON 20
15 BODY 10
15 INT 5
15 EGO 10
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0

15 PD 13
10 ED 8
6 SPD 40
10 REC 12
40 END 10
40 STUN 20
Total Cost: 213

That’s a cost increase of 52 points.

Last but not least, let’s see how Randall Irons, our intrepid Pulp hero, fares:

Val Char Cost
15 STR 5
15 DEX 15
18 CON 16
12 BODY 4
13 INT 3
13 EGO 6
20 PRE 10
14 COM 2

6 PD 3
6 ED 2
4 SPD 15
7 REC 0
36 END 0
39 STUN 10
Total Cost: 91

Now without Figureds:

Val Char Cost
15 STR 5
15 DEX 15
18 CON 16
12 BODY 4
13 INT 3
13 EGO 6
20 PRE 10
14 COM 2

6 PD 4
6 ED 4
4 SPD 20
7 REC 6
36 END 8
39 STUN 19
Total Cost: 122

So, Randall has to pay 31 more points for the same Characteristics.

In light of these examples, assuming we want to keep characters at the same level of power and competence (and I think that’s a safe assumption), some increase in the starting points is going to be necessary. “How much more?” is the obvious follow-up question, and that’s something I’ll have to consider for each character classification.

To keep the Brick and Martial Artist even (before adding frameworks, something Steve wasn't considering discarding), either the Brick needs to lose 70 points, or the MA needs 70 points added, or some combination of the two. Are Bricks and MA's presently unbalanced compared to one another? Assuming they are, would adding 15 PD and 20 ED (to hit the Brick's levels), 5 DEX and 2 SPD to the Martial Artist, for example, bring them into balance? That's one possible approach for our MA to spend his 70 bonus points.

The EP probably has a STR of 18 (loses 2 PD, 2 REC and 4 STUN, or 10 points), DEX 23 (loses 13 points towards SPD) and 23 CON (loses 3 ED, 3 REC, 7 STUN and 26 END, or 29 points), so he gets a 52 point boost from Figured, same as the Martial Artist speculated by Steve (whose DEX seems low for Champions).

I'd like to see a Champions group that's currently fairly balanced modified for this change to see how it would actually work in practice.

[AnotherSkip]

However if there is an argument that if Figureds go away and then in order to balance a brick and an EB that MP's and Ec's too should leave THEN costing and comparing the two may be important, thus the reason I wanted a EBer not just steve's original post.

Of course we could just throw the Bricks main abilities into the MP or an EC and assume that they are balanced from that standpoint.

[Hugh Neilson]

However if there is an argument that if Figureds go away and then in order to balance a brick and an EB that MP's and Ec's too should leave THEN costing and comparing the two may be important, thus the reason I wanted a EBer not just steve's original post.

Of course we could just throw the Bricks main abilities into the MP or an EC and assume that they are balanced from that standpoint.

I agree - I'd want to see examples of balanced characters under the fully revised system.

However, I'd also want to see some evidence that balance has been improved, Going through a huge change on numerous fronts just to achieve the same balance that exists now seems like a huge waste of time to me.

[Beast]

Unless you channge the rule of your End goes to zero when knocked out
end reserve is still worthwild


If figured characteristics are eliminated repricing characteristics would be appropriate as DEX (x2), CON (x1/2), BODY (x1), PD (x1/2), ED (x1/2), rPD (x1), rED (x1), END (x1/5), and STUN (x1/2). END Reserve would no longer be a power. Special defenses would also cost (x1/2) or (x1) if resistant. This makes it harder for killing attacks to knock out characters. Force Field powers would cost 2 points per 3 points of resistant defense with Force Wall a (+1.5) advantage. +1 to BASE = 10 for the 8 primary characteristics would cost 8 points which averages 1 point per characteristic.

[James Gillen]

I agree - I'd want to see examples of balanced characters under the fully revised system.

However, I'd also want to see some evidence that balance has been improved, Going through a huge change on numerous fronts just to achieve the same balance that exists now seems like a huge waste of time to me.

That's where I'm at, which is why I'd leave Figureds where they are. It's already been established that Steve is de-coupling STR from Leap (given the many examples of really strong creatures who are too massive to leap or not built for it). You already have Hand-to-Hand Attack, which allows you to do Brick-level damage without being a Brick (or having those stats from STR-derived Figureds). So the only thing left inherent to STR is carrying capacity, which is pretty much all that is required for the definition, and is not worth increasing the cost over x1 when the other stuff has been taken away. And on the other hand, not allowing STR to add to a Brick's other important stats (namely PD, REC and STUN) undermines the character. Again, if you want to do that level of damage without having that level of Figured stats, buy Hand-to-Hand Attack.

jg

jg

[Tonio]

Adds up to the same thing to me.

Meh, guess I shoulda explained myself better.

What I meant to say was that nobody really (as far as I can tell) opposes the relationship between figureds and primaries. That is, nobody's really against the guideline that PD should be around STR/5 for normal people, for example. What the decouple-figures crowd is mostly about is about not forcing people to follow that guideline (or rather, not making it difficult to not follow it). If figureds are decoupled, you can still build a character with PD around STR/5, etc. You'll be doing just about the same amount of math (one extra multiplication, and that's only if you decide to leave figureds at base level), so that shouldn't be a compelling argument. On the other hand, those of us who wish to follow other guidelines (whether it is because we don't agree with the current one, or whether character concept calls for it, or for whatever reason) don't have to jump through hoops for it (no need to calculate figureds only to sell them back, no need to buy multiple characteristics with "No Figureds" to avoid selling back multiple figureds, etc.), and won't be penalized for it (no "losing" points because my character concept calls for high PD, STUN, and REC, but low STR, etc.).

There's a difference, I think. We (the decoupling crowd) don't mind some guidelines regarding the relationship between primaries and figureds. We mind being forced, or nearly so, to use them.

[Vulcan]

http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/think.gif You object to getting free points in figured characteristics because you bought up a base characteristic?

Case in point: since you brought up the high PD/STUN/REC and low STR example... a martial artist could be a prime example of this, especially for ones based on boxing/wrestling/muay tai concepts. Where they are going to get hurt by decoupling is on SPD - having probably spend a number of points on DEX, now they have to spend even more on DEX - on top of paying for the aformentioned PD, STUN, and REC.

So what part of the free points currently added to figure characteristics bothers you so much?:confused:

[Klaus Mogensen]

From the opening post, here's the Brick and MA examples used by Steve.
True, from those examples it looks very much like bricks will be screwed if figureds are decoupled from primaries. However:

Most seem to agree that at least Con and Body should have their costs reduced if figureds are decoupled. If both costs are halved, that's 35 points saved for the brick, 15 for the martial artist, and 10 for the pulp hero.
Some (myself included) think bricks get too good a deal with the current rules. I've played games where Str, Con and Dex were all increased one point per +1, and dexy bricks still outshone energy projectors and skill-based characters.
- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

So what part of the free points currently added to figure characteristics bothers you so much?:confused:
I can't answer for Tonio, but what bothers me is that in the case of Str, Dex and Con, you get more free points than you pay.

Case in point: Take the brick example posted by Steve Long:

Val Char Cost
Val Char Cost
60 STR 50
20 DEX 30
30 CON 40
25 BODY 30
10 INT 0
10 EGO 0
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0

30 PD 18
30 ED 24
5 SPD 20
25 REC 14
60 END 0
70 STUN 0
7 OCV 0
7 DCV 0
Total Cost: 236

Not let's build a character with the same figureds, but with base 10 in all physical characteristics:

Val Char Cost
Val Char Cost
10 STR 0
10 DEX 0
10 CON 0
10 BODY 0
10 INT 0
10 EGO 0
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0

30 PD 28
30 ED 28
5 SPD 30
25 REC 42
60 END 20
70 STUN 50
7 OCV 20 (four 5-point levels)
7 DCV 20 (four 5-point levels)
Total Cost: 248

12 points more for a much less effective character!
I guess it's true: Sometimes less is more. :-)

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

Ahhhhh HAAAAAA!!!!!
*ponders Wildly*

I think i see something.



does it bother some people that everything is designed wherein Str= x, y&z
when from a pure toolkit approach it should have the option of generating m, n&o=Str?

I could see being able to modulate that would give HD a coronary.

[CTaylor]

I think sometimes people get a little too focused on the number crunching and an ideal of balancing, personally.

[BobGreenwade]

It's already been established that Steve is de-coupling STR from Leap (given the many examples of really strong creatures who are too massive to leap or not built for it).I think Steve would be rather surprised to learn that, considering he's said more than once that he hasn't really established anything definite. He's leaning a certain direction on many issues, and I do think that he'll probably decouple Leap from STR given these arguments, but nothing at all is established about what changes will be made for 6E.

[caris]

I think Steve would be rather surprised to learn that, considering he's said more than once that he hasn't really established anything definite. He's leaning a certain direction on many issues, and I do think that he'll probably decouple Leap from STR given these arguments, but nothing at all is established about what changes will be made for 6E.

Given the intention is to have a finished product ready to sell physical copies at GenCon 2009, that statement bothers me more than you can know. I'd like to assume that something like decoupling Leaping, or decoupling figureds, or removing Speed would be things that would get play tested. Thirteen months already seems to me like an awfully short time to write these rules changes, play test them, revise them, play test any revision, generate a complete new document, lay it out, and get it printed. Personally, I'm hoping that Steve is already playtesting at least some changes to the rules that he'd like to see made to the game. Matter of fact, I'd say that if anyone could get a peak at the house rules that Steve has for his own games, would have good insight as to changes which currently have the strongest arguements in their favor for inclusion: Steve has actual direct experience with how they work in play, which should be stronger than say testimonies from myself.

[Paragon]

Meh, guess I shoulda explained myself better.

What I meant to say was that nobody really (as far as I can tell) opposes the relationship between figureds and primaries. That is, nobody's really against the guideline that PD should be around STR/5 for normal people, for example. What the decouple-figures crowd is mostly about is about not forcing people to follow that guideline (or rather, not making it difficult to not follow it). If figureds are decoupled, you can still build a character with PD around STR/5, etc. You'll be doing just about the same amount of math (one extra



Yeah, but I'm talking about what people will do reflexively; if you have to go to extra effort to not have the relationship, the only people who will do so will be those who want it; if you don't, it'll likely happen by accident on frequent occasions, and I don't find that benign.



multiplication, and that's only if you decide to leave figureds at base level), so that shouldn't be a compelling argument. On the other hand, those of us who wish to follow other guidelines (whether it is because we don't agree with the current one, or whether character concept calls for it, or for whatever reason) don't have to jump through hoops for it (no need to calculate figureds



But see, I consider the extra step to do so _benign_; I think it makes it less likely you'll have people off what they should have for no particular reason other than the system didn't do anything to shove them in that direction as a default. I don't have a problem with making it easier to modify from the norm, but that's not all what I think decoupling will do.


There's a difference, I think. We (the decoupling crowd) don't mind some guidelines regarding the relationship between primaries and figureds. We mind being forced, or nearly so, to use them.

I wouldn't mind rationalizing the cost so producing unusual results isn't either abusive or stupid, but I think there's a significant psychological and functional difference between having figureds as the default and not, and I'm pretty much against that.

(Note I don't have an enormous amount of sympathy for those who just don't believe or like the relationship, as that adds up to the perception issue I've mentioned and I don't see any particular reason I should find their's superior to mine here, and I don't see this as a situation where everyone can win; its like changing costs on powers, someone's idea of what it needs to be is going to be the default).

[Hugh Neilson]

I can't answer for Tonio, but what bothers me is that in the case of Str, Dex and Con, you get more free points than you pay.

When is the last time you saw a non-Brick buy his REC or STUN to Brick levels? I see this pretty much never. It's more effective to buy defenses and/or damage reduction. How often do you see significant points invested in END? Pretty much never - reduced END and/or END Battery are much more effective.

Maybe the fix for STR and CON is not "you get too much", but "the price of what you get, purchased separately, is excessive". Solve it by lowering the cost of STUN, END and REC. Add them to Defensive Powers to prevent adjustment powers having an excessive effect. Now we can remove the "max one figured sellback" rule, and set "no figured" as a limitation separate to each stat, and relative to what gets lost.

As for DEX, if I accept your argument that levels factor in, then PRE and INT are also underpriced. +1 level with all INT skills or all PRE skills costs 5 points. So does +5 PRE or +5 INT, which both do more.

Skill levels face the problem that they are too expensive compared to the cost of the stat, but would be too cheap compared to the doubled cost of the stat under the NCM rules. So, in a Supers game, you buy the stat, and in a Heroic game, you buy levels. That seems OK to me - Supers focus on superhuman abilities, and Heroic characters on skills.

[Beast]

for decoupling figureds from Primaries so long as it is points neutral I can work with it

But 1 of the basic tenants of the Hero system is 1 DC=5points which might mean having to totally refigure either what a base DC costs(maybe 10 pts per)because staying at 5 pts is going to have those that complained about 1/2 per end and com screaming when it goes to an even smaller fractions and then figureing all the other Stats downward because of decoupling
1/2 pt costs I can deal with
pulling leaping I can live with
but Damage and Lifting need to stay with Str since EB is damage at range both are 2 things
and don't give me "well Str lets you throw stuff" because the range is limited and you should be giving pluses to size not free area attacks and unless you regularly fight in the Tank motor pool area you are not going to have stuff that will stand up to that much punishment to use as a baseball bat
of course EB's and RKA should not be bounced off objects that can't even handle the casual level damage they do like a 12d6 eb or 4d6 rka bouncing off a 2/2 wall

[Vulcan]

I can't answer for Tonio, but what bothers me is that in the case of Str, Dex and Con, you get more free points than you pay.

Case in point: Take the brick example posted by Steve Long:

Val Char Cost
Val Char Cost
60 STR 50
20 DEX 30
30 CON 40
25 BODY 30
10 INT 0
10 EGO 0
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0

30 PD 18
30 ED 24
5 SPD 20
25 REC 14
60 END 0
70 STUN 0
7 OCV 0
7 DCV 0
Total Cost: 236

Not let's build a character with the same figureds, but with base 10 in all physical characteristics:

Val Char Cost
Val Char Cost
10 STR 0
10 DEX 0
10 CON 0
10 BODY 0
10 INT 0
10 EGO 0
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0

30 PD 28
30 ED 28
5 SPD 30
25 REC 42
60 END 20
70 STUN 50
7 OCV 20 (four 5-point levels)
7 DCV 20 (four 5-point levels)
Total Cost: 248

12 points more for a much less effective character!
I guess it's true: Sometimes less is more. :-)

- Klaus

I agree that STR (being the prime offender) is underpriced for everything you get with it. Personally, I think the answer is to make STR cost x2. And let's face it, someone with a 60 STR - who can lift 100 tons;let's say that again, 100 tons! - should be able to paste a normal in one hit. So, I would say that bricks should buy about a third of their damage as HA, not STR. That allows them to save a few points, to accomodate the increased cost of STR.

[Vulcan]

When is the last time you saw a non-Brick buy his REC or STUN to Brick levels? I see this pretty much never. It's more effective to buy defenses and/or damage reduction. How often do you see significant points invested in END? Pretty much never - reduced END and/or END Battery are much more effective.

I've seen a number of energy projectors with high END (60+) and REC (20+) to power their energy blasts more effectively - and retain the ability to push, which both 0 END and END Reserve take away. Heck, my latest energy projector character has a 30 REC and 120 END - and a +6d6 Extended Push.:sneaky:

Maybe the fix for STR and CON is not "you get too much", but "the price of what you get, purchased separately, is excessive". Solve it by lowering the cost of STUN, END and REC. Add them to Defensive Powers to prevent adjustment powers having an excessive effect. Now we can remove the "max one figured sellback" rule, and set "no figured" as a limitation separate to each stat, and relative to what gets lost.

As for DEX, if I accept your argument that levels factor in, then PRE and INT are also underpriced. +1 level with all INT skills or all PRE skills costs 5 points. So does +5 PRE or +5 INT, which both do more.

Not a whole lot more! Adding/defending against PRE attacks, and adding to raw INT rolls and PER is about it. Sure, that sounds like a lot, but is it really worth doubling the cost of these characteristics.

Skill levels face the problem that they are too expensive compared to the cost of the stat, but would be too cheap compared to the doubled cost of the stat under the NCM rules. So, in a Supers game, you buy the stat, and in a Heroic game, you buy levels. That seems OK to me - Supers focus on superhuman abilities, and Heroic characters on skills.

Not an unreasonable rationale.

[Beast]

if you double the cost of Str then you will need to double the cost of EB's and KA's to keep damage classes costing the same or your going to get a 2 tierd cost for damage classes and anybody who buys Str gets hosed compared to anybody with ranged attacks

I agree that STR (being the prime offender) is underpriced for everything you get with it. Personally, I think the answer is to make STR cost x2. And let's face it, someone with a 60 STR - who can lift 100 tons;let's say that again, 100 tons! - should be able to paste a normal in one hit. So, I would say that bricks should buy about a third of their damage as HA, not STR. That allows them to save a few points, to accomodate the increased cost of STR.

[Vulcan]

if you double the cost of Str then you will need to double the cost of EB's and KA's to keep damage classes costing the same or your going to get a 2 tierd cost for damage classes and anybody who buys Str gets hosed compared to anybody with ranged attacks

The EB/KA is already hosed vs. STR, this just unhoses them. STR pays for itself in figured CHAR, and does the same damage as an EB (granted, not at range, a +1/2 advantage), and adds to leaping, and is used to lift and throw things! That's a heck of a lot for 1 pt. per - or effectively no cost if you were going to buy those figured characteristics anyway!

That's worth repeating. STR is effectively free if you were going to buy those figured characteristics anyway.:eek:

That's why I said that bricks should buy HA for about 1/3 their dice. Because let's face it, if you can lift 100 tons, when you puch a normal that normal should die.

[Hugh Neilson]

The EB/KA is already hosed vs. STRAnd yet I've yet to have a game where everyone wants a Brick and no one wants an energy projector.That's why I said that bricks should buy HA for about 1/3 their dice. Because let's face it, if you can lift 100 tons, when you puch a normal that normal should die.12d6 is 12d6 is 126d.* Whether it comes from STR, EB or Hand Attack, it's 12d6.* How does making some of it Hand Attack change anything?* The guy with 10 STR and +10d6 HA is inflicting the SAME DAMAGE as the guy with 60 STR.Comic book bricks (and that IS what we're trying to simulate, right?) DO lift 100 tons.* Cut characters down to 40 STR, and our Bricks lift an elephant.* Very impressive, to be sure, but hardly on the level of ccomic book bricks like Thor, Hulk, Superman, Thing, Collossus ad infinitum.

[Beast]

with the route you want you might as well just decouple everything and start from scratch
which will not get the simpler game to get new blood into the game

your example might work in a no limit on active pts game or if you put a limit on how much str can lift

The EB/KA is already hosed vs. STR, this just unhoses them. STR pays for itself in figured CHAR, and does the same damage as an EB (granted, not at range, a +1/2 advantage), and adds to leaping, and is used to lift and throw things! That's a heck of a lot for 1 pt. per - or effectively no cost if you were going to buy those figured characteristics anyway!

That's worth repeating. STR is effectively free if you were going to buy those figured characteristics anyway.:eek:

That's why I said that bricks should buy HA for about 1/3 their dice. Because let's face it, if you can lift 100 tons, when you puch a normal that normal should die.

[Tonio]

Maybe the fix for STR and CON is not "you get too much", but "the price of what you get, purchased separately, is excessive". Solve it by lowering the cost of STUN, END and REC. Add them to Defensive Powers to prevent adjustment powers having an excessive effect. Now we can remove the "max one figured sellback" rule, and set "no figured" as a limitation separate to each stat, and relative to what gets lost.

So if I understand correctly, you're suggesting adjusting the costs so that the figureds from the primary don't cost more than the primary itself, and adjusting the "No Figureds" limitation per-characteristic so that it saves as many points as the figureds would cost. A (maybe small) problem with this is the Active Cost vs Real Cost relationship. A characteristic with No Figureds would have the same Active Cost as one that provided figureds. A possible fix would be to do it the other way around... an Advantage for "Provides Figureds". But now it's just a matter of where you pay for the figureds: with the Advantage, it's part of the primary's cost; without it, part of the figured's cost.

Why not have two costs for each characteristic? One with figureds, one without. Now those that like figureds can buy the characteristics and have their figureds for free, while does of us that don't like them can buy our characteristics how we like them. And no, that's not meant to be sarcasm... just like you can buy your attacks as either killing or normal, you could buy your characteristics as either with or without figureds. :)

[nexus]

I've beat this drum before but characteristic rolls need more mechanics and/or codification overall not just Comeliness. Some of their functions are mentioned then never touched on again, like how Constitution interacts with disease and poisons or what can you use a base Presence, Intellect or Ego roll for and what modifiers might apply. Right now they're an under utilized tool that could be use to add more flavor to the game.

[Paragon]

I've beat this drum before but characteristic rolls need more mechanics and/or codification overall not just Comeliness. Some of their functions are mentioned then never touched on again, like how Constitution interacts with disease and poisons or what can you use a base Presence, Intellect or Ego roll for and what modifiers might apply. Right now they're an under utilized tool that could be use to add more flavor to the game.


Yeah. Con theoretically interacts with disease and poison, but I've never seen any official rules on disease, and the poisons SL has written, other than damaging Con, don't seem to actually care what your Con is in any way.

[Beast]

I'd say the lowering of Con would be to reflect the easier it is to daze someone
there are the poinson rules from the 1st Hero Almanac granted they are 4th ed rules


Yeah. Con theoretically interacts with disease and poison, but I've never seen any official rules on disease, and the poisons SL has written, other than damaging Con, don't seem to actually care what your Con is in any way.

[Paragon]

I'd say the lowering of Con would be to reflect the easier it is to daze someone



That doesn't mean the Con is actually doing anything to resist the poison though; you're just as subject to the lethal effects with a high Con as low.



there are the poinson rules from the 1st Hero Almanac granted they are 4th ed rules

The Almanacs were also never considered official even then.

[Beast]

considering that most poison effects last for long periods of time this could be a sever hinderance on a hero
much easier to stun
if con is below 0 having to make rolls just to spend any end

also I consider the almanacs like I consider any book published by Hero Games/DOJ it is an option that can be added if wanted(and I use just about everything)
since it was written by the the old gaurd at Hero it holds as much water as anything written by Steve,Darren,Jason and any others that have written for the Hero system that Hero/DOJ has put their name on as a product



That doesn't mean the Con is actually doing anything to resist the poison though; you're just as subject to the lethal effects with a high Con as low.



The Almanacs were also never considered official even then.

[BobGreenwade]

Over in the Limitations thread I suggest adding a Saving Throw Limitation, which would include (among other things) the possibility of a CON Roll to resist poison.

[James Gillen]

I've beat this drum before but characteristic rolls need more mechanics and/or codification overall not just Comeliness. Some of their functions are mentioned then never touched on again, like how Constitution interacts with disease and poisons or what can you use a base Presence, Intellect or Ego roll for and what modifiers might apply. Right now they're an under utilized tool that could be use to add more flavor to the game.

Excellent point.

jg

[James Gillen]

Over in the Limitations thread I suggest adding a Saving Throw Limitation, which would include (among other things) the possibility of a CON Roll to resist poison.

We would probably want to call it something not QUITE so D&Dish, but it's a sound principle.

jg

[CTaylor]

Resist is a better name for the limitation: set a skill by which you resist part or all of the effect if you make the roll. You could always define the effect of an NND as being that too.

[Klaus Mogensen]

We would probably want to call it something not QUITE so D&Dish, but it's a sound principle.
Rolemaster calls 'em Resistance Rolls, which is a pretty descriptive term. It also fits better with the general nomenclature of Hero (skill roll, attack roll, damage roll).

- Klaus

[BobGreenwade]

We would probably want to call it something not QUITE so D&Dish, but it's a sound principle.I all but said as much in the other thread; other name suggestions posted there would probably be a good idea.

[Talon]

(I read the whole thread before posting this. Really.)

(IMO, a Characteristic is something that pretty much every character has (incomplete rules aside), and which is a logical combination of multiple smaller effects. INT is the barest example of this: bonus to INT skills plus bonus to PER rolls. If you split out PER from INT, then INT becomes just a bonus to INT skills, which already exists as Skill Levels. Comeliness, on the other hand, only modifies certain Interaction Skill Rolls -- not enough to justify a separate number.)

Starting at Zero
I don't think this is necessary; there aren't many games that work off of zero stats, and it seems like it would make sub-average characters pretty rare. I prefer the idea of "zero is as low as a stat goes", which makes more intuitive sense to me.

Negative Characteristics
I don't have a real problem with eliminating them (as long as the adjustment power issues are handled) I think that there should be a Limitation system or something for handling fine-grained lifting abilities (it comes up a lot for TK and in heroic games). Also, how to construct small animals and other tiny characters/NPCs should NOT be ignored.

Make every point in a Characteristic matter
I think that adding minor rule where possible (for example, the oft-mentioned "higher stat wins ties" rule) is a good idea.

Get rid of Figured Characteristics
I am in favor of this. To be somewhat more specific, people have raised the reasonable question of "how do you know what the baseline is if there are no figured characteristics?" In some cases, the answer should be obvious based on campaign damage levels (PD, ED, SPD in particular). END and REC should be based on the character's powers anyway -- expecting the figured calculations to produce a reasonable baseline caused more problems in my experience than it solved.

Should primary characteristic costs change?
Absolutely -- CON without figured stats is not worth 2. See below.

To be honest, so what if you have to re-evaluate characters? This is the only time that such a change can happen, and it's worth looking into. If you change things and leave the characteristic costs in a poor state, it's only going to hurt the system.

It is very clear that recosting characteristics (especially if figureds are decoupled) raises some cost issues. I suspect that eliminating ECs would help with this somewhat, but I think that a lot of actual playtesting is needed to evaluate any such changes.

Should characters get more points?

This is largely based on the answer to whether primary characteristics change. If they don't, then characters will need more points. If some stats get cheaper, they may not (though I suspect that if you cost the primary stats appropriately, characters will need more points as some stats were giving extreme bargains).

STR

With figured characteristics gone, STR at 1 pt. is just right.

Remove Leaping
Ho, yes! Great call.

Remove HTH damage?
I agree that it should stay. HA damage is 3-ish, so making STR be damage plus a few minor things (lifting, etc.) makes sense. A surprising amount of sense. :)

Change cost of DEX
At 3 points, DEX is still a bargain:

+15 DEX=
+5 DCV (25 points)
+3 to DEX skills (15 points)
+15 Lightning Reflexes (22 points)

That's 62 points and we haven't covered OCV! I would start at DEX costing 4 points and playtest from there.

Splitting DEX
Not necessary, but CV as a separate stat has some benefits.

Remove CV from DEX
I generally agree with Steve's thinking on this. I do think that this is the top candidate for a new stat -- being able to Adjust CV solves a lot of problems, and also gives you the opportunity to balance the cost with CSLs, another ongoing issue. Since +1 DCV is 5 points, +1 CV should probably be in the 10 point range.

This also gives you a great opportunity to get rid of the STAT/3 vs. STAT/5 distinction. Make the CV stat cost 2 points per point, make it add to CV at every 5 points, and the system is a lot more consistent.

If you do this, then DEX can be 2 points per point (skills plus initiative) and everything costs out nicely.

It is a new stat, however, which is pretty radical.

CON
I think CON should be 1 point per (this will save some points to offset the increases elsewhere), as other than Stunning it doesn't do much.

Folding BODY into CON is tempting, but in the end it seems like you get better granularity by keeping them separate as two 1 pt. stats rather than a single 2 pt. stat.

Redefine INT
I think rewriting the text describing INT makes sense.

I note that you did not talk about recosting INT. If you keep PER as part of INT, then you are getting +1 to INT skills plus +1 to PER, which is 8 points of stuff for 5 points. That speaks to a 3/2 cost (see below under PER for more).

If you make INT cost more, then super-scientists could take "doesn't add to PER" to get the absent-minded effect.

Removing PER from INT
I don't like how PER is hard to find on the character sheet now -- but that's a layout issue not a mechanics one.

The problem I have with making PER a stat is that it becomes indistinguishable from an existing Power (Enhanced PER), and also turns INT into little more than 5-point Skill Levels. Given that I feel PER is a bit cheap at +1/3 points, I suggest keeping INT and PER together and raising the cost to 2 points. (And hey, it balances some of the physical stat cost increases!)

EGO
I like the idea of adding "Strong-Willed" and keeping the cost the same.

Removing ECV from EGO
I don't think this makes sense at all. If you did this, EGO would have to be 1 point per.

PRE

PRE gets you more than 5 points worth of stuff (+1 to all PRE rolls plus PRE attack dice), so should cost more just like INT. Unfortunately it feels like 3/2, which is an unpleasant cost.

Removing COM
Yup, it should go. It doesn't do enough to quality as it's own stat -- all it does is modify an existing stat (PRE / Interaction Skills), and that can be better done through things like Reputation.

I think that better defining Interaction Skills (see the Skills thread) and providing specific methods for buying a game effects for being pretty will replace COM for characters that relied on it before.

The main reason I don't want to see COM stay is that it misleads players into spending points on something that has little to no game effect. That makes the system more complex in a way that punishes inexperienced players. (If COM gains a game effect that is sufficiently different from PRE, fine...but I don't see a strong case for that.)

If people really want some absolute measure for beauty, let them make a "Prettiness" Perk and drop as many points into it as they want. I'd rather see it expressed as bonuses to PRE and PRE skills (which is the main game effect at present) and let characters roleplay over who is prettier...which is how it works in the stories, right? Expressing it in a way similar to the Reputation Perk would provide more flexibility and clarify by specifying the range of targets affected by your beauty; the Orc Princess would (in most games) get bonuses for a small group (and likely penalties to a larger group), for example.

Resisting Interaction Skills should be refined in such a way that these bonuses can apply (for example, the Persuasion master having a hard time lying to the uber-beautiful woman).

Another aspect to this issue is the lack of a "reaction roll" in Hero; there's no game mechanic for deciding how a group of people is likely to react to you, and thus no way to mechanically alter such a reaction (PRE attacks are close but more oriented toward short-term actions or attitudes).

Combining PD/ED into DEF
As long as you make objects the same as characters, which way you go is less relevant. I'm fine with keeping PD and ED.

Mental Defense as a Characteristic
Don't see the need for this as a system-wide thing, it seems fine as an optional rule.

Remove the SPD chart
While I think it can (and maybe should) be refined, it's a core part of Hero and should stay.

However, I think decoupling movement speed from SPD would be a good thing (which I will bring up wherever movement powers are being discussed).

Eliminate END
I agree with Steve, it should stay and people can choose not to use it.

I will talk about this in powers, but I think there is a lot of wonkiness around different mechanisms for END (Fuel Charges for one) that can be addressed.

STUN
The more I read this thread, the more I think that STUN is overpriced and should cost the same as END. (In nearly all cases you are better off buying defenses and reducing damage from the multiple attacks it will take to knock you out.)

Size as a characteristic
Whatever you do, please please please spend a LOT of time thinking about this. Growth/Shrinking is one thing that really hasn't improved since 1st Edition, and it would be nice to put it to bed. In particular, I like the design aspect of D&D 3E which makes combat between equal-sized characters the same regardless of what that size is.

Your comments about making vehicle and base character sheets more in line are also very well taken.

Also, please think about how Size will affect STR Mins and use of weapons in heroic games (i.e., how do the rules prohibit a halfling from using a greatsword).

People do make a good point about small sizes and not going below 0 in a characteristic; if this means letting Size be negative, so be it. It's not really a characteristic in the same way that STR and DEX are (i.e., no Size rolls).

Reach becomes much more relevant and manageable if you drop the scale to 1m instead of 2m.

I have not seen a good answer for this. On one side, changing Size logically adds to STR. On the other side, having a characteristic affect STR is very strange.

My suggestion would be to have a Size chart covering increases and decreases in size. Each level involves changing:
-- mass
-- knockback resistance
-- OCV (penalties as you get larger)
-- DCV (matching penalties as you get larger)
-- PER (your perception gets worse, other have an easier time seeing you; harder to see small things)
-- Reach

In addition, the chart includes suggested levels for STR and Running/Swimming (really, any "physical SFX" movement powers) -- but these have to be bought separately.

In addition, the Growth and Shrinking powers move people on this chart and include the STR and Movement powers, which achieves the logical result (and you can limit out the STR/Movement if you want).

[Talon]

While I agree that people can and should change characteristic costs as they see fit for their game, I do NOT think that the book should encourage this lightly. 6th Edition needs to set a direction, whether it's "stay the course" or something new. I'd rather see a well thought-out and justified option appearing in a supplement.

I think that EGO and PRE need to be separate (strong-will and high charisma are not the same thing).

I don't see anything terribly wrong with differing STR charts by genre; it seems a reasonable way to avoid "heroic/superheroic STR". On the other hand, different cost structures would be bad.

There is a valid point being made about a wee bit of PD/ED providing complete defense against BODY damage from punches and other normal attacks, but that discussion belongs in the combat section IMO.

The idea of doubling the starting point for figured stats seems like it might be a good idea for a supers game, but for a heroic game it would result in some oddities (very high SPD, PD, ED). I think STUN, REC, END should start at the value they would have for a 10 stat, but PD ED and SPD should start at 2/2/1 (maybe 2/2/2).

The rule cited in post 1535 from TUB about spreading STR over thrown AOE objects seems like a good candidate for inclusion in the main rulebook.

D&D is moving away from Saving Throws: poisons go against Fortitude to "hit", and the saving throw is more or a duration modifier (take damage until you save).

I agree with divorcing movement from SPD, but intend to cover it under Movement powers.

Also, while it's not really relevant here, I think that reducing the page count is a good thing if possible.

[Talon]

Summary for my thoughts on stat changes:

Figured characteristics gone.

STR: 1 point, no Leap
DEX: 4 points, or DEX at 2 points and CV at 2 points (with /5 breakpoints, so +1 CV costs 10 points)
CON: 1 point
BODY: 1 point
INT: 2 points, includes PER which is costed at +1/5 points (adjusting Enhanced PER appropriately)
EGO: 2 points
PRE: 1.5 points, if I could find a way to make it 2 I would for neatness

PD: 1 point
ED: 1 point, could combine these into DEF / 2 pts
SPD: 10 points, note that removing figured removes all the ugly "Partial SPD" costs
REC: 2 points
END: 1/2 point
STUN: 1/2 point

Size: XX points (cost to be figured under powers)

Given Steve's starting assumptions, physical characters are going to paying a lot more than mental characters, since all the figured stats came from physical stats and now they have to be paid for separately. (I'm putting DEX in it's own category here.) Increasing the cost of INT and PRE, and possibly even DEX, might balance the costs over the character types a bit.

Other Other Stuff:

I don't like PRE attacks going against EGO; it makes "meek mentalists" annoying to create and devalues PRE.

One thing I didn't see much mention of here was the concept of standardizing the concept of removing certain stats from the main character sheet in order to make certain things (automatons, bases, vehicles, computers). I think this would be a great "toolkit" addition to the system.

NCM for alternate races: IMO the doubling point should not change, the GM should just change their threshold for where GM permission is required. If my human wants a 23 DEX that requires permission; an elf can go to 23 without asking but still pays double for the last 3 points.

Characteristic rolls: not all Characteristics are used for rolls -- STR sort of is, PRE has one but it is rarely used, BODY does not. This should be clarified.

Long-Term Endurance: what if I want to Adjust Long-Term Endurance...how much should this cost compared to normal END?

[Vulcan]

(I read the whole thread before posting this. Really.)

(IMO, a Characteristic is something that pretty much every character has (incomplete rules aside), and which is a logical combination of multiple smaller effects. INT is the barest example of this: bonus to INT skills plus bonus to PER rolls. If you split out PER from INT, then INT becomes just a bonus to INT skills, which already exists as Skill Levels. Comeliness, on the other hand, only modifies certain Interaction Skill Rolls -- not enough to justify a separate number.)

...:nonp:...darn. I have no good answer for that. COM just works so well in our games...

[nexus]

...:nonp:...darn. I have no good answer for that. COM just works so well in our games...

You don't have too. They've been given dozens of times on earlier pages but I have a feeling we'll be seeing them again. ;)

But then decoupling Pimary and figured characteristic has the impact of eliminating the multiple functions of Constitution. It becomes useful for one thing officially: Determining when the character is Stunned. With a Con roll that has less defined effects than Comeliness rolls.

[Hugh Neilson]

(IMO, a Characteristic is something that pretty much every character has (incomplete rules aside), and which is a logical combination of multiple smaller effects. INT is the barest example of this: bonus to INT skills plus bonus to PER rolls. If you split out PER from INT, then INT becomes just a bonus to INT skills, which already exists as Skill Levels. Comeliness, on the other hand, only modifies certain Interaction Skill Rolls -- not enough to justify a separate number.)

I concur with Nexus' point, below. CON without Figured is solely a metric to determine damage before being STUNed. BOD is only a "when do you die" metric. COM is at least as broad as these.

Change cost of DEX
At 3 points, DEX is still a bargain:

+15 DEX=
+5 DCV (25 points)
+3 to DEX skills (15 points)
+15 Lightning Reflexes (22 points)

That's 62 points and we haven't covered OCV! I would start at DEX costing 4 points and playtest from there.

First, Lightning Refllexes is vastly overpriced. The current pricing suggests that combat order is half the value of DEX, which is ridiculous. Second, comparing to the cost of skill levels works poorly. Skill levels are reasonably priced only if one assumes NCM has already kicked in. That's one reason skills are more important in heroic games than in superheroic games. Similarly, INT skill levels and PRE skill levels are overpriced without NCM, buut reducing their cost would leave them vastly underpriced once NCM kicks in.

Maybe most skill levels should be removed in favour of limited stats.

STUN
The more I read this thread, the more I think that STUN is overpriced and should cost the same as END. (In nearly all cases you are better off buying defenses and reducing damage from the multiple attacks it will take to knock you out.)

Agreed.

But then decoupling Pimary and figured characteristic has the impact of eliminating the multiple functions of Constitution. It becomes useful for one thing officially: Determining when the character is Stunned. With a Con roll that has less defined effects than Comeliness rolls.

[Vulcan]

You don't have too. They've been given dozens of times on earlier pages but I have a feeling we'll be seeing them again. ;)

No, I mean I don't have a counter for his argument! :( Everyone else I had an answer for, but Talon's got me... Wait a minute, that's Prometheus' gig, not mine! :idjit:

No, I'm not getting back into the COM debate if I can help it. I've pretty much said my piece.

But then decoupling Pimary and figured characteristic has the impact of eliminating the multiple functions of Constitution. It becomes useful for one thing officially: Determining when the character is Stunned. With a Con roll that has less defined effects than Comeliness rolls.

WHEW! For a minute there I thought us COM proponents were sunk. But Nexus makes a distinct point there.

[nexus]

No, I mean I don't have a counter for his argument! :( Everyone else I had an answer for, but Talon's got me... Wait a minute, that's Prometheus' gig, not mine! :idjit:


What Talon said isn't really a new argument. "Comeliness doesn't do enough to have be worthy of being a characteristic" has been a key point in the debate pretty since the beginning.


No, I'm not getting back into the COM debate if I can help it. I've pretty much said my piece.


I am being something of a hypocrite by getting back into this, unfortunately.