Characteristics Issues

[Vulcan]

In Palladium's superhero game, there were a number of different scales for the amount a given STR could life. Normal STR (without any STR powers) lifted one amount. The minor superpower extrordinary STR gave a bonus to the STR score, and raised the amount lifted per pt. of STR. Repeat for Superhuman STR, repeat for robots and cyborgs who had robotic STR, repeat yet again for Supernatural STR. It made it really hard to figure out who could lift what.:confused:

We're better off with a single STR chart.

Now, if you remove negative STR and go with Phil's proposal for STR 0-20:
STR allows you to lift kg = STR^2. Thus at the base of 10, you can like 10^2 = 100 kg, just like you can now. At the NCM of 20, you can lift 20^2 = 400 kg, just like you can now.
the go to the '+5 AP = double the lift' for STR beyond 20, we retain the best of both worlds.

Sure, the 60 STR brick can still lift 100 tons but not squish a normal in a single hit, but <sigh> since it is genre-appropriate I suppose I could live with it.

Now, figure PD and STUN (at least!) off BODY, and now STR might actually be priced appropriately (assuming that we retain figured characteristics, which I am in favor of).

[PhilFleischmann]

We're better off with a single STR chart.
We'd still have a single STR chart. This would just add one column to the chart (or two columns if you like the added granularity I mentioned above*). And that extra column can be completely ignored in most genres. And even in the superhero genre, it can be ignored by anyone who isn't a brick. And even a brick character in a supers game can ignore it most of the time, since the primary in-game use of STR is for HtH damage, not lifting things. And even when your super-brick is lifting heavy things, you can still ignore the extra column, because he already wrote down his lifting capacity on his character sheet when he wrote up the character!

*or even more columns if you really want to go nuts with the granularity, which you theoretically could do, but I don't see much point to it.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Now, if you remove negative STR and go with Phil's proposal for STR 0-20 [lift = STR squared]

then go to the '+5 AP = double the lift' for STR beyond 20, we retain the best of both worlds.
I would probably keep the STR-squared formula until STR 25 (elite 'normal' humans) and then start doubling after that. This also gives some nice numbers:

STR Lift
25 625 kg
30 1250 kg
35 2500 kg
40 5000 kg
45 10 tons
50 20 tons
etc.

If we drop negative characteristics, this is how I would like to see it done. However, I'm more in favour of keeping negative characteristics and use a consistent logarithmic scale (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1630934&postcount=628).

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

I've seen it stand out in martial arts games where weapons were rarely used though; the bottom line is that as soon as the non-figured parts of Strength have any significant benefit in the setting for most characters, it becomes pretty much a gimme.

But not every pulp character should have a 20 Strength, and there's little reason for them not to as the rules are; they get the benefits of the unarmed damage and strength rolls added to PD, REC and Stun they wanted anyway. That's the fundamental problem. As soon as a setting calls for unarmed combat (or armed as far as that goes) with any frequency, the Strength pays for itself all the way up until you get to NCM if its in use.

The only reason you don't see this problem in Champions is that usually there are other ways to get the same effect for at least compareable costs; even martial artists can do a lot of things on the cheap with martial manuevers and martial DCs, so they don't have an overwhelming need to go to Strength.

This comes back to the value of figured's, an issue which needs to be addressed separately, as it also impacts CON. Reducing the cost of STUN, REC and END would help in this regard, as it would allow the figured's to be purchased at less cost than the stat which grants them. Shifting some figured value from STR to BOD would also be beneficial in this regard.

Ideally, I would like to see STR grant 5 points of figured for 15 points of STR, and -1/2 for No Figured. It would be reasonable to drop that to 3 points of Figured, and a -1/4 limit for No Figured.

DEX could stay as is. -1/2 works.

CON, if it is to remain 2 points per, should grant 20 points' figured per +15 CON and get a -2 limit for No Figured. It could even grant as much as 24 points of Figured and get a -4 limit for No Figured, but ideally I'd like to see the limit cap at -2.

BOD should grant 1 point of Figured, and get a -1 limit for No Figured. With the cost of STUN reduced, BOD could grant another stat, like REC or PD as suggested above.

I'd also like to see the formuli result in the same base figured's at the 10 Primary stat level.

But in heroic games, as long as the setting doesn't overwhelmingly favor ranged combat (which is why I've generally excluded SF games in my discussion, since those _do_ tend to favor ranged combat almost exclusively), Strength tends to be one of the cheapest ways to generate extra damage once you factor in the figureds that almost everyone wants anyway (PD and Stun nearly universally, and REC commonly enough to just add the last dollop on top). As such it tends to sprawl across concepts that really don't warrent it.

I agree the less muscle power impacts combat, the less STR is underpriced. A Wookie in Star Wars is much less powerful because, as you say, HTH is rare and STR doesn't help much at range.

[Hugh Neilson]

What is this? Palladium's HEROS UNLIMITED?

Villains & Vigilantes? Wasn't that [(STR^3)+END]/2 x Body Weight = Lift. And Lift, not STR, determined base HTH damage.

EDIT: V&V used END, not CON

[Markdoc]

That's in the comics. In Howard's stories, he often wears armor and uses a bow. Not full plate armor (doesn't exist in that world), mind you, but a metal breastplate or heavy leather.

- Klaus

Minor nitpick - I agree with the comics statement, but as I pointed out above, not only does full plate armour exist in th Conan stories, but Conan wore it from time to time. Here's a direct quote from The Hour of the Dragon, where Conan is paralysed by magic and one of his officers dresses up in his armour so the army doesn't find out:

The squires stripped Vallanus of his mail shirt, burganet and legpieces and clad him in Conan's armor of black plate mail, with the visored salade ...

There's plenty of other references in that story to knights in plate armour and various 15th century armour pieces are named, making it clear that the western armour styles are late medieval in nature.

Conan's a pretty good example of a PC who doesn't pay for his gear with points. He never keeps anything for long and he always equips himself with what's to hand, regardless of "points value".

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Conan's a pretty good example of a PC who doesn't pay for his gear with points. He never keeps anything for long and he always equips himself with what's to hand, regardless of "points value".

A key difference between Conan and the typical gamer mentality is emphasized above. Unlike Conan, the gamer mentality tends towards packratting. Once the PC has plate mail, he expects to keep it forever, not start the next adventure traveling in a mail shirt, or sailing with no armor.

Only using what's at hand, and never retaining anything, sounds a lot like "single scenario" use of found equipment. At the end of the scenario, Conan's player has to choose between keeping the plate mail and paying the points, or spending his xp elsewhere and leaving the plate mail behind. Or maybe Conan's GM doesn't even give him the option. The equipment available for each scenario is GM determined, and Conan just has to work with whatever is at hand.

Point being, the flavour of the stories can be maintained in multiple ways - including:

- pay points for equipment you want to keep; you can use what you find, but only to the end of the scenario

- use whatever is at hand - equipment costs no points, but it's transient so it doesn't stick around

You can't, however, explain Conan with the "equipment is paid for with money or otherwise acquired in game, and you then keep it forever barring unusual events which cause a piece of equipment to be lost; if it is lost, it's pretty easy to replace".

[CorpCommander]

Conan's a pretty good example of a PC who doesn't pay for his gear with points. He never keeps anything for long and he always equips himself with what's to hand, regardless of "points value".

I think pretty much since he can kick butt all day long he doesn't pay for anything. He just takes it! In Conan's world every focus is built with "independent."

:eg:

[Vulcan]

I think pretty much since he can kick butt all day long he doesn't pay for anything. He just takes it! In Conan's world every focus is built with "independent."

:eg:

Now there's a thought for Heroic level games. You can 'pick up' stuff to use for one adventure. To keep it costs points, but you can buy it as Independant to save points - but then because it's Independant the GM has free reign to take it away. :sneaky:

If you want to keep it like a normal focus, you have to pay normal cost...:D

[Markdoc]

A key difference between Conan and the typical gamer mentality is emphasized above. Unlike Conan, the gamer mentality tends towards packratting. Once the PC has plate mail, he expects to keep it forever, not start the next adventure traveling in a mail shirt, or sailing with no armor.

Not in any game I run, nor in most of those I have played - even in our D20 game. Real equipment breaks, is stolen, wears out or is simply discarded because it's no longer useful. Just as in my current game, the players have discarded chainmail for leather armour because they are fighting on board ship, and the risk of going to the bottom outweighs the loss of DEF. Once back on land, they are likely to go back to heavier armour - if it's available.

Only using what's at hand, and never retaining anything, sounds a lot like "single scenario" use of found equipment. At the end of the scenario, Conan's player has to choose between keeping the plate mail and paying the points, or spending his xp elsewhere and leaving the plate mail behind. Or maybe Conan's GM doesn't even give him the option. The equipment available for each scenario is GM determined, and Conan just has to work with whatever is at hand.

Or alternately, what you suggest above, without the paying XP. Sometimes Conan keeps the same equipment set for months/years, sometimes he loses all his gear or switches to lighter stuff. So he doesn't seem to be paying points for anything. Like any adventurer, he buys what he needs when he has the cash, and scrounges stuff off his dead foes when he needs to.

Point being, the flavour of the stories can be maintained in multiple ways - including:

- pay points for equipment you want to keep; you can use what you find, but only to the end of the scenario

This is a viable option for a game, but it fits Conan poorly, since he never seems to keep anything. All equipment is transient - but transient can mean across several adventures and months to years - or for 15 minutes. His access to cash seems similarly variable. Sometimes he's feelthy rich, other times destitute, depending on situation. You can contrast this to Kull, who has his fine Valusian longsword through of his adventures, or Bran Mak Morn, who has his crown with the (possibly) magic stone.

- use whatever is at hand - equipment costs no points, but it's transient so it doesn't stick around

This does seem to be how things work in your typical pulp fantasy novel, including Conan.

You can't, however, explain Conan with the "equipment is paid for with money or otherwise acquired in game, and you then keep it forever barring unusual events which cause a piece of equipment to be lost; if it is lost, it's pretty easy to replace".

With the exception of "keep it forever" - which doesn't really apply to any fantasy game I have played or run regardless of system, this is pretty much my understanding of how Conan operates. We know he does spend money to acquire equipment - it's specifically stated at points. We know also sometimes he has had to sell his gear to raise cash.

In many games (I would even say most) mundane - and even magical - equipment doesn't last forever: even in D20 bought equipment is routinely destroyed/stolen/sold/lost/replaced. For example, in our current D20 game my character started off without a sword. I soon aquired one and later got a magical longsword by the simple expedient of killing its owner. I sold that when I had the chance and bought a masterwork greatsword. Later I got my hand on a magic greatsword and gave the masterwork one to an NPC companion (who took it with him when we parted ways). The current magic greatsword is pretty cool, but is not the greatest weapon in the universe, so it will probably be replaced at some point: if it survives so long. In the same period the character has gone through multiple sets of armour, at least two warhorses and lord alone knows how many magic potions and scrolls. He's quite typical for our party.

Same for my own fantasy hero game: PCs have gone through various permutations of gear, depending on their location/task/financial state. In last monday's game a character simply threw away her weapon (that she had paid money for) and picked up a better one that had been dropped by a fallen warrior.

So the "packrat syndrome" is clearly nothing to do with game system or paying points - it's merely a particular game/GM style.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Now there's a thought for Heroic level games. You can 'pick up' stuff to use for one adventure. To keep it costs points, but you can buy it as Independant to save points - but then because it's Independant the GM has free reign to take it away. :sneaky:

If you want to keep it like a normal focus, you have to pay normal cost...:D

This is actually how we ran our first 3 or 4 hero system campaigns way back in the day (this was pre-fantasy Hero, so we were essentially running the game using "superheroic rules"). It worked .... after a fashion. But as time went on, it introduced wierder and wierder disconnects: players simply "losing" valuable or important items because they didn't have the points or want to make an investment in them, riding into battle without their armour, so they could carry the nasty-ass demon sword, etc.

In the end, the disadvantages far outweighed the dubious benefit from "balancing points". In my opinion, it's far better to GM effectively to ensure balance. The one exception in my games is that if a player wants his PC to make a magic item he has to pay the points. He can then choose to make it independant or not at the time.

cheers, Mark

[AnotherSkip]

Villains & Vigilantes? Wasn't that [(STR^3)+CON]/2 x Body Weight = Lift. And Lift, not STR, determined base HTH damage.

close, it's (Str/10 Cubed+End/10) x (Body/2) then for every doubling (hmm wonder where else that can be found) Damge went up by increasing the die size or adding a die. Close but yeah you got it, PM me if you are interested in an active V&V Forum. The nice thing is growth/density powers automatically got a decent cut of benefits, Str was good but not over valued and Even End got in on the act.

[Hugh Neilson]

Not in any game I run, nor in most of those I have played - even in our D20 game. Real equipment breaks, is stolen, wears out or is simply discarded because it's no longer useful. Just as in my current game, the players have discarded chainmail for leather armour because they are fighting on board ship, and the risk of going to the bottom outweighs the loss of DEF. Once back on land, they are likely to go back to heavier armour - if it's available.

I agree this is very much a matter of game style. However, if the equipment is easily replaced, I count that as "stays around forever". It need not be the SAME sword or armor.

Or alternately, what you suggest above, without the paying XP. Sometimes Conan keeps the same equipment set for months/years, sometimes he loses all his gear or switches to lighter stuff. So he doesn't seem to be paying points for anything. Like any adventurer, he buys what he needs when he has the cash, and scrounges stuff off his dead foes when he needs to.

I think this alludes to a greater portion of the issue. D&D has trained many gamers to an economic structure that contradicts much fantasy literature - the characters become wealthier over time, rather than having their fortunes fluctuate over time. That's probably part of the issue - equipment stays around forever because, after a fairly short period, the cash to replace it is always available. I suppose one could simulate this by purchasing Wealth with xp, creating a character who always has some level of ready cash, but this would be an uncommon or rare thing, not the typical character.

This is a viable option for a game, but it fits Conan poorly, since he never seems to keep anything.

This can be interpreted as never paying the points to keep anything, instead relying on equipment being available. In such a structure, GM style would become determinative of the players' xp spending. You can pretty much always access the gear you need, even if it has no special bonuses? Then why spend xp to ALWAYS have that longsword when there's pretty much always one available anyway. A stingy GM would motivate more xp spent on equipment.

Game style might see significant xp invested in equipment, or little or none. A game could require purchase of specific items, provide some provision for trading items in and out, or use an equipment/resource pool concept.

All equipment is transient - but transient can mean across several adventures and months to years - or for 15 minutes. His access to cash seems similarly variable. Sometimes he's feelthy rich, other times destitute, depending on situation. You can contrast this to Kull, who has his fine Valusian longsword through of his adventures, or Bran Mak Morn, who has his crown with the (possibly) magic stone.

Again, the GM's determination of what equipment is available when would rule. If the PC's are, say, soldiers in the King's Guard, equipment should be pretty easy to come by, and one would expect them to have weaponry and armor pretty much at all times. If they are dirt farmers turned adventurers to survive, equipment would be harder to replace.

The "wealth" issue, as noted above, can be a contrast between fiction and player expectations. I recall an old Elric story where he undertakes some adventure or another for some rare, valuable gems. At the end of the story, he discards them in the street. Good luck seeing a PC do that! Again, game style.

Some players expect their characters' wealth to grow, and count it a benchmark of success. Others are OK with fluctuating fortune more consistent with much of the source material.

Signature equipment such as that described above (Elric's Stormbringer is another example) could be paid for with points, with the character relying on normal access to other gear at GM discretion.

With the exception of "keep it forever" - which doesn't really apply to any fantasy game I have played or run regardless of system, this is pretty much my understanding of how Conan operates. We know he does spend money to acquire equipment - it's specifically stated at points. We know also sometimes he has had to sell his gear to raise cash.

This would, however, require maintaining records of character wealth, something I know some playing groups dislike. Of course, the ability to select your method of gear acquisition allows you to tailor this with your wealth expectations.

In many games (I would even say most) mundane - and even magical - equipment doesn't last forever: even in D20 bought equipment is routinely destroyed/stolen/sold/lost/replaced. For example, in our current D20 game my character started off without a sword. I soon aquired one and later got a magical longsword by the simple expedient of killing its owner. I sold that when I had the chance and bought a masterwork greatsword. Later I got my hand on a magic greatsword and gave the masterwork one to an NPC companion (who took it with him when we parted ways). The current magic greatsword is pretty cool, but is not the greatest weapon in the universe, so it will probably be replaced at some point: if it survives so long. In the same period the character has gone through multiple sets of armour, at least two warhorses and lord alone knows how many magic potions and scrolls. He's quite typical for our party.

I've emphasized the "replaced" aspect. To be more clear, I don't consider upgrading to be "loss of equipment". I'm thinking more of the fantasy character whose equipment is downgraded over time, not through his choice but through misfortunes (in game parlance, not by player choice but by game events).

I suppose the crux of this is the player expectation, not typically mirrored in the source material, of advancement. Equipment and wealth becomes superior as time goes on (from acquiring a longsword, to obtaining a magical one, to acquiring a superior crafted greatsword, to acquiring a magic greatsword, as you described above, for example). So do skills and abilities - no one ever sees their woodsmanship skills deteriorate after two years in an urban environment, or their physical statistics fall after months of easy living, or simple passage of time. The source material does not presume this "advancement only" result, but game systems and player expectations do.

This is actually how we ran our first 3 or 4 hero system campaigns way back in the day (this was pre-fantasy Hero, so we were essentially running the game using "superheroic rules"). It worked .... after a fashion. But as time went on, it introduced wierder and wierder disconnects: players simply "losing" valuable or important items because they didn't have the points or want to make an investment in them, riding into battle without their armour, so they could carry the nasty-ass demon sword, etc.

In the end, the disadvantages far outweighed the dubious benefit from "balancing points". In my opinion, it's far better to GM effectively to ensure balance. The one exception in my games is that if a player wants his PC to make a magic item he has to pay the points. He can then choose to make it independant or not at the time.

There is a game logic disconnect here, though. Should one player have the nasty-ass demon sword, plus the regular gear everyone else gets, while a second simply has regular gear available to everyone and the third, whose concept relies on personal abilities rather than equipment, has nothing? Because one player chose to make a character whose abilities are not enhanced by equipment, should the GM be more stingy with equipment made available to others?

If one character can pay points for familiarity and skills with weaponry and armor, both their use and their manufacture then leverage those points with points-free gear, why should another character be prohibited from spending points for familiarity and skills with mystical enchantments, then leveraging those points with points-free magic items? Why should money be able to purchase a superior weapon or superior armor, but not the superior training one might require to, say, learn another language or become more adept in the casting of spells?

If (and I stress the word IF) we are relying, in whole or in part, on points for balance, why is that reliance not placed equally over character archetypes? If a pool of equipment is available, at no point cost, to warriors and rogues, why not a pool of spells to the old wizard, or a pool of prayers and miracles to the devout pacifist priest?

One reason that STR is very valuable in many heroic games, with fantasy at least sharing the lead, is the ability to leverage that STR with point-free equipment. Removing that point-free aspect to render equipment less available without sacrificing other aspects of the character would reduce the reliance on strength in such games. While likely not a full solution to the STR issue (I discuss Figured's above, as do others), it would certainly help to close the gap.

THE solution? Probably not. A solution? Perhaps - and perhaps one that merits consideration in 6th Edition at least equal to the consideration given to changing the rules for the characteristics that drive the benefits of equipment.

[CorpCommander]

One of the easiest ways of detering packrats is enforcing the encumberance system. But it is also rather intensive in book keeping.

Has anyone developed a simple system for keeping track of encumberance? Do you use index cards or somthing like that? I figure you could use an envelope to hold cards for things that are stowed and leave out cards for things that are worn or at the ready. One final card would have the current level of encumberance and the modifiers associated with it.

[Markdoc]

Has anyone developed a simple system for keeping track of encumberance? Do you use index cards or somthing like that? I figure you could use an envelope to hold cards for things that are stowed and leave out cards for things that are worn or at the ready. One final card would have the current level of encumberance and the modifiers associated with it.

Heromaker. It tots up the encumbrance and calculates DCV penalties and END use for you. :D

Prior to Heromaker, I just kept a general record with two numbers: how much weight when all tooled up for combat, and how much weight when travelling carrying all your stuff. That seemed to do the trick.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

There is a game logic disconnect here, though. Should one player have the nasty-ass demon sword, plus the regular gear everyone else gets, while a second simply has regular gear available to everyone and the third, whose concept relies on personal abilities rather than equipment, has nothing? Because one player chose to make a character whose abilities are not enhanced by equipment, should the GM be more stingy with equipment made available to others?

I've jumped the initial part to go to the core issue here. Is this fair? Sure, it can be. The nasty-ass demon sword, like any found equipment, is given in the purview of the GM and it can be a major plot point. Who's actually carrying it can be largely irrelevant, if properly GM'ed. In the last game, in nearly three years of play I gave away precisely one nasty-ass magic sword. It was in fact the only magic sword, nasty-ass or otherwise in the entire game. After after using it once, the PCs gave it away to an NPC. I'm not seeing any inherent balance issues here.

What is freely given can (and probably will) be freely taken away again.

Likewise, the player who has chosen to build a character who doesn't benefit from free equipment will get his chance to shine when that free equipment is not available. And that will happen, if he has a decent GM. Non-weapon using martial artists have not proven significantly weaker than weapon users - even weapon using martial artists - because of the advantages on not being dependant on a focus. In the current FH game, the priest PC has as his equipment, some clothes and a wooden staff. That's about it, which doesn't exactly speak to an overwhelming advantage of free gear. And he's one of the most experienced Hero system players in the group. Free gear is nice to have, no question about it. But it's clearly not - by any means - essential and therefore not necessarily unbalancing.

If, on the other hand, if the GM gives bennies to only one character, sure that could be imbalancing - but no more so than if a PC had sunk lots of points into an independant magical sword, which gave him a big advantage.

If one character can pay points for familiarity and skills with weaponry and armor, both their use and their manufacture then leverage those points with points-free gear, why should another character be prohibited from spending points for familiarity and skills with mystical enchantments, then leveraging those points with points-free magic items? Why should money be able to purchase a superior weapon or superior armor, but not the superior training one might require to, say, learn another language or become more adept in the casting of spells?

If (and I stress the word IF) we are relying, in whole or in part, on points for balance, why is that reliance not placed equally over character archetypes? If a pool of equipment is available, at no point cost, to warriors and rogues, why not a pool of spells to the old wizard, or a pool of prayers and miracles to the devout pacifist priest?

Because the detail is in the "if". In a supers game where there is a wide range of potential archetypes and an almost infinite array of powers, points do an OK job (not perfect, but OK) job of balance. In heroic settings where your range of archetypes are more limited, that's not necessarily true. Spells like Flight, Force Field and Invisbility become highly potent, when only one or two archetypes have access to them. In game after game, in our early days, setting magic users and non-magic users on an even footing with regard to equipment resulted in games with only magic users. When a warrior can spend his points on a killing attack, armour and ummmm ... another killing attack and the mage can use the same points on a similarly sized killing attack, armour and ..... invisibility, there's no difficulty in predicting the outcome.

One reason that STR is very valuable in many heroic games, with fantasy at least sharing the lead, is the ability to leverage that STR with point-free equipment. Removing that point-free aspect to render equipment less available without sacrificing other aspects of the character would reduce the reliance on strength in such games. While likely not a full solution to the STR issue (I discuss Figured's above, as do others), it would certainly help to close the gap.

THE solution? Probably not. A solution? Perhaps - and perhaps one that merits consideration in 6th Edition at least equal to the consideration given to changing the rules for the characteristics that drive the benefits of equipment.

This was our reasoning in the beginning. But alas, as a cure, it proved worse than the disease - not just in my games, but in the 4 other FH games run by different GMs with quite different GM'ing styles. I will freely admit than when one of my friends first proposed "free equpment" I was opposed. Free stuff? In Hero? Heresy! But it worked well - so well, that soon we were all doing it. Thus, I understand your reasoning regarding balance, but also regard it as flawed, since it doesn't cover "opportunity cost" - and in most fantasy games, that's a major effect.

cheers, Mark

[Paragon]

This comes back to the value of figured's, an issue which needs to be addressed separately, as it also impacts CON. Reducing the cost of STUN, REC and END would help in this regard, as it would allow the figured's to be purchased at less cost than the stat which grants them. Shifting some figured value from STR to BOD would also be beneficial in this regard.



Can't disagree about either; the devil is just in the details.



[quote]
I agree the less muscle power impacts combat, the less STR is underpriced. A Wookie in Star Wars is much less powerful because, as you say, HTH is rare and STR doesn't help much at range.

Its why its hard to set reasonable numbers cross-genre on a lot of things.

[Paragon]

A key difference between Conan and the typical gamer mentality is emphasized above. Unlike Conan, the gamer mentality tends towards packratting. Once the PC has plate mail, he expects to keep it forever, not start the next adventure traveling in a mail shirt, or sailing with no armor.



Well, the other side of that coin is that Conan never has much trouble getting together what he needs; his combat capabilities are such that armor is mostly guidling the lilly for him since he kicks everyone's ass for the most part whether he has it or not. In games the difference in capability between someone with a lot of pieces of equipment and without is quite a bit more noticeable than in his cases.

[Hugh Neilson]

I've jumped the initial part to go to the core issue here. Is this fair? Sure, it can be. The nasty-ass demon sword, like any found equipment, is given in the purview of the GM and it can be a major plot point. Who's actually carrying it can be largely irrelevant, if properly GM'ed. In the last game, in nearly three years of play I gave away precisely one nasty-ass magic sword. It was in fact the only magic sword, nasty-ass or otherwise in the entire game. After after using it once, the PCs gave it away to an NPC. I'm not seeing any inherent balance issues here.

What is freely given can (and probably will) be freely taken away again.

This assumes that the players are OK with this, rather than the packrat mentality. Like most things, this depends a lot on the gaming group.

Likewise, the player who has chosen to build a character who doesn't benefit from free equipment will get his chance to shine when that free equipment is not available. And that will happen, if he has a decent GM. Non-weapon using martial artists have not proven significantly weaker than weapon users - even weapon using martial artists - because of the advantages on not being dependant on a focus.

I could make the similar argument that the player who has chosen to build a character with a low STR will get his chance to shine when faced with challenges which require abilities he purchased with the points he did not spend on strength. Balance by GM structuring is certainly an option, but why worry about the point cost of anything if this is the approach you prefer to take?

If, on the other hand, if the GM gives bennies to only one character, sure that could be imbalancing - but no more so than if a PC had sunk lots of points into an independant magical sword, which gave him a big advantage.

Let's consider a few characters. One has purchased his independent magical sword with points. The second purchased the same sword without the independent limitation, so he paid considerably more. The third was given the sword through gameplay, so paid no points. Who has an advantage?

Well, it's pretty clear which of the first three will be most and least powerful, all other things being equal, when they all have their swords, or when they are all disarmed. The guy without Independent has the least points to spend on other abilities, and the guy who got his sword for free has the most.

If I'm the guy who paid points for his non-Independent sword, I would expect to get more benefits than the guy who took the Independent savings. That's easily accomplished - enforce the Independent limitation. Of course, this creates hard feelings when that Independent sword disappears and is never seen again, leaving that character to limp around at reduced power. The problem with Independent is that it's a toggle switch - either you're overpowered or underpowered. Focus has a similar issue, though reduced in scope as the focus can and will be recovered.

But both the Independent sword and the Freebie sword are equally vulnerable to the drawbacks of the Independent limitation, while only one paid any points for that Independent item.

The player who purchases the independent magical sword with points has the same advantages as the one who was given the sword within the game, except that he does not have those points to spend on other abilities for his character. How fair is it that they both get the benefits of the sword, but only one of them bears the cost?

Most games would not mix and match, probably for those fairness reasons. Most of us would also probably balk at seeing one player pay points for his Ring of Invisibility, then having a second character find the exact same thing for free. And I suspect few GM's would allow one character to pay for that item, then give the same thing to a second character for free.

However, allowing one character free points from equipment while requiring another to pay points for their abilities carries a similar fairness concern. To some extent, this comes down to how harshly the limitations for a focus, especially an Independent focus, are enforced.

In my view, the worst approach of the three is the purchase of Independent items. If you pay points, you should get a benefit. Saving points from a Focus and occasionally losing access to the focus is not unreasonable, but saving more points because the focus may disappear exacerbates the issue considerably - either the GM enforces the limitation, and eventually depowers the "independent", or he doesn't, and the "independent" gets the benefits of points saved without feeling the drawbacks. At its munchkinny worst, "independent" loses his item so he creates a new character.

If you pay points for a non-independent focus, the focus will be gone at times, but the GM doesn't have to make the points disappear to make the limitation fully felt. If you pay no points for that equipment, you have no right to complain if it is taken away.

Compare any of the three to a character whose powers are entirely inherent, however, and we get a similar problem. Focus character is more powerful if he has his focus, and less powerful without it. Independent character has the same issue, to a greater extent. Free Equipment Guy has ostensibly the same level of power without his equipment, and more with it, but a lot of his abilities are likely geared to the use of that equipment, essentially making them focused without a focus. You can't remove my levels with Sword Combat, but they are of little use if I have no sword.

Because the detail is in the "if". In a supers game where there is a wide range of potential archetypes and an almost infinite array of powers, points do an OK job (not perfect, but OK) job of balance. In heroic settings where your range of archetypes are more limited, that's not necessarily true. Spells like Flight, Force Field and Invisbility become highly potent, when only one or two archetypes have access to them. In game after game, in our early days, setting magic users and non-magic users on an even footing with regard to equipment resulted in games with only magic users. When a warrior can spend his points on a killing attack, armour and ummmm ... another killing attack and the mage can use the same points on a similarly sized killing attack, armour and ..... invisibility, there's no difficulty in predicting the outcome.

Again, this comes down to game styles. Perhaps my warrior has "Incredible Combat Sense" - an Unusual group Spatial Awareness rendering that invisibility useless. My Rogue might be "Undetectable", possessing Invisibility as a super-skill. Are your archetypes more limited?

At the extreme, my Wizard could have a Spell of Shifting - Multiform, 150 point characters, multiple forms, with one form for each other group member. Now I can step on everyone's toes. One form has all my magical abilities, skills and spells. Another is a powerful warrior with numerous combat skills. A third is a wily rogue. And so on.

As you say, points are only a rough metric for power. But they ARE a metric, and free equipment downgrades that metric.

Thus, I understand your reasoning regarding balance, but also regard it as flawed, since it doesn't cover "opportunity cost" - and in most fantasy games, that's a major effect.

A character who chooses to take personal abilities rather than skill with equipment faces the "opportunity cost" of foregoing access to all those free benefits equipment provides.

Here's a thought. Would you allow the wizard to have a spell that grants him a suit of armor, a shield, a bow and a greatsword, with the expendable material component of the sum of money such equipment would cost, and the limitation that it can be used, say, only once a month (or however often the other characters have the opportunity to replenish their own gear)? That's effectively what the warrior has, isn't it?

Well, the other side of that coin is that Conan never has much trouble getting together what he needs; his combat capabilities are such that armor is mostly guidling the lilly for him since he kicks everyone's ass for the most part whether he has it or not. In games the difference in capability between someone with a lot of pieces of equipment and without is quite a bit more noticeable than in his cases.

Maybe Conan has a "resistant defense" power that doesn't stack with, but ranks equal with, high end armor, and using armor when available is part of the SFX of this ability.

The fact is, it's tough to conclude any specific "game mechanic" is in use in any work of fiction. Conan has precisely the equipment that the writer allows him to have. Does that represent the manner in which the writer spends Conan's xp, or the manner in which the writer determines what "no point cost" equipment is available to Conan at any given point in time? Works of fiction don't have to worry about play balance between characters.

[Sean Waters]

In much of fantasy (and other) literature, characters do not follow an 'XP progression'. Sometimes they noticably improve, but usually if that is the point of the story - usually they just have a set of abilities and it doesn't seem to vary much, occasionally (through inactivity or some other reason) their abilities decline.

XP is not a particularly useful tool, to my mind, but everyone seems to expect it. It appeals to the rule player more often than the role player.

Sorrry, not really a characteristic issue, but you were talking about the general topic so I thoguht I'd chip in.

[CTaylor]

Yeah most literature and source material shows almost no change in the abilities or experience of the characters. There are some where people will start as children then gain power, but almost none where someone starts at a certain level than in the series continuously gains power. It's a sort of weakness of RPGs that you have to have this or players feel like they aren't achieving anything

[AnotherSkip]

writers write for one reason Roleplayers play for a different reason... mostly.

Sure there are rewards to writing that are just pure joy but there are also other considerations.
I think that the standard fantasy trope is that the characters do evolve to a certain extent, just not in combat power most of the time.

Conan gained an Empire (how many points is that? and does it have the Independant limitation?).

Tarzan Starts out as an infant! I mean look a the amount of roleplaying vs Xp there! Eventually he stabilses combat wise, and then learns other things.


Tarma and Kethrie by Mercedes Lackey through their adventures DO follow the XP Curve, Tarma Buys off a disad from her early stories in a later story and so does Kethrie. Tarma is frequently trained in better and better combat Skills and Kethrie goes from Journeyman to Master rank and together they end up training a generation or two of mercs & mages. many of the other characters start out skilled in direct relation to the amount of crap in their childhood, attend college/education of some sort come out better trained (though not necessarily wiser) then go through (more) challenges.

And with Tarma and Kethrie you also have an in adventure balancing event. the Mage Kethrie who has a magical sword decides to summon a familar. She does so succesfully but it takes one look at Kethrie and decides to be Tarma's Familar!! talk about Gm's enforcing in game balance!
but I think there are hints that ML was exposed to gaming culture so she may have been influenced there.....

[GeekySpaz]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I am strongly in favor of doing this and intend to implement this change unless I am persuaded otherwise by a particularly convincing argument. Figured Characteristics are not only contrary to the general spirit of the HERO system in my opinion, but they cause all sorts of mathematical problems and muddles. If we eliminate them and just use the standard starting values and costs (PD 2, ED 2, SPD 2, REC 4, END 20, STUN 20), then there’s no more worry about Limited SPD, no more concern about STR (or any other Characteristic) giving you too much benefit for its cost, no more No Figured Characteristics Limitation, and no need to dictate how many “Figureds” a character can sell back.


I finally figured out how to say what I wanted to say earlier on Figured Characteristics. Whether or not figured characteristics should go really depends on whether or not characteristic focused characters are too powerful. If they are too powerful then removing figured characteristics can restore some of the balance. If they are not too powerful (as I think is the case) then the equation changes.

Assuming characteristic focused characters are not too powerful, removing figured characteristics means one of 4 things:

1.) Characteristic focused characters become less powerful because they now have to spread the same number of points over more characteristics.

2.) Characteristic focused characters are given more points to compensate for the fact that they have to spend more points to maintain their current power level. Thus the balance of the HERO system is lost.

3.)All characters are given more points. This makes non-characteristic focused characters more powerful because they do not have to spend their additional points on characteristics and are thus free to buy more powers, skills, etc. Since the characteristic focused character and the non-characteristic focused character were balanced before they cannot be balanced now since the non-characteristic focused character has been given more points to increase his power level while the characteristic focused character has been given more points to remain where he was originally.

4.)The costs of some or all characteristics are reduced. While not as significant as #3 this will still make non-characteristic focused characters more powerful since they will now be able to purchase the characteristics they have now for fewer points thus giving them more points to spend on powers, skills, etc.

So in conclusion if the game is balanced as is (as I think is the case) then figured characteristics cannot be eliminated without disrupting the balance of the game.

[GeekySpaz]

Q: Should we get rid of the concept of negative Characteristics?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it would help the HERO System to get rid of the concept of “negative Characteristics,” at least insofar as any negative Characteristic still providing tangible, positive effects (e.g., negative STR, which still allows for lifting small amounts of weight). If we just say that 0 is as low as a Characteristic can go and define that as “no function at all” (can’t lift anything, can’t think for one’s self, can’t resist being controlled/influenced, whatever), it simplifies a lot of things, cuts text out of the book, and is I think more logical. It would require reworking the STR 1-5 lifting scale, and perhaps a special rule for Adjustment Powers, but that’s not difficult.

The one exception to this would be that STUN and BODY could still go negative, since that has a specific, combat-related, negative effect on the character. I don’t think that having negatives for those two implies that *all* Characteristics should go into the negatives.


I can see the point for most of the characteristics but I have reservations about trying to start STR at 0. How would such a system provide sufficient granularity at the low end of the scale to represent the breadth of creature types that the current system allows? Right now, being a logarithmic scale, a STR score can be defined for everything from a gnat to a hill giant and anything in between with sufficient differentiation between any two creatures of different strengths. I don't see how a scale from 0-30 can represent everything from no strength at all to the peak of human potential unless we used fractional values at the low end and I don't think that is very attractive idea.

[CTaylor]

I don’t think that having negatives for those two implies that *all* Characteristics should go into the negatives.

It does, however, establish a precedent for characteristics going into negatives. I don't see the game being enhanced in any conceivable way by not having negative stats.

[Vulcan]

There are two characteristics that will (likely) always need rules for when they 'go negative,' - BODY and STUN. This does not imply the need for rules for all other characteristics 'going negative. A simple note that they bottom out a zero, period, is all that is needed.

Having said that, the logarithmic STR score permits the determination of the exact lifting capabilites of a very low STR - expressed as a negative number. It also allows the determination of 'extra STR for throwing' with great precision. This is not an insignificant advantage to having negative STR.

On the other hand, it clearly implies the ability to Drain a STR into negative numbers, which you cannot do on, say, an Energy Blast. So that makes STR more vulnerable to Drains, since it can be drained into negative numbers and won't necessarily recover to a useful (defined as STR 5, able to roll a die for STR damage) level at the end of the first recovery interval on the Drain. All other attack powers would have a die/half die/pip they could roll at 5 AP (barring powers with lots of advantages, but that is a small price to pay for having the advantages in the first place...), but not STR.

Not sure what to do about it, though.

If we say that you can't Drain STR past 0, then small creatures with negative STR become immune to STR Drains. Is this a problem? I don't know, but it seems like a good starting place to me. But then, I've never played in a campaign where anything had a negative STR to begin with.

Anyone have experience with extremely low STR creatures in game?

[AnotherSkip]

On the other hand, it clearly implies the ability to Drain a STR into negative numbers, which you cannot do on, say, an Energy Blast. So that makes STR more vulnerable to Drains, since it can be drained into negative numbers and won't necessarily recover to a useful (defined as STR 5, able to roll a die for STR damage) level at the end of the first recovery interval on the Drain. All other attack powers would have a die/half die/pip they could roll at 5 AP (barring powers with lots of advantages, but that is a small price to pay for having the advantages in the first place...), but not STR.

Not sure what to do about it, though.

If we say that you can't Drain STR past 0, then small creatures with negative STR become immune to STR Drains. Is this a problem? I don't know, but it seems like a good starting place to me. But then, I've never played in a campaign where anything had a negative STR to begin with.

Anyone have experience with extremely low STR creatures in game?

Yes and i adjust it for size i suppose, a small mouse i made roll 2d6 for "strength" to represent pushing a dryer vent out of the way for a stealth mission. I wanted a roll and it seemed interesting for the multiformer i am Gming for. Which presents an arguement for -str shouldn't give points to any character based upon size because of the adjustments to their challenge level. Perhaps Str should be multiplied by weight to get capacity, it would modify the way DI and growth are handled, and could mean you would have a Mouse with 15 Str still be challenged by the Dryer vent. and eliminate the mouse taking -35 Str and getting an 8d6 RKA NND Does Body with that cost savings plus their leftover points.

I'm not so certain there is a "stopping point" for drains, -10 -20 or even -50 EB just takes longer to hit the recovery points wherein it is useful. At least that is the way I run it. And keep in mind while they are busy draining to that level there are a LOT of other things they could be doing to a character.

[CTaylor]

it clearly implies the ability to Drain a STR into negative numbers, which you cannot do on, say, an Energy Blast.

I would argue that you certainly can drain anything into negative numbers. It doesn't have any effect past zero on the output of the power, but it just takes that much longer to recover your lost points. Drain me to 0 points Energy blast and I can't blast until I recover 5 points. Drain me to -20 points and I have to get 25 points recovered to blast again.

[Beast]

going negative
for strength also limits your muscle based movements(running,swimming,leaping,flight if you use wings,etc..)
also various characteristic rolls go should go below 9 or less especially for those long term mind controls,mental illusions,etc

is going to zero still going to leave the affected with a 9 or less or should it just be zero also

[Acid_Crash]

Adding BASE (x10) for figured characteristics in use or (x8) for no figured characteristics in use for BASE = 10 is a good idea. No changes for CHAR costs with figured characteristics from 5th Edition Rules, but the 8 primary characteristics have a changed cost for no figured characteristics: STR (x1), DEX (x2), CON (x1/2), BODY (x1), INT (x1), EGO (x2), PRE (x1) and COM (x1/2). If a character chooses to have no figured characteristics the bases for these are: PD = 4, ED = 4, SPD = 3, REC = 8, END = 40, STUN = 40, RUN = 6, SWIM = 2, and LEAP = 4 with 200 + disadvantages taken. It was easier to be generous with figured characteristics than it was to reprice the cost for defensive powers and adjustment powers. Defender paid too much for CON without figured characteristics in his battlesuit.

I like this, going with the Base Characteristics for 'figured characteristics' like this is one option that I can see being used, and it does give all characters a
"Base" to go with that makes sense... well, it does to me. :)

Plus it would just simply make things easier on the bookkeeping end of things. Then just include a sidebar with an OPTIONAL Rule that states how to use the game for 5th edition Figured Characteristics rules if a GM would rather use them.

Hero System is so dang versatile that the writers need to take a page out of another game I just got, Basic Roleplaying. They wrote it with a core rules set, then throughout all aspects they have optional sidebars for various rules that can be added to increase complexity. Herogames needs to do this, and make it obvious, which to me, as it is currently written, these various options do not stand out and only with research and time does it take a person to know what some of these options are.

[The Main Man]

There are two characteristics that will (likely) always need rules for when they 'go negative,' - BODY and STUN. This does not imply the need for rules for all other characteristics 'going negative. A simple note that they bottom out a zero, period, is all that is needed.

Having said that, the logarithmic STR score permits the determination of the exact lifting capabilites of a very low STR - expressed as a negative number. It also allows the determination of 'extra STR for throwing' with great precision. This is not an insignificant advantage to having negative STR.

On the other hand, it clearly implies the ability to Drain a STR into negative numbers, which you cannot do on, say, an Energy Blast. So that makes STR more vulnerable to Drains, since it can be drained into negative numbers and won't necessarily recover to a useful (defined as STR 5, able to roll a die for STR damage) level at the end of the first recovery interval on the Drain. All other attack powers would have a die/half die/pip they could roll at 5 AP (barring powers with lots of advantages, but that is a small price to pay for having the advantages in the first place...), but not STR.

Not sure what to do about it, though.

If we say that you can't Drain STR past 0, then small creatures with negative STR become immune to STR Drains. Is this a problem? I don't know, but it seems like a good starting place to me. But then, I've never played in a campaign where anything had a negative STR to begin with.

Anyone have experience with extremely low STR creatures in game?

While I don't have much experience with extensively using them, I think that if one CHAR (namely BODY) can be Drained into the negatives, then all of them should to maintain consistency.

Negative STR is related to humans just like all of the other CHAR in the HERO system; if the system assumed that radioactive zombie bears were the standard, then humans could quite likely be negative STR creatures themselves.

[James Gillen]

While I don't have much experience with extensively using them, I think that if one CHAR (namely BODY) can be Drained into the negatives, then all of them should to maintain consistency.

Negative STR is related to humans just like all of the other CHAR in the HERO system; if the system assumed that radioactive zombie bears were the standard, then humans could quite likely be negative STR creatures themselves.

Excellent point.

jg

[Beast]

if you want to have drains only going to zero
then you will need to raise all stats by 30 and do away with stat /5+9 for skill rolls and just go with stat/5+3 for a skill roll
of course this will mean a normal's punch would do 8d6 but it would go against a base 8 pd
Base CV's would be 13
now a drain of 10 str would still render a normal unable to stand
now this would be silly as it makes needing 38 stun from a 8d6 punch to daze some one
but it now possible since before you could not have 1 normal daze another normal
2d6 vs 10 for con and 2 for pd

[Tonio]

Negative STR is related to humans just like all of the other CHAR in the HERO system; if the system assumed that radioactive zombie bears were the standard, then humans could quite likely be negative STR creatures themselves.

Except for the STR chart. Regardless of what the standard is, 10 STR will let you lift 220 lbs and jump 13 feet. If radioactive zombie bears (and omg do I feel a campaign setting coming up!) are the standard, and you therefore define them to be 10 STR, and humans, therefore, to be -5 STR base, you're just making everybody weaker. Humans can no longer jump or damage anything with their punches, and can't lift anything weighing more than 28 lbs without a massive, heroic effort.

Whether STR being absolute is a good thing or not is another issue... but right now, that's how it is.

[BobGreenwade]

If radioactive zombie bears (and omg do I feel a campaign setting coming up!) are the standard....The phrase "radioactive zombie bears" is just colorful enough that I think it should appear somewhere in the book at least once. :D

[James Gillen]

Now that I think about it, the standard should be based on radioactive zombie bears.

jg

[The Main Man]

My work here is done. :D

[CTaylor]

Even cooler than Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles... it's RADIOACTIVE ZOMBIE BEARS!

[The Main Man]

Enjoy.

[PhilFleischmann]

Here's another issue re: negative STR. (And maybe it belongs on another thread, Powers A-E, or Advantages, or maybe even Environment - boy, these combinations of things can be killer!)

Desolidification, with Affects Real World bought on STR.

Can you buy ARW on 0 STR? How much would it cost?

Let's say you buy ARW on 1 STR (for 2 points). Now you can pick up and manipulate objects up to 25 kg while desolid. Some such objects would be guns, grenades, rocks, swords, clubs, knives, ropes, nets, flashlights, hypodermic needles, etc. Any of these could be used as a weapon to make an attack.

You can see where this is going. And its implications for Negative STR.

Here's one possible solution:

Since out current STR chart goes down to -30 (IIRC), we can use -30 as the "base" of STR for the purpose of calculating the cost of ARW. So a 0 STR ARW would be 30 x 2 = 60 points. Of course, -30 does have to be the "base", it could be whatever we like. -30 STR, is the amount to just barely lift 400 grams off the ground, stagger a few steps, and drop it. 400 g is less than 1 pound.

[Vulcan]

This may be the one and only reason to have STR minimums on weapons in a superheroic game.

But as a GM, I'd save everyone the trouble of worrying about it and just say no.

[Grail Quest]

Q: Should we get rid of the concept of negative Characteristics?

No, for the simple reason that there isn't enough support for the low-end of things as it is. It does, however, have odd consequences, especially when you think of what you're getting when you buy negative STR.

Maybe another way to look at this is, instead of negative Characteristics, "what can we do to model very small things in HERO?"

Q: Should we change the HERO System so that “every point in a Characteristic matters” and to discourage people from buying Characteristics at “breakpoint” levels?

You cite various situations where each point matters, so obviously it does already matter.
I think it should be streamlined to either Char/3 or Char/5, not both for different situations. But buying at breakpoints happens in every system. I don't think there's any sense in worrying too much about it here. Having some points between the breakpoints (e.g., +5 STR = x2 STR) gives some granularity, although that quickly diminishes under any exponential system.

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

Absolutely. Just the fact that the No Figured Characteristics Limitation exists and is regularly used suggests Characteristics are too packaged as it is. Further, I can't recall seeing anyone, not even plain animals, have unmodified figured characteristics, which suggests the Figured values are arbitrary and/or benchmark nothing. Right now, it looks pointless to make people do the math, AND look up rules for applying NoFigChar to each Characteristic. Not to mention the special rule for SPD. Uncoupling them from Characteristics clarifies and simplifies.

Sub-Issue #1: If Figured Characteristics are removed, should the costs of any Characteristics be changed to compensate?

I think a better way to proceed is to look at what each Characteristic already bundles, and how we want to take them apart. For 1 CP:1 point Characteristics, it looks like the very basic effect is 5 CP = one 5-point Skill Level.

Sub-Issue #2: If Figured Characteristics are removed, should characters be given more points for character creation?

I suggest building 6E first, then building some benchmark characters, then suggesting a point base. It's premature at this stage.

Q: Should Leaping be removed as something that’s factored from STR?

Leaping is broken in part because we give out STR in an unrealistic way. x8 mass does not mean x8 STR; it's probably closer to x4 STR. Scale things up and eventually you will automatically get elephants and dinosaurs unable to leap, and whales needing to be in the water. This is something that I was surprised to see done correctly in D&D 3E.
That said, decoupling Leaping from STR reduces bundling. If you want to take out Figured Characteristics, Leaping is really one of the Fig Chars of STR.

Q: Should HTH damage be removed as something that’s factored from STR?

If you want negative STR, yes.
Also, it resolves strange issues like someone with high STR having to pay points for a HA that doesn't apply STR and is clearly inferior to their raw STR output.
It's hard to explain though, as it would be counterintuitive.

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?
Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. Even if we get rid of Figureds, it still provides enough bang to be worth 3 Character Points per point, and I don’t think an increase is necessary. If CV were removed from DEX (see below), then the cost of DEX would probably need to change.

It has a lot of bang for its buck because it has so many Figured Characteristics (if you count OCV and DCV as Fig Char). If you take away Fig Char, this will automatically be revisited and hopefully an answer will follow.

Q: Should DEX be split into two or more Characteristics?
I don't see how it already clutters up the character sheet more to split it. Right now, we already record all the sub-values you mention. Bundling too many things, on the other hand, results in "hidden complication". You need to learn and remember more.

Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?
The broader question is how directly innate ability translates into skill. This question is little different from whether 9+CHAR/5 contributes too much to the success of a skill check.
To answer this question, we need to first decide how the world is modelled, and in turn, that means we need to decide what world to model.
If you look at the Superhero Comic Book World, then untrained talent *does* translate into a lot of skill. We regularly have a lot of new supers appear, often with just one power and a lot of chutzpah and no training, and they still pull off competent things, even though their powers didn't give them superhuman stats. And if we expect the target audience for HERO 6E to want to model this world, then I think a strong correlation is favoured.

Q: Should PER be removed as something that’s factored from INT?
Is PER in fact a Figured Characteristics of INT?

Q: Should the cost of EGO be reduced to 1 Character Point per point?
... On the other hand, changing EGO to +1 point per point would make it veeeeerrrry easy for characters with Mental Powers to obtain outrageously high ECVs.

CVs have traditionally been benchmarked and limited by the GM for each game setting. It's like HA. You can cheaply buy lots of it, but will the GM let you?

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

COM needs to be benchmarked. Problem is, even if we restrict our reference point to, say, a particular subculture of humans, we really don't have benchmarks beyond a certain point. Going with tiers also suffers from this limitation. We need *something*, though.

Q: Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?
Making it based on Base Points (and making a lot of other things base on Base Points) would make END management a lot easier.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

I think a more detailed treatment of it is necessary. More than just tiers off the original Growth Chart.

[CTaylor]

I understand that some stats seem to be underpriced, especially Strength. Some suggestions have been offered here, such as dropping leaping from strength (I definitely approve of this), increasing the cost of strength, changing figured characteristics build (say, have PD and recovery based on Body, not STR), and even dropping figured characteristics entirely - something Mr Long appears to be intending to do.

I'd like to offer this thought: Maybe the fact that some characteristics appear to be out of "balance" is not a flaw, but a feature. Maybe in order to build heroic characters in game simulating adventure and spectacle some stats should be cheap to encourage their use or at least make character concepts affordable. Maybe the costs aren't too low for the game or the rules, they just are out of odds with other abilities.

The fact that something doesn't mathematically add up does not always mean there's a problem.

[Beast]

Mr Long also pointed out that to remove figured characteristics that to build a brick cost a lot more when they had to buy those stats seperatly compared to other archtypes
moving Pd,Rec to Body helps
Stun being just the adding of Con + Body works
remove leap from str(the extra str that large animals get is negated by the extra wt that they have)I'm ok with as it should be just a movement power and not based on Str



I understand that some stats seem to be underpriced, especially Strength. Some suggestions have been offered here, such as dropping leaping from strength (I definitely approve of this), increasing the cost of strength, changing figured characteristics build (say, have PD and recovery based on Body, not STR), and even dropping figured characteristics entirely - something Mr Long appears to be intending to do.

I'd like to offer this thought: Maybe the fact that some characteristics appear to be out of "balance" is not a flaw, but a feature. Maybe in order to build heroic characters in game simulating adventure and spectacle some stats should be cheap to encourage their use or at least make character concepts affordable. Maybe the costs aren't too low for the game or the rules, they just are out of odds with other abilities.

The fact that something doesn't mathematically add up does not always mean there's a problem.

[Talon]

I'd like to offer this thought: Maybe the fact that some characteristics appear to be out of "balance" is not a flaw, but a feature. Maybe in order to build heroic characters in game simulating adventure and spectacle some stats should be cheap to encourage their use or at least make character concepts affordable. Maybe the costs aren't too low for the game or the rules, they just are out of odds with other abilities.

The fact that something doesn't mathematically add up does not always mean there's a problem.

I don't agree with this statement; hopefully 6th Edition will not use it as a guiding principle.

While I don't think it's necessary (or even possible) to remove each and every imbalance from the system, I think that some imbalances (such as STR) hurt the game by punishing valid concepts and by pushing players in certain directions.

[levi]

In my following responses / musings, I've refrained from responding to Q's that I agree with Steve on.

Q: Should all characters start with 0 in all Characteristics?

Levi's Thoughts: Base 10s in all of the Primary Characteristics is a hallmark of the Hero System and should be preserved. Now, beyond any “sacred cow” considersations, Base 10s gives us a baseline and makes designing NPC easier.

Q: Should we get rid of the concept of negative Characteristics?

Levi's Thoughts: Yes. With better rules for being at 0, you don't need the additional accounting of negative Characteristics. For example: If at zero STR all characters are unable to stand, hold objects, and make physical attacks, then the effect is the same for all characters regardless of what their STR started out as.
As for STUN & BODY, there is no reason these need a negative values rule.

For example:
If an attack causes more STUN or BODY damage, than the target has remaining, then the target drops to Zero.
ZERO STUN
An attack that causes STUN damage to a character that is currently at Zero STUN, causes 1 BODY damage instead.
ZERO BODY
An attack that causes BODY damage to a character that is currently at Zero BODY, causes Character Death

Q: Should we change the HERO System so that “every point in a Characteristic matters” and to discourage people from buying Characteristics at “breakpoint” levels?

Levi's Thoughts: Drop all rounding up. This makes the investment in a 15 INT over a 13 INT worthwhile as it relates to Skills, especially since the Base Characteristic can effect so many Skills. It also makes the costs for DEX more appropriate compared to Levels.

Every system has breakpoints, whether those should be incriments of 1, 3 or 5 is a function of what you gain from that Base Characteristic. In order to gain a +1 to all INT based Skills you should have to spend 5 points. (This means an appropriate adjustment to Skill Levels)

The difference between a character with a High natural INT and a Skill-monkey should be character concept instead of how to get the best discount on points.

Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?

Levi's Thoughts: Training as a Characteristic has some merit, you could then calculate CV as a sum or an average of natural and trained ability. This would go back to the idea of splitting up DEX or reducing its cost. It also complicates figuring CV when you are effected by DEX and/or Training Drains. I'd like to see some more discussion on this one.

Q: Should PER be removed as something that’s factored from INT?

Levi’s Thoughts: Yes. PER as a Skill makes the most sense from a character concept angle.

Q: Should PD and ED be combined into one Characteristic called DEF? If not, should objects be given separate PD and ED ratings?
Levi’s Thoughts: Please combine these Stats into DEF with a x2 cost, for the reasons you mentioned (“reduce the number of Characteristics and parhaps speed play”). Most characters have the same DEF with a few exceptions due to character concept. This is easily represented with a “Only vs. Physical attacks (-1)” Limitation. This could apply to both Characters and Objects.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

Levi's Thoughts: No. Without making Size a Characteristic you could universalize the Size Categories, but then this probably becomes a discussion for the Powers section.

Hope this helps.

[CTaylor]

Just out of curiosity, what legitimate build is punished by the cost of Strength as is?

[Southern Cross]

Exactly.If anything,removing Figured Characteristics will make bricks virtually unplayable.

[Beast]

to get rid of negatives in stun you cannot keep a target unconscience for very long
no negatives in body means there is no bleeding out and now you can die twice as fast


In my following responses / musings, I've refrained from responding to Q's that I agree with Steve on.

Q: Should we get rid of the concept of negative Characteristics?

Levi's Thoughts: Yes. With better rules for being at 0, you don't need the additional accounting of negative Characteristics. For example: If at zero STR all characters are unable to stand, hold objects, and make physical attacks, then the effect is the same for all characters regardless of what their STR started out as.
As for STUN & BODY, there is no reason these need a negative values rule.

For example:
If an attack causes more STUN or BODY damage, than the target has remaining, then the target drops to Zero.
ZERO STUN
An attack that causes STUN damage to a character that is currently at Zero STUN, causes 1 BODY damage instead.
ZERO BODY
An attack that causes BODY damage to a character that is currently at Zero BODY, causes Character Death

[.

[levi]

to get rid of negatives in stun you cannot keep a target unconscience for very long
no negatives in body means there is no bleeding out and now you can die twice as fast

Point taken.

You would need to add "and may not take a Recovery action until after Phase 12." to the end of my STUN example.

As far as BODY damage goes, even with a 10 BODY it seems that characters in most genres of this system rarely get below zero BODY. The cost of Killing Attacks compared to the cost of Resistant DEF ensures this. As for explaining the effects of taking BODY damage, you could describe the first point of BODY damage taken as blood loss.

I think these things need to be playtested by a large group of players both with and without HERO system experience before Steve and Darren make any decisions.

[levi]

Exactly.If anything,removing Figured Characteristics will make bricks virtually unplayable.

If you have a CKC handy, take a look at characters like Bulldozer for an example of how effective bricks can be built on substantially fewer points than other Archetypes. Run a few combats between Bulldozer and any (non-focused) 350 point character with a 30 STR or less and I think you'll find that he'll hold his own just fine and probably win despite being built on fewer points.

In a balanced system all archetypes would whoop a character built on so many fewer points.

[Beast]

going to 0 body in a super hero game yes
in a pulp,fantasy or dark champions game and a few others taking body is happens all the time
maybe not to the extremes that happen in a supers game

you need to have levels of being unconscience
I have been on the recieving of massive amounts of stun that when checked against the time chart I was out for a month
in other words just post 12 does not let you get beated into a coma

Point taken.

You would need to add "and may not take a Recovery action until after Phase 12." to the end of my STUN example.

As far as BODY damage goes, even with a 10 BODY it seems that characters in most genres of this system rarely get below zero BODY. The cost of Killing Attacks compared to the cost of Resistant DEF ensures this. As for explaining the effects of taking BODY damage, you could describe the first point of BODY damage taken as blood loss.

I think these things need to be playtested by a large group of players both with and without HERO system experience before Steve and Darren make any decisions.

[James Gillen]

If you have a CKC handy, take a look at characters like Bulldozer for an example of how effective bricks can be built on substantially fewer points than other Archetypes. Run a few combats between Bulldozer and any (non-focused) 350 point character with a 30 STR or less and I think you'll find that he'll hold his own just fine and probably win despite being built on fewer points.

In a balanced system all archetypes would whoop a character built on so many fewer points.

Of course Bulldozer being Bulldozer he'd probably get whomped no matter how strong he is. :)

jg

[Vulcan]

Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?
The broader question is how directly innate ability translates into skill. This question is little different from whether 9+CHAR/5 contributes too much to the success of a skill check.
To answer this question, we need to first decide how the world is modelled, and in turn, that means we need to decide what world to model.
If you look at the Superhero Comic Book World, then untrained talent *does* translate into a lot of skill. We regularly have a lot of new supers appear, often with just one power and a lot of chutzpah and no training, and they still pull off competent things, even though their powers didn't give them superhuman stats. And if we expect the target audience for HERO 6E to want to model this world, then I think a strong correlation is favoured.

This is a darn good point that I think needs to be emphasized.

HEROs is primarily descended from Champions, and Champions is based directly on Comic Books. In comics, even new characters who have just recieved their powers are adequitely competent even without combat training.

I'm not sure how well that carries across genres, but it clearly isn't entirely inappropriate. Indiana Jones doesn't come across as a highly-trained fighter - but that may be a bad example, since Indy is clearly quite experienced even in Temple of Doom, chronologically the earliest movie.

Let's see... In the movie, a young Conan goes straight from the slave-powered mill into the slave-fighting pits, and does acceptably well. But that could be attributed to raw STR. Still, all the STR in the world does you no good if you never connect with your opponent.

Going for the classics, Meriadoc and Perigrin were never trained, and both aquitted themseles quite well on the battlefields of Middle Earth. As did Samwise. On the other hand, Gimli, Aragorn, and Legolas were all clearly highly trained...

I don't think leaving base CV to be figured from DEX is all that bad a thing. Even if we wind up decoupling pretty much everything else, that much makes a certain kind of sense for dramatic 'realism'.

[Vulcan]

Point taken.

You would need to add "and may not take a Recovery action until after Phase 12." to the end of my STUN example.

As far as BODY damage goes, even with a 10 BODY it seems that characters in most genres of this system rarely get below zero BODY. The cost of Killing Attacks compared to the cost of Resistant DEF ensures this. As for explaining the effects of taking BODY damage, you could describe the first point of BODY damage taken as blood loss.

I think these things need to be playtested by a large group of players both with and without HERO system experience before Steve and Darren make any decisions.

In our game, characters wind up at negative BODY... well, not exactly commonly, but it's not really rare either. I'd hate to see the body count in a dark, gritty game if everyone dies at 0 BODY.

Unless you are going to make BODY cost 1 per, that is. Then it becomes cheap enough to make up the dramatic difference in lethality your idea would entail.

[PhilFleischmann]

This may be the one and only reason to have STR minimums on weapons in a superheroic game.
STR minimums are irrelevent. They just impose DCV penalties. They don't make attacks impossible. And in many cases there is no relevent STR min, such as in the case of a poisoned needle, or a thrown rock. Throwing distance is determined by the amount of STR "left over" after you've picked the thing up.

The point is that Affects Real World bought on STR gives a hell of a lot more than ARW bought on a Power, such as EB. This could even be an argument for removing HtH damage from STR and just having HA bought separately. That way, you buy one to physically lift and manipulate objects, and the other to attack.

[steamteck]

If you have a CKC handy, take a look at characters like Bulldozer for an example of how effective bricks can be built on substantially fewer points than other Archetypes. Run a few combats between Bulldozer and any (non-focused) 350 point character with a 30 STR or less and I think you'll find that he'll hold his own just fine and probably win despite being built on fewer points.

In a balanced system all archetypes would whoop a character built on so many fewer points.


Um, not really. he does about as well as he ought to for his points in our hands.
Things seem balanced just ducky to me with figures. Sure makes character building simpler.. Almost all our builds in our games use base figured characteristics with just a few tweaks for something exceptional. Figures are extremely unbroken to me and a tremendous strength and asset to the system. While removing them is MAYBE not a deal breaker because I could add it back in it certainly won't entice me over to 6th.

[CTaylor]

It just would be odd to me that having a higher CON didn't make you recover better or have more endurance. Divorcing stats from figured characteristics is just... weird, and if you look closely all games have figured characteristics, they just aren't as organized about it as hero (hit points, etc)

[levi]

Of course Bulldozer being Bulldozer he'd probably get whomped no matter how strong he is. :)

jg

lol I guess there is no accounting for the "Bulldozer Factor".

[Klaus Mogensen]

It just would be odd to me that having a higher CON didn't make you recover better or have more endurance. Divorcing stats from figured characteristics is just... weird.
In a way, stats are already divorced from figured characteristics, since you can buy figured characteristics up and (to some extent) down. You can have (and often see) characters with high CON and low END and vice versa. Very 'weird'.

I wouldn't mind figured characteristics if they were just figured, with no possibility of buying them up or down. This would hugely simplify the system. It would probably require removing PD and ED as figureds, since they can also be bought as powers. (Technically, so can END, but END Pools work sufficiently different from normal END to make it an issue.)

It is the fact that figureds are figured and buyable that makes them broken (IMO). While I generally think that making them just buyable would have the least ramifications, perhaps making them just figured would work better, in the long run.

- Klaus

[JmOz]

In regards to decoupling, maybe this is another spot where having 2 options, to use them or not to use them would be a good thing to add. Note my mentalitiy is I want a bunch of choices for how to play when you are setting up the campaign, more choices = better IMO

[steamteck]

I

It is the fact that figureds are figured and buyable that makes them broken (IMO). While I generally think that making them just buyable would have the least ramifications, perhaps making them just figured would work better, in the long run.

- Klaus


Wow. We disagree about 100%. I think they they figured and buyable gives youa combination of ease and flexibility that allows me to easily make many many concepts that would be more complex without.

[Hugh Neilson]

If you have a CKC handy, take a look at characters like Bulldozer for an example of how effective bricks can be built on substantially fewer points than other Archetypes. Run a few combats between Bulldozer and any (non-focused) 350 point character with a 30 STR or less and I think you'll find that he'll hold his own just fine and probably win despite being built on fewer points.

In a balanced system all archetypes would whoop a character built on so many fewer points.

I suggest this is valid only if the 350 point character spends the same % of his points on combat-relevant abilities. I don't recall Bulldozer having many, if any, noncombat abilities. Many 350 point characters spend their extra points being better rounded, not being better combatants.

I think looking at "what happens to a sample set of characters" that exist under 5e and are considered reasonably balanced is a key field test of any 6e change. What happens to, say, the Champions if we introduce all proposed changes. Show me that the new system will be significant more balanced than the old system.

That's not something we can do on the Boards - we can discuss the price of STR and/or figured on STR in isolation, but without the whole plan - what prices of everything change, how are frameworks modified, etc. - we can't make an overall comparison. I assume Steve will make that comparison - for Supers, for Fantasy, for Action Heroes, for other genres - to make an assessment of whether his thoughts work when put into action. I don't see how this will balance, so my knee jerk reaction is to oppose it. If the ultimate changes retain the balance, then my knee jerk reaction is wrong, and the changes may well be worthwhile. But I think the present system balances pretty well, and making huge changes to more or less be where we started is not something that appeals to me, so I don't see this area as one I'd like to see focused on.

STR minimums are irrelevent. They just impose DCV penalties. They don't make attacks impossible. And in many cases there is no relevent STR min, such as in the case of a poisoned needle, or a thrown rock. Throwing distance is determined by the amount of STR "left over" after you've picked the thing up.

Encumbrance affects DCV. If you fall short of the STR min, you lose OCV and damage classes. That does reduce the effectiveness of attacks.

[Talon]

In regards to decoupling, maybe this is another spot where having 2 options, to use them or not to use them would be a good thing to add. Note my mentalitiy is I want a bunch of choices for how to play when you are setting up the campaign, more choices = better IMO

More choices means more rules bloat, and more confusion if those choices are not discussed in detail. There are a lot of places right now where the rules say "you could do this, or this, or this", but with no explanation of the drawbacks of each choice. I would rather see one well-explained option than five with little explanation.

[Hugh Neilson]

More choices means more rules bloat, and more confusion if those choices are not discussed in detail. There are a lot of places right now where the rules say "you could do this, or this, or this", but with no explanation of the drawbacks of each choice. I would rather see one well-explained option than five with little explanation.

In a vacuum, I like having more options. However, I agree that options must be well-explained. To that end, I think the Hero Core Rules need to focus on a baseline system, and only delve into options that would be pretty common in usage, and cross many genres. I agree that there should be way more explanation of both the reasons the default system was chosen, and the implications of changing the system to pick alternatives listed.

"Lots more options to replace" whatever belong in supplemental books discussing whatever in detail, not the core rules. Very specific options with less cross-genre utility belong in genre books or setting books.

This is also a HUGE change from the "one book to rule them all" philosophy of Hero. However, the fact is that:

- philosophically, having all the options in a single book sounds great - but at its extreme, it precludes introducing any new options without rewriting the base rule book - not gonna happen.

- from a playability perspective, all those options can easily become overwhelming. That contributes to the difficulty of getting new gamers. The sheer size of what we call the "basic rules" is overwhelming BECAUSE they aren't just the basic rules.

- from an economic perspective, DoJ needs to make money to stay in business, like it or not, and that means selling more books. New mechanics are a bigger draw than using existing mechanics.

This may be a sacred cow that practicality demands be turned into hamburger.

[Vulcan]

Personally I don't see any problem with most optional rules showing up in separate sourcebooks, where they can be properly detailed. That's been a very sucessful system for D&D ever since 1st Editon.

The HERO System core rules, however, should still be recognizable to players of 4/5E HEROs. Vast changes simply for changes' sake are not good. Changes that actually make sense, on the other hand, are welcome.

[levi]

I suggest this is valid only if the 350 point character spends the same % of his points on combat-relevant abilities. I don't recall Bulldozer having many, if any, noncombat abilities. Many 350 point characters spend their extra points being better rounded, not being better combatants.

I think looking at "what happens to a sample set of characters" that exist under 5e and are considered reasonably balanced is a key field test of any 6e change. What happens to, say, the Champions if we introduce all proposed changes. Show me that the new system will be significant more balanced than the old system.

That's not something we can do on the Boards - we can discuss the price of STR and/or figured on STR in isolation, but without the whole plan - what prices of everything change, how are frameworks modified, etc. - we can't make an overall comparison. I assume Steve will make that comparison - for Supers, for Fantasy, for Action Heroes, for other genres - to make an assessment of whether his thoughts work when put into action. I don't see how this will balance, so my knee jerk reaction is to oppose it. If the ultimate changes retain the balance, then my knee jerk reaction is wrong, and the changes may well be worthwhile. But I think the present system balances pretty well, and making huge changes to more or less be where we started is not something that appeals to me, so I don't see this area as one I'd like to see focused on.


I'm not argueing that STR is under-costed. I'm argueing that in a Super-heroic setting, STR causes balance issues.

[Vulcan]

While a plain, vanilla, "I have no life" brick can be very effective (which is why a lot of NPC bricks are more effective that their points would indicate), I find that they are no worse than other archetypes in that regard. With the exception of skill-driven characters (gadgeteers, mystics, and to a lesser extent martial artists), any archeype can be maxed out very simply. Consider a generic energy projector with one big attack (set at campaign limits), a reasonable amount of maneuverability, and lots of levels with OCV and range. Consider a mentalist with mindlink, lots of Mindscan (with a high OCV) and Mind Control or Ego Attack - he can be sitting at home miles away and still participate in the battle (the David Lo Pan build).

STR does not (necessarily) an abuisve build make. In my experince, abusive builds are more about what the character lacks, than what it actually has.

[levi]

Maybe the problem is not the figured Characteristics all all, maybe all Primary Characteristics should have a Cap or Limit on them and anyone wanting a Characteristic higher than the Cap must purchase those Characteristics as a Power. This Power would have the "Doesn't Effect Figured Characteristics" Limitation built in.

I'd like to see some numbers with Characters built on 350+ points that have any Primary Characteristic above 20 or 30 purchased in this manner.

As far as leaving everything the way it is. I would posit that there seems to be no reason to spend points on increasing your PD, REC, or STUN when you can simply buy more STR and add to all of those Figured stats with a net cost of 1 character point per 5 STR. As long as this is true, STR will seem unbalanced.

[Vulcan]

I find that I (grudgingly) agree with you. The only reason not to buy more STR is concept, which some (not all, most, or even many) people have been known to ignore in favor of efficiency.

Either STR should cost 2 pts. (which runs into trouble with DC's vs. AP's) or STR needs to be at least partially decupled from it's myriad figured characteristics.

Personally, I favor STR staying at 1 point, moving PD and REC to BODY, and decoupling Leaping entirely. STR still gives damage, lifting, and STUN, which is not too bad a deal - but not as potentially unbalancing as it is now.

(Did I mention I favor leaving figured characteristics in?)

[Tonio]

While a plain, vanilla, "I have no life" brick can be very effective (which is why a lot of NPC bricks are more effective that their points would indicate), I find that they are no worse than other archetypes in that regard. With the exception of skill-driven characters (gadgeteers, mystics, and to a lesser extent martial artists), any archeype can be maxed out very simply. Consider a generic energy projector with one big attack (set at campaign limits), a reasonable amount of maneuverability, and lots of levels with OCV and range. Consider a mentalist with mindlink, lots of Mindscan (with a high OCV) and Mind Control or Ego Attack - he can be sitting at home miles away and still participate in the battle (the David Lo Pan build).

STR does not (necessarily) an abuisve build make. In my experince, abusive builds are more about what the character lacks, than what it actually has.

As I understand it, the argument is not that STR makes for abusive builds, but that it makes for efficient ones. It's that someone making a build based on STR spends less points for the same "power level", or alternatively gets more from their point expenditure. In your example above, the EP will spend slightly more on their attack (since you get the first 10 pts of STR for free), will spend more on defenses (since you get PD from STR for free), will need to spend more on OCV (from PSLs with range, although this is certainly arguable), will need to spend more on maneuverability (since you get Leaping free from STR), and will not be getting extra STUN and REC that the STR build is getting. Therefore, a STR-based character will have more points left over for other stuff, be it "flavor" stuff (like extra KS's, Perks, etc.), combat abilities (like, say, better defenses, STR "tricks", etc.), or whatever.

As far as I can tell, the argument is rarely, if ever, "STR-based builds end up being abusive".

[Tonio]

I find that I (grudgingly) agree with you. The only reason no to buy more STR is concept, which some (not all, most, or even many) people have been known to ignore in favor of efficiency.

I really doubt only a few people will ignore efficiency for concept, after all is said and done. My guess is that some will outright ignore it ("sure, my supermage is 'weak', even though he has 35 STR"), many or most will adjust their original concept ("well, my supermage is naturally weak, but he's infused with magic which gives him superior strength"), and some will sacrifice efficiency ("yes, my supermage will only have 10 STR, even though that means I'll end up paying more points for less power, all around").

[CTaylor]

I dunno when I build a mage he sucks at combat, is weak and feeble but very intelligent and has magic to make him better. To each his own, I suppose.

[Vulcan]

As I understand it, the argument is not that STR makes for abusive builds, but that it makes for efficient ones. It's that someone making a build based on STR spends less points for the same "power level", or alternatively gets more from their point expenditure. In your example above, the EP will spend slightly more on their attack (since you get the first 10 pts of STR for free), will spend more on defenses (since you get PD from STR for free), will need to spend more on OCV (from PSLs with range, although this is certainly arguable), will need to spend more on maneuverability (since you get Leaping free from STR), and will not be getting extra STUN and REC that the STR build is getting. Therefore, a STR-based character will have more points left over for other stuff, be it "flavor" stuff (like extra KS's, Perks, etc.), combat abilities (like, say, better defenses, STR "tricks", etc.), or whatever.

As far as I can tell, the argument is rarely, if ever, "STR-based builds end up being abusive".

Fair enough. And I agree with you there, something should be done with STR. I posted my ideas on it a couple posts back.

[The Main Man]

It just would be odd to me that having a higher CON didn't make you recover better or have more endurance. Divorcing stats from figured characteristics is just... weird, and if you look closely all games have figured characteristics, they just aren't as organized about it as hero (hit points, etc)

Here's some thoughts about STR & CON:

5 CON (10 CP) gets you +1 ED (1 CP), 1 REC (2 CP), 10 END (5 CP), and 3 STUN (3 CP), which is a 10:21 value, which justifies its 2:1 base cost (thank you fractions :thumbup:).

5 STR (5 CP), on the other hand, gets you +1 DC (5), +1 PD (1 CP), 1 REC (2 CP), and 3 STUN (3 CP) which accounts for a 5:16, so STR is probably best priced at 1.5:1.

If "Figured CHAR" are no longer "Figured" then CON can be removed as a CHAR and the Stun defense function can be folded into BODY while STR can remain at its current cost of 1:1 even after the change.

Might this be the 6th ed Stat Block and Cost Structure?

10 STR 1
10 DEX 2
10 BODY 2
10 INT 1
10 EGO 2
10 PRE 1
2 PD 1
2 ED 1
2 SPD 10
4 REC 2
20 END 1/2
20 STUN 1


Of course, here's my ideal Block and Costs;
10 STR 1
10 DEX 2
10 BODY 2
10 INT 1
10 EGO 2
10 PRE 1
2 DEF* 2
2 SPD 10
4 REC 2
30 STA** 1

* DEF = Defense; Normal defense versus physical and energy attacks like with vehicles and objects. I argued about this earlier in the thread, but it is a high horse that I have since dismounted but keep in the stable.

** STA = Stamina; A hybrid of END and STUN that can be spent like END and lost like STUN. A boon for low-END PC's and it simplifies burning STUN for END for high-END PC's. There have been a few arguments against it, though, particularly over the use of Force Fields.

[Beast]

if you eliminate Con how will you handle dazing someone
the fusion method of lose 1/2 your stun in 1 shot and you are dazed?



Here's some thoughts about STR & CON:

5 CON (10 CP) gets you +1 ED (1 CP), 1 REC (2 CP), 10 END (5 CP), and 3 STUN (3 CP), which is a 10:21 value, which justifies its 2:1 base cost (thank you fractions :thumbup:).

5 STR (5 CP), on the other hand, gets you +1 DC (5), +1 PD (1 CP), 1 REC (2 CP), and 3 STUN (3 CP) which accounts for a 5:16, so STR is probably best priced at 1.5:1.

If "Figured CHAR" are no longer "Figured" then CON can be removed as a CHAR and the Stun defense function can be folded into BODY while STR can remain at its current cost of 1:1 even after the change.

Might this be the 6th ed Stat Block and Cost Structure?

10 STR 1
10 DEX 2
10 BODY 2
10 INT 1
10 EGO 2
10 PRE 1
2 PD 1
2 ED 1
2 SPD 10
4 REC 2
20 END 1/2
20 STUN 1


Of course, here's my ideal Block and Costs;
10 STR 1
10 DEX 2
10 BODY 2
10 INT 1
10 EGO 2
10 PRE 1
2 DEF* 2
2 SPD 10
4 REC 2
30 STA** 1

* DEF = Defense; Normal defense versus physical and energy attacks like with vehicles and objects. I argued about this earlier in the thread, but it is a high horse that I have since dismounted but keep in the stable.

** STA = Stamina; A hybrid of END and STUN that can be spent like END and lost like STUN. A boon for low-END PC's and it simplifies burning STUN for END for high-END PC's. There have been a few arguments against it, though, particularly over the use of Force Fields.

[Vulcan]

Of course, here's my ideal Block and Costs;
10 STR 1
10 DEX 2
10 BODY 2
10 INT 1
10 EGO 2
10 PRE 1
2 DEF* 2
2 SPD 10
4 REC 2
30 STA** 1

* DEF = Defense; Normal defense versus physical and energy attacks like with vehicles and objects. I argued about this earlier in the thread, but it is a high horse that I have since dismounted but keep in the stable.

** STA = Stamina; A hybrid of END and STUN that can be spent like END and lost like STUN. A boon for low-END PC's and it simplifies burning STUN for END for high-END PC's. There have been a few arguments against it, though, particularly over the use of Force Fields.

My main problem with your stat block (aside from the little detail that you excluded COM ;)) is the concept of Stamina replacing END and STUN.

If STA comes into play, then any continuous power that costs END (well, STA) is going to be a major liability in combat. Heck, using any power that costs END is a liability. And you can forget about pushing. After all, just using a power that costs STA is actually doing you damage!

So, continuous and movement powers will be bought to 0 STA most of the time - including a staple defensive power, FF. And most attack powers will be bought 0 STA as well.

But this clearly breaks the genre conventions.

Most FF in comic books are tiring to maintain. And sci-fi forcefields are forever running out of power. Perhaps that is less a problem simulating other genres, though.

The 0 STA movement is much more problematic, though. Running forever is not a convention in any genre, with the sole exception of a few comic-book speedsters.

And now we come to the last problem, the effortless attack. All genres are full of examples of people fightig themselves into exahustion, but they are clearly not in danger of falling unconscious at the tap of their opponent's finger afterwards. It just doesn't happen that way. Likewise, characters are beaten to the brink of unconsciousness and still use the 'pushed haymaker' to win the day - without passing out afterwards.

STA would rob HEROs of both.

So, does combining STUN and END into STA really gain us that much, that it's worth dealing with those problems? I don't think so. YMMV.

[Vulcan]

if you eliminate Con how will you handle dazing someone
the fusion method of lose 1/2 your stun in 1 shot and you are dazed?

His plan is to have BODY take over that function.

[The Main Man]

Good points (you were also the aforementioned one who brought FF's before).

[The Main Man]

His plan is to have BODY take over that function.

Yep.

If you take BODY damage, you can't take as much STUN in a single hit later.

I like this additional feature because it holds PC's accountable for lost BODY so they cannot act stoic until they are knocked to 0 or Negative BODY.

Of course many GM's may allow PC's to take up to their Full BODY regardless of what is lost for more Romantic campaigns.

[Vulcan]

I'm not sure I like it. How many times in movies has the hero had the snot beat out of them and kept on fighting?

[The Main Man]

OTOH how many times have we seen the hero worn down to the point that (s)he can't put up a good fight?

I think that HAP would make a great complementary mechanic to that effect.

[Vulcan]

I usually look at the 'not being able to put up a fight' as being in that 0 to -9 STUN category - not techincally out, but unable to take actions.

Or maybe out of END, and practically out of STUN.

[The Main Man]

Perhaps.

[PhilFleischmann]

It just would be odd to me that having a higher CON didn't make you recover better or have more endurance. Divorcing stats from figured characteristics is just... weird, and if you look closely all games have figured characteristics, they just aren't as organized about it as hero (hit points, etc)
Exactly! There will always be "figuring" to do. That's why we use numbers in the first place. Even if we don't call them "Figured Characteristics", they will still exist in some form.

-----

Encumbrance affects DCV. If you fall short of the STR min, you lose OCV and damage classes. That does reduce the effectiveness of attacks.
Huh? We're talking about 0 STR (or slightly more). That's 25 kg (or more). How many personal weapons are there that weigh enough to encumber such a person? And DCV is still mostly irrelevent since the person is Desolid. And bullets from a gun don't do less damage just because the shooter is physically weak.

[The Main Man]

[quote=PhilFleischmann;1665984]Exactly! There will always be "figuring" to do. That's why we use numbers in the first place. Even if we don't call them "Figured Characteristics", they will still exist in some form.[quote]

Perhaps "Secondary" would work, considering that the basic 8 are called the "Primary".

[Hugh Neilson]

5 CON (10 CP) gets you +1 ED (1 CP), 1 REC (2 CP), 10 END (5 CP), and 3 STUN (3 CP), which is a 10:21 value, which justifies its 2:1 base cost (thank you fractions :thumbup:).

Actually, you paid 10 points for 11 points of Figured and +5 CON.

5 STR (5 CP), on the other hand, gets you +1 DC (5), +1 PD (1 CP), 1 REC (2 CP), and 3 STUN (3 CP) which accounts for a 5:16, so STR is probably best priced at 1.5:1.

5 points for 6 points of Figured and +5 STR. 1 DC would be Hand Attack, which has limitations.

[Hugh Neilson]

The suggestion was that 0 STR TK would justify STR minima in Supers games, Phil. And you replied:

STR minimums are irrelevent. They just impose DCV penalties. They don't make attacks impossible.

But STR Min has nothing to do with DCV, so I said:

Encumbrance affects DCV. If you fall short of the STR min, you lose OCV and damage classes. That does reduce the effectiveness of attacks.

In other words, the STR Min WOULD penalize the attack that 0 STR TK user wants to make. Plus, you're probably justified to make him buy the Fine Manip adder to use his TK to operate weapons. But even if you don't, that Greatsword (+1 OCV, 2d6 KA) has a 17 STR Min, so you lose 4 OCV - you're -3 - and 4 DC - it now does 1/2d6. Good luck with that!

Huh? We're talking about 0 STR (or slightly more). That's 25 kg (or more). How many personal weapons are there that weigh enough to encumber such a person? And DCV is still mostly irrelevent since the person is Desolid. And bullets