Characteristics Issues [Archive] - Page 13 - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Hugh Neilson

Aug 23rd, '08, 05:18 AM

It is this back and forth exchange that prompted me to come up with a compromise solution that allows each side to get what they want.

The core mechanics have no associations with each other by default, thus, no primary or figured characteristics.

The default Human Template already has all the associations by default, thus, primary and figured characteristics.

Those who don't like figured characteristics can use the core mechanics as they see fit and build what templates they want.

Those who like the current characteristics can use the default Human Template and won't have to do any more work than they do now.

Why anyone would oppose this compromise still escapes me.

- Christopher Mullins

I would suggest that the implementation of such a concept would be more appropriately undertaken by presenting the Human Template as the default, and delving into wholesale change of that template in a separate "advanced" book. It's too big to fit in the basic book, especially given the need I perceive that the templates be balanced against one another to share the same game world. Most games start with a human baseline, and you buy/sell abilities that differ, so the core rules using that template would seem the most logical starting point.

I learned how to generally gauge characters and builds by observing published ones but I can't argue with how anyone learned the system since that is entirely subjective.

I agree with the subjectivity. I've found those who learn from published characters initially, and often long-term, show very little creativity, takoing abilities and, most annoyingly, disadvantages only from the pool they have seen in the preconsructed characters. May as well just publish a book of stats, skills, talents, powers [maybe rename the latter "feats" and "spells", or whatever terms suit the genre in question] and characterflaws/plot hooks if that's the approach players take.

schir1964

Aug 23rd, '08, 08:01 AM

I would suggest that the implementation of such a concept would be more appropriately undertaken by presenting the Human Template as the default, and delving into wholesale change of that template in a separate "advanced" book. It's too big to fit in the basic book, especially given the need I perceive that the templates be balanced against one another to share the same game world. Most games start with a human baseline, and you buy/sell abilities that differ, so the core rules using that template would seem the most logical starting point.
So basically what you are saying is that the 6th Edition should pretty much remain the same as far as drastic changes for character generation to support a "Hero Universe" type of campaign. Then have the core mechanics for the super toolkit in a separate book to show how all the Default Templates were built and how to build custom Templates for different types of campaigns.

I'm not opposed to that. Unfortunately, it means that there is no reason for me, or anyone else like me, to purchase the 6th Edition Default Template book. I'll just wait for the super toolkit and go from there.

My goal was to allow for both sides of the debate to be able to purchase the same book and get what they want out of it. That would be the ideal solution for me, those who like the system as is, and for Steve Long on the financial side of things. But if you think such a thing is not possible, then Steve is probably going to lose people regardless of what he decides. I'd like to think there is an optimum solution that would benefit the majority on all sides of this project. But that's just me.

- Christopher Mullins

Doc Democracy

Aug 23rd, '08, 08:16 AM

Retain contributions to figureds

Increase cost of STR to 2
Increase cost of DEX to 4
Change formula for END: base END = CON + BODY
Increase cost of INT to 1½ or make PER its own characteristic as above
Move Will Roll to PRE, increase cost of PRE to 2
Make EGO an optional mental-power-only characteristic
Suggested primary characteristic set:
STR 2
DEX 4
CON 2
BODY 2
INT 1
PER 1 (or ½ or 2, see above)
EGO 2 (optional characterictic)
PRE 2
COM ½ (or remove)
Secondary characteristics figured as now, except for END:
Base END = CON + BODY

See this is a decent effort to make characteristics balance. The problem with it is that it makes no reference to how these costs influence powers and skills.

For example - how does STR now fit in a fixed AP campaign? If you are a brick trying to do damage then you are pretty limited as your damage class costs 10 points per D6 while the power based character pays 5 points per D6.

The current system makes it better to purchase stats rather than skill levels does this change that?

What about the balance between STUN/REC and defences? In my experience, the current balance suggests players find it better value to take defences over stats...

That is the difficulty in messing with characteristics - you are not just thinking of primary and figureds - you have to take powers and skills into consideration as well.

Doc

levi

Aug 23rd, '08, 12:32 PM

Doc Democracy

Aug 23rd, '08, 12:40 PM

Any suggested solution that increases the cost of Strength throws AP limits completely off. Either STR has to cost 5 per d6 or all attack powers have to be summarily altered to meet the new ratio you've set for STR.

But remember that doesn't preclude STR at 2 points per point. You could simply provide 2D6 damage for every 5 STR above 10. Has a few issues at heroic levels but keeps the AP matching for supers....

Doc

schir1964

Aug 23rd, '08, 12:53 PM

But remember that doesn't preclude STR at 2 points per point. You could simply provide 2D6 damage for every 5 STR above 10. Has a few issues at heroic levels but keeps the AP matching for supers....

Doc
Actually, this method also works with other costs as well.

STR: 3 Points Per 1 STR (5 STR = 3d6 Above 10)
STR: 4 Points Per 1 STR (5 STR = 4d6 Above 10)

And so forth.

But what you've done is divorce damage from STR totally and have given the Human Template a base default of 2d6 For Damage and 10 STR for other purposes.

But basically there are only really two tenable methods that will work consistently.

1) Divorce STR and Damage.
2) Divorce STR from other derived abilities and it now just represents Damage.

- Christopher Mullins

Doc Democracy

Aug 23rd, '08, 12:59 PM

But what you've done is divorce damage from STR totally and have given the Human Template a base default of 2d6 For Damage and 10 STR for other purposes.

And so you see why I moved to removing characteristics from the game. :)

Doc

Klaus Mogensen

Aug 23rd, '08, 03:55 PM

See this is a decent effort to make characteristics balance. The problem with it is that it makes no reference to how these costs influence powers and skills.

For example - how does STR now fit in a fixed AP campaign? If you are a brick trying to do damage then you are pretty limited as your damage class costs 10 points per D6 while the power based character pays 5 points per D6.
That's easily solved - just let half STR count towards AP limits. There's a lot more than just damage in STR, and in a Multipower with a dozen Powers, you don't count the total MP cost towards an AP limit, just the highest Power.

Or use the option that decouples figureds and leaves STR cost at 1 point.

The current system makes it better to purchase stats rather than skill levels does this change that?
The reprised/decoupled DEX and the repriced PRE are both more expensive than buying skill levels. INT, however, costs the same as bying skill levels, unless INT cost is increased to 1½, as was one of my suggestions.

What about the balance between STUN/REC and defences? In my experience, the current balance suggests players find it better value to take defences over stats...
That is another issue entirely. It may be that defenses are too cheap compared to STUN and BODY, but I strived to maintain the current balance as much as possible.

That is the difficulty in messing with characteristics - you are not just thinking of primary and figureds - you have to take powers and skills into consideration as well.

I agree that it is difficult to avoid cascading effects when you change something as central as characteristic costs. However, I don't think either of the two options I listed will unbalance things - if anything, they will make them more balanced (at least this was the intention).

- Klaus

Vulcan

Aug 23rd, '08, 04:07 PM

STR needs fixing. It should also stay at 1 pt. cost, so that the AP of attack powers stay balanced. A lot of us have posted a lot of possible fixes, mostly involving changing where figured characteristics draw from. Hopefully one of them will be the right one for Steve to work with.

As far as the other charcteristics... a little tweaking might be in order in some places.

PD/ED vs. STUN, for example. Each is 1 point. But PD and ED each stop one point of STUN damage on every instance of damage (barring NND/AVLD). While STUN only ever stops one point of damage (until after it is recovered) - but it covers NND/AVLD damage that PD/ED does not.

Is it balanced? I'm not sure. Personally I wonder if STUN should be 1/2 rather than 1, since PD will stop damage over and over again, rather than the 'one-shot' nature of STUN.

Eh. It's a thought.

Markdoc

Aug 24th, '08, 01:41 AM

An option this big leads to rules bloat and confusion. I am in favor of decoupling figured characteristics (it makes character creation simpler and removes some point balance issues), but some single option should be chosen (and any variants saved for another book).

Agreed. Too many ofthe debates about rules changes here seem to end with "well, let's do both!" While I appreciate the sentiment, I'd rather have the rules move back towards 4th ed. in size not the New York phone book.

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

Aug 24th, '08, 01:44 AM

Any suggested solution that increases the cost of Strength throws AP limits completely off. Either STR has to cost 5 per d6 or all attack powers have to be summarily altered to meet the new ratio you've set for STR.

Or alternately, you simply mention that since STR provides many things including 1 DC of damage, that it only counts half towards any AP limits that are used. Of all the concerns around STR, the fact that it needs to count towards AP limits only in the amount that it contributres damage seems to me to be the least important, and most easily fixed. One sentence would do it, without any balance issues.

cheers, Mark

Klaus Mogensen

Aug 24th, '08, 03:20 AM

PD/ED vs. STUN, for example. Each is 1 point. But PD and ED each stop one point of STUN damage on every instance of damage (barring NND/AVLD). While STUN only ever stops one point of damage (until after it is recovered) - but it covers NND/AVLD damage that PD/ED does not.

Is it balanced? I'm not sure. Personally I wonder if STUN should be 1/2 rather than 1, since PD will stop damage over and over again, rather than the 'one-shot' nature of STUN.
You have to consider that PD or ED only stops damage half the time, even with normal attacks. Resistent DEF that stops 1 point of STUN damage from all normal and killing attacks costs 3 per + 1. Add Hardened to protect from armor-piercing and penetrating attacks, and it's 3.75 per +1. And there's (as you point out) NND/AVLD, and also STUN Drains. So I'd say that you have to be hit more than 4 times in a battle before defenses outshine STUN.

OTOH, defenses also protect against BODY damage. I would say that defenses are perhaps a bit too cheap compared to STUN, but halving the cost of STUN is overdoing it, I think.

What I'd rather see is PD and ED costing 1½ per +1. Force Field would still cost 1 per +1 resistent PD/ED, but Armor should be bought as Persistent FF (i.e., at 2 per +1 PD/ED).

This of course will further unbalance the costs of STR and CON unless PD/ED are decoupled from them. I could see a simplified system where normal characters all have 3 PD and ED, and that this only can be bought up through Talents (Tough: +1 PD and ED, cost 3) or Powers.

- Klaus

nexus

Aug 24th, '08, 05:59 AM

I can appreciate that idea of slimming down but some that reaction is an attempt at compromise rather than "my way or the highway" to keep Hero System a system with options. There have been very few suggestions made in any of these thread that are across the board objective improvements. Most of them come with trade offs the level of gain or lose varying according to the player. I'd like 6th to have as many options as 5th if not more but certainly not less.

Of course -everything- can't be an explicit option but some things certain can be without "bloating" the book (or books because I understood the rules are going to split up into two volumes). On the current subject, making Figured characteristics a toggle option can't take up that much space in an optional rules section or vice versa

Hugh Neilson

Aug 24th, '08, 06:55 AM

Agreed. Too many ofthe debates about rules changes here seem to end with "well, let's do both!" While I appreciate the sentiment, I'd rather have the rules move back towards 4th ed. in size not the New York phone book.

I can appreciate that idea of slimming down but some that reaction is an attempt at compromise rather than "my way or the highway" to keep Hero System a system with options. There have been very few suggestions made in any of these thread that are across the board objective improvements. Most of them come with trade offs the level of gain or lose varying according to the player. I'd like 6th to have as many options as 5th if not more but certainly not less.

Of course -everything- can't be an explicit option but some things certain can be without "bloating" the book (or books because I understood the rules are going to split up into two volumes). On the current subject, making Figured characteristics a toggle option can't take up that much space in an optional rules section or vice versa

This comes down to what we want from 6e, which seems to range from:

(a) A game - these are the rules. Play the game.

(b) A game system - these are the rules and options to build your game.

(c) A series of systems - here are tons of options - pick the ones you want to create the system which will run your game

Perhaps 6e needs to trend back to being a GAME, perhaps with some simpler and more advanced options, with future supplements expanding the options for those who want a greater ability to design a different game, or even a different system.

Much of the frustration I see noted on these Boards by, and in respect of, new Hero gamers is the overwhelming nature of the sheer volume of options, and ancillary issues arising from this (such as the dificulty of balancing encounters).

I suggest 6e should consider a mixed approach as follows:

(a) As has been suggested before, games driven by the Hero engine, but including only those options which are used in that game and setting. Champions-Lite, Fantasy Hero Lite, Star Hero Lite. Perhaps such entry level games might even replace, rather than supplement, the Sidekick produict.

(b) Hero 6e would, like 5e, provide the full system, with some optional rules, geared at creating the game you want to play. I would suggest the main philosophical change would be opening the hood further - not only providing all the mechanics, but also the design philosophy behind them, and the implications of adding optional rules and/or changing the default rules.

(c) Advanced Hero products would go beyond this with optional rules that make marked changes to the system, allowing the tinkerer to essentially design his own Hero system. This would be the place to discuss, for example, options related to figured characteristics, Speed chart and task resolution system (to pick three examples where significant different desires exist) which would change the system as a whole.

Hero can't be all things to all people. The more Hero 6e accomplished (c) in its basic form, the less useful it will be to gamers seeking (a) or (b). Hero's strength has always been its flexibility, but it presently lacks the flexibility required to be usefut to players from the (a) category, and seems to have insufficient options to satisfy the (c) category.

Steve will ultimately have to decide whether Hero should focus on one category at the expense of the others (and choose which one) or should have different categories of product to appeal to each category of gamer.

Talon

Aug 24th, '08, 02:41 PM

I've said a few times that I'm still waiting to see that example of the superior balance, or at least equivalent balance, achieved by eliminating figured characteristics, plus whatever other modifications are made in conjunction.

I'm still waiting.

Since no one knows what the "other modifications" are, there's no way to do this.

Since Steve is leaning toward decoupling, why don't you post an example of how the current system does not lead to problems?

Vulcan

Aug 24th, '08, 04:20 PM

A post like that would likely take a few dozen (or more) characters to demonstrate adequitly.

What we have right now is a balance that works. Figured characteristics are part of that balance. There are things that should be tweaked, but by and large the game balances well.

Decoupling figured characteristics makes a major change to that balance by favoring characters that don't spend a lot on charcteristics. So changes - and a lot of them - will need to be made elsewhere to put things back in balance.

I just worry that making this sort of sweeping alteration will give us a system that is no longer in balance. A system that favors one character archetype (because it is a cheaper build) would be boring.

Anticipating a response: I'll grant that Bricks are slightly favored under the current rules because STR needs fixing. So let's fix the obvious problem rather than set ourselves up for a whole generation of new ones.

ajackson

Aug 24th, '08, 05:20 PM

What we have right now is a balance that works.
Except that it doesn't. If people don't buy up figured stats, it tells us either than figured stats are too expensive, or primary attributes are too cheap. If secondary attributes were really correctly priced relative to primary attributes, you'd see people regularly choosing to buy them up.

Vulcan

Aug 24th, '08, 05:51 PM

<blinks hard>

I don't see it. Perhaps for other people that might be true.

When I build a character, I buy the primary characteristics I want. The secondaries generally wind up right about where I want them so I don't buy more. And the problem with that is...?

David Blue

Aug 24th, '08, 05:58 PM

steamteck

Aug 24th, '08, 06:00 PM

Talon

Aug 24th, '08, 06:02 PM

I don't see it. Perhaps for other people that might be true.

It's true for me. Apparently it's true for Steve.

I would say that if you want figured characteristics to stay, you need to make an objective, general case for keeping them. Pretty much everything works for some people and not for others (witness comments on the SPD chart).

steamteck

Aug 24th, '08, 06:07 PM

Talon

Aug 24th, '08, 06:10 PM

I read the entire thing, I was not convinced. Wouldn't hurt to summarize them!

David Blue

Aug 24th, '08, 06:13 PM

Beat me to it. I see goodness not a problem.:D
I see a problem, though not a big one.

How often do you see people deal with potential END problems simply by buying END straight? If the price of END was fair, that very plain vanilla build would also be common. It's not. People play all sorts of highly efficient and complicated games with Charges, END Batteries etc. instead, even if they would rather go the simple way, the easy way for them and the GM both, if the simple way was reasonably priced.

steamteck

Aug 24th, '08, 06:21 PM

I see a problem, though not a big one.

How often do you see people deal with potential END problems simply by buying END straight? If the price of END was fair, that very plain vanilla build would also be common. It's not. People play all sorts of highly efficient and complicated games with Charges, END Batteries etc. instead, even if they would rather go the simple way, the easy way for them and the GM both, if the simply way was reasonably priced.

Ok, but even given that all that would be needed a little tweaking not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Actually the only times we see stuff other than a vanilla build like that in my group, its concept driven but OK, I realize just because works for us doesn't mean its universal.

ajackson

Aug 24th, '08, 06:35 PM

I don't see it. Perhaps for other people that might be true.
It's the theory of revealed preference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference) in action: what people choose to buy indicates what things are good deals. My experience is that it's very to see Str, Dex, and Con at 20+ (even for non-bricks), significantly less common for Bod, Ego, Int, Pre, and Com. For secondary attributes, PD, ED, and Speed are regularly bought up, Rec is rarely bought up, End and Stun are very rarely bought up, and End is fairly frequently bought down. Thus, by theory of revealed preference, Str, Dex, and Con are good deals, End and Stun are bad deals.

David Blue

Aug 24th, '08, 06:58 PM

Ok, but even given that all that would be needed a little tweaking not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I agree.

Hugh Neilson

Aug 24th, '08, 08:03 PM

Except that it doesn't. If people don't buy up figured stats, it tells us either than figured stats are too expensive, or primary attributes are too cheap. If secondary attributes were really correctly priced relative to primary attributes, you'd see people regularly choosing to buy them up.

I think the secondary stats are over-priced, but not all equally so. SPD is good value. END is terrible value. STUN is not particularly good value. In a lot of Heroic games, ED is not good value.

This means that when we talk about what primary characteristics get you back in secondary stats, when we address DEX we're using real numbers, but when we talk BODY, CON and STR we're using bogus numbers.

I see a problem, though not a big one.

How often do you see people deal with potential END problems simply by buying END straight? If the price of END was fair, that very plain vanilla build would also be common. It's not. People play all sorts of highly efficient and complicated games with Charges, END Batteries etc. instead, even if they would rather go the simple way, the easy way for them and the GM both, if the simply way was reasonably priced.

It's the theory of revealed preference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference) in action: what people choose to buy indicates what things are good deals. My experience is that it's very to see Str, Dex, and Con at 20+ (even for non-bricks), significantly less common for Bod, Ego, Int, Pre, and Com. For secondary attributes, PD, ED, and Speed are regularly bought up, Rec is rarely bought up, End and Stun are very rarely bought up, and End is fairly frequently bought down. Thus, by theory of revealed preference, Str, Dex, and Con are good deals, End and Stun are bad deals.

I agree, and my previous posts suggest reducing the cost of END, STUN and REC to rectify this issue, and move Figured's away from STR at the same time. Very few characters buy END and REC, rather than reduced END, charges or Batteries, to enhance their ability to keep going in combat. When a character is KO'd too easily or too often, they don't buy STUN and REC, they buy defenses. The implication is that STUN, END and REC are less cost-effective means of dealing with the issue, so they don't get used.

I read the entire thing, I was not convinced. Wouldn't hurt to summarize them!

OK:

The game balances quite well now. Fiddling with major aspects like figured characteristics risks breaking it, instead of improving it.

[Executive Summary]It ain't broke. Don't fix it.[/Executive summary]

Chris Goodwin

Aug 24th, '08, 09:38 PM

The game balances quite well now. Fiddling with major aspects like figured characteristics risks breaking it, instead of improving it.

[Executive Summary]It ain't broke. Don't fix it.[/Executive summary]

And the summary of the counterarguments: it is in fact broke and needs fixing. Changing the costs of the Primary Characteristics isn't fixing them; it's merely changing where they're broken. Figured Characteristics are currently patched, and have been since 2nd edition, because 1st edition demonstrated just how badly they're broken. A broken system with a patch is not a fixed system; it's a broken system with a patch, and given that we're fixing things, we need to really fix them and not just move the break.

ajackson

Aug 24th, '08, 11:02 PM

I agree, and my previous posts suggest reducing the cost of END, STUN and REC to rectify this issue, and move Figured's away from STR at the same time.
[Executive Summary]It ain't broke. Don't fix it.[/Executive summary]
Except that if truly wasn't broken, no changes would be needed. Thus, your perspective is really "yes, it's broken, but I don't like the proposed solution".

That's a legitimate perspective, but personally, if I'm going to need to recompute costs and stats anyway, I'd rather clean up the cruft.

levi

Aug 25th, '08, 12:56 AM

I read the entire thing, I was not convinced. Wouldn't hurt to summarize them!

I showed how disgustingly broken STR is by adding +50 STR & +5 REC to a sample character for only 5 Points.

My theory is that Characteristics are only broken at "superhuman" values and that 6E fix this by placing a Cap on all Primary Characteristics and making folks buy any Characteristics above that Cap as Powers with the DAFC Lim built in.

However, I seem to be the only one who sees this as a valid fix.

Doc Democracy

Aug 25th, '08, 01:54 AM

However, I seem to be the only one who sees this as a valid fix.

I'd say it is valid. It addresses a problem.

But it isn't very elegant is it? It requires people to buy characteristics in two ways.

If this was done in some elegant game fashion - you design your human character and then you buy the add-ons for being a superhero that looked logical to new players then it might work. There are however all kinds of things we build that do not conform to that model and then you have to have workarounds etc.

I think a new edition needs elegance and style if it is to make an impact. Whatever we do we have to either think about and find something radical that is done with elegance and style or simply provide advice about how things work.

Doc

Klaus Mogensen

Aug 25th, '08, 02:06 AM

Klaus Mogensen

Aug 25th, '08, 02:22 AM

Very few characters buy END and REC, rather than reduced END, charges or Batteries, to enhance their ability to keep going in combat. When a character is KO'd too easily or too often, they don't buy STUN and REC, they buy defenses. The implication is that STUN, END and REC are less cost-effective means of dealing with the issue, so they don't get used.
I would hesistate to say that REC is overpriced.

A 60-point power bought to 0 END costs +30 points. That's 30 points to save 6 END per use.

For 60 points you can get 30 REC. This corresponds to the END cost of 5 uses of a 60-point power and +30 STUN in the second turn of combat (with an additional +30 in the third turn, etc.)

So unless you use your most costly power more than 5 times per turn or expect battles to finish in one turn, REC is not a bad deal.

- Klaus

Markdoc

Aug 25th, '08, 03:40 AM

I showed how disgustingly broken STR is by adding +50 STR & +5 REC to a sample character for only 5 Points.

My theory is that Characteristics are only broken at "superhuman" values and that 6E fix this by placing a Cap on all Primary Characteristics and making folks buy any Characteristics above that Cap as Powers with the DAFC Lim built in.

However, I seem to be the only one who sees this as a valid fix.

There are two reasons as I see it.

The first is that there is also a problem at the heroic level, which the proposed cap wouldn't touch. STR in particular is broken at the heroic level for some games, perhaps even more so than in super-heroic games.

The second is that this introduces an artificial breakpoint, which may or may nor be suited to different games/genres.

I can't speak for others, but to me this looks like a band-aid to avoid addressing the problem. If as you suggest STR is "disgustingly broken", (and I agree, it is undercosted) why not just fix the price? That'd be the simplest fix.

cheers, Mark

David Blue

Aug 25th, '08, 04:07 AM

There are two reasons as I see it.

The first is that there is also a problem at the heroic level, which the proposed cap wouldn't touch. STR in particular is broken at the heroic level. perhaps even more so than in super-heroic games.
I don't think STR is broken at the superheroic level. Bent a bit, but not broken. I think at the superheroic level, the problem is there's an incentive to buy extreme STR and stick with base BODY, which isn't right. If STR and BODY between them provided roughly the same benefits at the same costs as now, but people were building their bricks with more BODY and were less avid to buy all the STR they could, that would be ideal.

But at the heroic level, I do think there's a problem. There, every STR point is gold, if only because of weapon STR minima. I think it would be good if that was addressed.

True, heroes often do perform remarkable feats of STR when pressed, like falling a story and then taking a one hand grab on some obstruction and arresting their fall. This is so even if the character is not obviously Herculean, like John McClane. So a moderate incentive to buy unusual STR is OK.

But it's more than a moderate incentive; and at the same time people are under-buying EGO and BODY, which characters like John McClane should have heaps of. EGO and BODY cost too much and don't do enough for you. They don't open enough doors for you to do action movie heroic things; while you need to be beefy just to use common assault rifles without taking penalties for puniness.

I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I think there's some room for mild, cautious tweaking to even up the costs and benefits of the tough guy stats compared to each other, while keeping ruggeness as valid as an alternative to super-DEX as it is.

What I don't want is radical changes that would mean: from now on, there is no more room in SIN CITY for Marv. Under our new and improved rules, Marv is inefficient and a wimp. The way to be effective is to imitate Miho.

Miho is already doing just fine in Hero System.

Talon

Aug 25th, '08, 05:20 AM

steamteck

Aug 25th, '08, 05:50 AM

Ignoring the balance issues for a moment, Figured Characteristics require math. I can do that math in my head, or I can use Hero Designer or a calculator -- but not everyone can, and of those who can, not everyone wants to. It is a barrier to entry when learning the system. Those barriers should be dismantled wherever possible.

If you have what are the figures now at all don't you have to do math? if they have any meaning you'll have to figure out what they should be for any character type. Seems like more work to me than just plugging in a formula for a newbie who doesn't really know the scale ( my newbie players agree with me on this one BTW) Seems to me puts up a barrier or you lose something significant
Frankly its some of the most minor math in the system too. By that logic the whole system needs to be majorly overhauled and math simplified. Lets just get rid of power advantages and limitations shall we?

Hugh Neilson

Aug 25th, '08, 06:33 AM

Except that if truly wasn't broken, no changes would be needed. Thus, your perspective is really "yes, it's broken, but I don't like the proposed solution".

The question is what's broken. The link between DEX and SPD isn't a problem, in my experience. Defenses seem reasonably costed (or maybe just so integrated we prefer to use them as the baseline). "END and STUN are overpriced" seems to be an emerging trend. There's less agreement on whether REC is priced appropriately. "BOD does too little" is another emerging trend.

Removal of figured characteristics won't fix most of these issues. END and STUN are still overpriced. STR will still be very valuable to users of HKA's and to Heroic characters in a muscle-powered weapons environment. But it will add new issues. Now CON probably overpriced as well. And we have to re-balance characteristic based characters (who become more expensive) with powers based characters (whose cost increases are not so significant).

Before deciding on a solution, we need to identify the real problem. Then we need to solve the real problem. As a very limited example, If we leave STR's link to HKA, everyone buying an HKA should still buy STR, because they can derive half their HKA from STR and get any other abilities STR provides. If we price STR appropriately for its additions to HKA, characters without HKA get ripped off when they buy STR.

??? In all the games I've played, most players have bought up PD, ED, SPD, and REC. Only END and STUN are rarely bought up (END, because players have tended to buy 0 END on their primary attacks and then buyback END, and STUN, because it generally makes more sense to buy defenses up).

I would hesistate to say that REC is overpriced.

A 60-point power bought to 0 END costs +30 points. That's 30 points to save 6 END per use.

For 60 points you can get 30 REC. This corresponds to the END cost of 5 uses of a 60-point power and +30 STUN in the second turn of combat (with an additional +30 in the third turn, etc.)

So unless you use your most costly power more than 5 times per turn or expect battles to finish in one turn, REC is not a bad deal.

First off, your experience on REC buyup has not matched my own.

Second, your math jumps from 30 points for 0 END to 60 points for 30 REC. Spending double to get the same result seems a bit of a price differential to me. For the same 30 points, you get +15 REC, only enough to use half power for 5 phases. Part of the problem here is that REC is more useful the lower the average SPD, as you get greater REC per action if your SPD is lower. In a heroic game where SPD averages 3 - 4, 30 REC lets you spend 7.5 - 10 END per action. If we move up to a game where SPD ranges from 5 - 7, now we get 4.28 - 6 END per action.

Finally, you don't get +30 STUN each turn unless you are down 30+ STUN [actually, 30 STUN more than your REC before buying +30 REC[ AND not knocked below -20 STUN. The two combined are not that frequent, in my experience. The higher REC goes, the less common the combination becomes.

I certainly agree that decoupling figured characteristics is a big step that should be carefully considered and playtested. If it breaks the rules, this should be apparent well in advance of publication and the problem can be corrected.

If platesting will so readily identify any problem, and Figured's are a huge problem, how did Hero iterate through 5 editions with this problem unchanged? either Figured's aren't such a huge problem, or playtesting is nowhere near as effective in identifying imbalances as you are giving it credit for.

Ignoring the balance issues for a moment, Figured Characteristics require math. I can do that math in my head, or I can use Hero Designer or a calculator -- but not everyone can, and of those who can, not everyone wants to. It is a barrier to entry when learning the system. Those barriers should be dismantled wherever possible.

People who don't like to read aren't very good at RPG's either. How do we drop that barrier to entry? I refer you to the recent "GM Burnout" thread on the General RP board, where there's some discussion of younger players (the future of our hobby, right?) and their dislike of reading.

The math isn't hard. In respect of Figured, we can take the D&D approach and have a chart instead of making them do the math. D&D bonuses or penalties to stats are computed as:

(a) Divide stat by 2
(b) Round down
(c) Subtract 5

That math requires three steps, one more than the Hero figured computations. Yet D&D isn't considered math-heavy.

Mind you, D&D doesn't require you to divide by 3 to get combat values, divide by 5 to get characteristic, skill and perception rolls or use fractions (fractions? :( FRACTIONS!!?? :eek: Who is this game aimed at - Hawkings and Einstein? :mad:) to compute the cost of abilities. It's not the figured characteristics that make hero "math-intensive".

The Main Man

Aug 25th, '08, 08:04 AM

The Main Man

Aug 25th, '08, 08:10 AM

People who don't like to read aren't very good at RPG's either. How do we drop that barrier to entry? I refer you to the recent "GM Burnout" thread on the General RP board, where there's some discussion of younger players (the future of our hobby, right?) and their dislike of reading.

The math isn't hard. In respect of Figured, we can take the D&D approach and have a chart instead of making them do the math. D&D bonuses or penalties to stats are computed as:

(a) Divide stat by 2
(b) Round down
(c) Subtract 5

That math requires three steps, one more than the Hero figured computations. Yet D&D isn't considered math-heavy.

Mind you, D&D doesn't require you to divide by 3 to get combat values, divide by 5 to get characteristic, skill and perception rolls or use fractions (fractions? :( FRACTIONS!!?? :eek: Who is this game aimed at - Hawkings and Einstein? :mad:) to compute the cost of abilities. It's not the figured characteristics that make hero "math-intensive".

I think that D&D is not considered math-heavy because the books chart out the math for the player.

IOW, a math test isn't hard when you already have the answers;)

A player could play D&D and never figure out the relatively simple math behind Ability bonus calculation.

Assuming that that is math-heavy...

[Base Points x (1 + Power Advantages)]/(1 + Power Limitations) looks pretty complex by comparison to me (but you've already pointed this out).

It's times like this that make me think how lucky my players are to have never known a day without HERO Designer...:rolleyes:

AnotherSkip

Aug 25th, '08, 08:15 AM

Mind you, D&D doesn't require you to divide by 3 to get combat values, divide by 5 to get characteristic, skill and perception rolls or use fractions (fractions? :( FRACTIONS!!?? :eek: Who is this game aimed at - Hawkings and Einstein? :mad:) to compute the cost of abilities. It's not the figured characteristics that make hero "math-intensive".
Mind You , I GM for Degreed/Professionals (Electronics, Metallurgy, Engineering & Math)

#1 B**ch about HERO system?

Math.

:help:

and I'M the yahoo who didn't even get the Associates in Advertising Art! :thumbup:

S'lpain that one Lucy! :nonp:

*as a side note i offered up V&V vs HERO and they went for HERO....*

AnotherSkip

Aug 25th, '08, 08:25 AM

Tell Ya What How about we take Several Character designs (or steal them from elsewhere on the boards) and put them up here then deconstruct them as far as rules changes.
If there is something Wrong as far as rules goes let me know, i'll fix it. though he is designed to be high powered NPC superhero in the light Brick Category with less than 'optimal' Strength making him interesting from a design point of view.

Character Name: Deciyon Campaign name: Den City
Alternate Identities: Ten Handed one Genre:
Player name: Gamemaster:
Characteristics
Value Char Base Cost Points Roll Notes/Advantages/See also: Powers
45 Str 10 x1 35 HTH Damage 9d6 Lift End( )
20 Dex 10 x3 30 OCV: 7 DCV: 6
18 Con 10 x2 16
20 Body 10 x2 20
18 Int 10 x1 8 Per Roll
17 Ego 10 x2 14 ECV
25 Pre 10 x1 15 Pre Dice: 5 d6
20 Com 10 x1/2 5
10 PD Str/5 x1 2 Resistant: Total:
10 ED Con/5 x1 6 Resistant: Total:
4 SPD 1+Dex/10 x10 10 Phases: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
18 REC (Str/5)+(Con/5) x2 12
52 End Conx2 x1/2 8
60 Stn Bd+(St/2)+(Cn/2) x1 8
10 Run 6" x2 8 x2 non-combat multiplier
5 Swim 2" x1 3 x2 non-combat multiplier
4.5 VLeap Str/10 Spl x2 non-combat multiplier
9 HLeap Str/5 Spl x2 non-combat multiplier
Characteristics Total Cost: 200
Powers:
5 Blessings of the Father: Extra Limbs, Ten Arms total
10 Blessings of the Father II: LS, Immortality, Eating is necessary only once per week & Sleep is only necessary 8 hrs per week, Safe in High and Low Pressures.
10 Big and Heavy: Knock Back Resistance: 5”
20 You Will Fall to My Blows: Find weakness with all HTH Combat 11- (See Analyze)
22 Ten Handed One: Auto fire up to Five attacks (+1/2) on Strength.
10 Mind of a Hero: 10 Pts Mental Defense
10 Inherently Godlike: 10 pts Power Defense
24 Blessing of the Gods: Combat Luck: 12RPD 12 RED, Hardened, Luck Based, Non-Persistent.
5 Toughness of a Hero: Damage resistance on 5 PD & ED.
15 Ancient Athlete: 50% Damage Reduction, only vs. Grabs and Entangles (-1)
28 Sense the Extraordinary: Mystical Spatial Awareness (Targeting Sense, Detect Physical Objects, Sense, passive, Rapid x100)
24 Appreciation of the Gods: 2d6 Absorption from Physical Attacks to Favors of the Gods Contact, +20 to Maximum Effect (+10), Recovery Rate (Recovery Per Month or as Healed +1) (60 Active), only for Body in Excess of Defenses (-1), only as long as behaves in an appreciable fashion to the Gods (-1/2). Deciyon is considered interesting to the Gods, he gains sympathy (and an increase in the contact roll) the more he is injured, especially in combat; fading as he is ‘cured’ thusly becoming less interesting.

Total Powers Cost: 183
Skills, Perks and Talents:
10 Accurate & Rapid Auto fire Skills with Strength
33 Analyze Combat Technique 24+(I/5) or less (use as complimentary for Find Weakness)
9 Ambidexterity 3 Acrobatics
3 Breakfall 3 Climbing
(0) Ancient Greek 3 English With an Archaic Accent
3 Oratory 3 Persuasion
3 Stealth 3 Teamwork
12 I am my own Team: +4 With Strike, Grab and Analyze
9 Trained by the Gods Themselves: +3 w/ all decathlete related rolls
2 +1 to hearing perception rolls 3 Pow S: Strength Tricks 18-

2 AK: Ancient Greece 11- 2 AK: EU Europe 11-
1 KS: Decathletes & Competitions 11- 1 KS: Greek History 11-
1 KS: Spirit Magic * 11- 1 KS: Medicinal Herbs 11-
1 KS: Woodworking 11- 1 KS: Alliances of Europe 11-
1 KS: Comedies and tragedies 11- 1 KS: Instruction Techniques 11-
1 KS: Theater 11- 2 PS: Instructor
2 PS: Thespian 2 PS: Greek Hero
2 PS: Leader 2 PS: Decathlete
3 Scholar 3 Jack of All Trades
4 WF Common Ancient Greek Missile Weapons & Common Ancient Greek HTH Weapons

15 Favors of the Gods, Contact 8- (1), Extremely Useful (+3), Significant Contacts of own (+1), Access to Major Institutions (+1), Long Lasting (+2), Good relationship (+2) Organization Contact (x3), Side effects (Negative Attention of the Gods, -1). Deciyon is considered an ‘interesting’ member to the Gods of Olympus, as such he may be able to call upon their help in certain situations, a failure can set off any one of a myriad of problems that will annoy not only himself but possibly the entire team. Note that the Contacts may do all sorts of things from healing and even resurrection to calling him away or even eliciting various curses.

Total Skills, Perks and Talents Cost: 150
Disadvantages:
15 Big and Heavy: 1,600 Kg Wt, -1 DCV and +1 Per Rolls against
15 Larger than Life: Distinctive Features, Visibly denser than ‘mere mortals’ as well as having 5 pairs of hands he is unlikely to be disguisable.
10 Greek Hero & Media Star: Public Id
15 Son of a God: PSL: Overconfident
20 Ancient Greek Ideology: PSL Male Chauvinist:
10 Brawling Drunkard: Reputation 11- Acts as a socially inept idiot in the modern society.
15 Obviously A Doctrinal Challenge: Watched by religions of the World
15 A Rival: Watched by Other Gods.

Other Notes: A recently born Godling, Child of one of Zeus’s hundred handed Brothers and a mortal woman, Deciyon is highly skilled in the ancient world which plus his godlike abilities puts him at the really high end for combat purposes. A skilled Decathlete, he cannot compete (because of his godlike physique) but he does train others.

Combat: Analysis then Find Weakness (+1/1 Roll is made by, see pg 32 plus other bennies)
Continue with Find weakness every round when possible until end of combat or law of diminishing returns kicks in or have something better to do in combat.

Quotes: “Hark! Here is how I hurl a Shot-put, and a Javelin and a Discus!” (While tossing agents around like a blender set on Puree)

Decathlete Competition notes: 100 m run, long jump, shot put, high jump, and 400 m run on the first day; 110 m hurdles, discus, pole vault, javelin, and 1500 m run on the 2nd day.

Epimetheus Brother of Prometheus

Klaus Mogensen

Aug 25th, '08, 09:22 AM

I have tried to calculate the total benefits of all primary characteristics.
(...)

30 DEX (cost 90; 1½ x cost = 135)
62 10 DCV levels, only halved when stunned (+1/4)
40 10 All Combat levels, can't be used for DCV (-½), can't add damage or bounce attack (-½)
30 +6 DEX Skills
12 +6 DEX Rolls
22 +15 Lightning Reflexes (is arguably worth less)
30 3 SPD
Total value: 166
Value that can be bought back (SPD): 30
Seems I can't figure numbers in my head anymore. This adds up to 196, not 166. DEX needs to be even more expensive, or more things need to be taken away from it, in order to make value = 1½ x cost.

- Klaus

Klaus Mogensen

Aug 25th, '08, 10:40 AM

In a recent post, I tried to calculate the values of the individual characteristics and suggested changes that would provide value = 1½ x cost.

Here's another go at a balanced characteristic sets, with contributions to figureds. I have had to move a few items around to make things balance. I have also split DEX into two characteristics; they can be merged again if this is undesirable.

STR (cost 2)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
40 +6d6 damage, flexible use (see earlier post)
12 +6 STR Roll
6 x64 lifting ability
6 +6 KB Resistance, Concentration (-1/4), unidirectional (-1/4), needs solid surface (-½)
6 +6 PD
12 +6 REC
15 +15 STUN
Total value: 97
Note: Have removed Leaping as derived from STR.

DEX (cost 2)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
25 +10 HTH Attack (10 HTH levels, can't be used for DCV (-½), can't add damage(-½))
12 +6 DEX Rolls
30 +6 DEX Skills
22 +15 Lightning Reflexes (is arguably worth less)
Total value: 89
Note: Have moved Ranged Attack to INT and DCV/SPD to AGI

AGI (cost 2)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
62 +10 DCV levels, only halved when stunned (+1/4)
30 +3 SPD
Total value: 92
Note: Split off from DEX

CON (cost 2)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
30 +30 stunning threshold
12 +6 CON Roll
6 +6 ED
12 +6 REC
15 +15 STUN
15 +30 END
Total value: 90
Note: part of END moved to BODY

BODY (cost 2)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
45 +30 'hit points'
30 +30 STUN
15 +30 END
Total value: 90
Note: part of END moved from CON

INT (cost 2)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
33 +10 Ranged Attack (10 Ranged levels, can't be used to bounce or add damage(-½))
30 +6 INT skills
12 +6 INT Roll
18 +6 PER Roll
Total value: 93
Note: Ranged Attacks moved from DEX

EGO (cost 2; optional mental-powers-only characteristic)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
18 +6 OCV, mental attacks
18 +6 DCV, mental attacks
6 +6 Mental Defense
30 +30 resistance to mental powers
15 +30 presence defense (not cumulative with that from PRE)
Total value: 88
Notes: Will Roll moved to PRE

PRE (cost 2)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
30 +6d6 PRE Attack
15 +30 presence defense
30 +6 PRE Skills
12 +6 PRE (Will) Roll
Total value: 88
Notes: Will Roll moved from EGO

COM (cost ½)
+30 (cost 15 points) provides:
15 +30 beauty
6 +6 COM Roll (complimentary roll to some skills)
Total value: 21

This seems to balance quite well. Having all characteristics have a cost of 2 (if COM is removed as a characteristic) seems worthwhile to me.

- Klaus

levi

Aug 25th, '08, 11:27 AM

I'd say it is valid. It addresses a problem.

But it isn't very elegant is it? It requires people to buy characteristics in two ways.

If this was done in some elegant game fashion - you design your human character and then you buy the add-ons for being a superhero that looked logical to new players then it might work. There are however all kinds of things we build that do not conform to that model and then you have to have workarounds etc.

I think a new edition needs elegance and style if it is to make an impact. Whatever we do we have to either think about and find something radical that is done with elegance and style or simply provide advice about how things work.

Doc

Thanks for the Feedback Doc.

What if instead of buying Characteristics as Powers you could buy the following NEW Power?

Superhuman Strength
Each Rank in this Power provides +1d6 damage in HTH Combat, Doubles the Character's Lifting Capacity, and adds +1 to STR Rolls
Cost: 5 pts. / Rank

I know it seems like a dodge in some ways, but if it seems more elegant to have a Power that gives all the benefits of enhanced STR without buying more points of STR, then I would prefer that to doubling the cost of STR, completely rearranging which figured Chars are attached to which Primary, or removing Figured Chars altogether.

levi

Aug 25th, '08, 11:48 AM

I don't think STR is broken at the superheroic level. Bent a bit, but not broken. I think at the superheroic level, the problem is there's an incentive to buy extreme STR and stick with base BODY, which isn't right. If STR and BODY between them provided roughly the same benefits at the same costs as now, but people were building their bricks with more BODY and were less avid to buy all the STR they could, that would be ideal.

But at the heroic level, I do think there's a problem. There, every STR point is gold, if only because of weapon STR minima. I think it would be good if that was addressed.

True, heroes often do perform remarkable feats of STR when pressed, like falling a story and then taking a one hand grab on some obstruction and arresting their fall. This is so even if the character is not obviously Herculean, like John McClane. So a moderate incentive to buy unusual STR is OK.

But it's more than a moderate incentive; and at the same time people are under-buying EGO and BODY, which characters like John McClane should have heaps of. EGO and BODY cost too much and don't do enough for you. They don't open enough doors for you to do action movie heroic things; while you need to be beefy just to use common assault rifles without taking penalties for puniness.

I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I think there's some room for mild, cautious tweaking to even up the costs and benefits of the tough guy stats compared to each other, while keeping ruggeness as valid as an alternative to super-DEX as it is.

What I don't want is radical changes that would mean: from now on, there is no more room in SIN CITY for Marv. Under our new and improved rules, Marv is inefficient and a wimp. The way to be effective is to imitate Miho.

Miho is already doing just fine in Hero System.

I have to admit, if it isn't obvious from my posts, that I have played very little in the way of HERO system games other than Champions. Thanks for detailing one of the heroic level issues that I Was overlooking; STR Minimums on weapons. This seems like a broken mechanic that was designed to "simulate reality" and only served to artificially inflate the value of STR. I agree that this needs to be addressed.

In Champions games, there is simply no reason (other than character theme) not to buy your STR up to the AP Limit of the Campaign. Here's a reverse example to the one I gave earlier, showing how much more a character costs by lowering STR due to concept.

Star Gladiator
60 STR 50
20 DEX 30
30 CON 40
20 BODY 20
10 INT 0
11 EGO 2
25 PRE 15
12 COM 1
25 PD 13
25 ED 19
5 SPD 20
18 REC 0
60 END 0
65 STUN 0
========
CHAR = 210

+60 points 12d6 EB

Total = 270

Star Gladiator - Low STR Ver.
20 STR 10
20 DEX 30
30 CON 40
20 BODY 20
10 INT 0
11 EGO 2
25 PRE 15
12 COM 1
25 PD 21
25 ED 19
5 SPD 20
18 REC 16
60 END 0
65 STUN 20
========
CHAR = 214

+60 points 12d6 EB

Total = 274

This Character just lost +8d6 in HTH, -8 to all STR Rolls, -8" Superleap and it COST him 4 points. Many people will change their concept, " I guess that alien experimentation gave my guy Super Strength too."

Doc Democracy

Aug 25th, '08, 12:06 PM

Thanks for the Feedback Doc.

What if instead of buying Characteristics as Powers you could buy the following NEW Power?

Superhuman Strength
Each Rank in this Power provides +1d6 damage in HTH Combat, Doubles the Character's Lifting Capacity, and adds +1 to STR Rolls
Cost: 5 pts. / Rank

I know it seems like a dodge in some ways, but if it seems more elegant to have a Power that gives all the benefits of enhanced STR without buying more points of STR, then I would prefer that to doubling the cost of STR, completely rearranging which figured Chars are attached to which Primary, or removing Figured Chars altogether.

Presentation wise, this is more elegant. :D Obviously you are buying Strength as a power here but giving it a different name. It would however be more obvious to players what was going on than simply saying buy strength two different ways.

Mechanics wise, it is the same kludge. I think there must be a better way round it but, as I've said before, that's why I'm not earning a living designing games... :)

Doc

Hugh Neilson

Aug 25th, '08, 12:12 PM

*as a side note i offered up V&V vs HERO and they went for HERO....*

That cubing of STR gets them every time, doesn't it?

In a recent post, I tried to calculate the values of the individual characteristics and suggested changes that would provide value = 1½ x cost.

Here's another go at a balanced characteristic sets, with contributions to figureds. I have had to move a few items around to make things balance. I have also split DEX into two characteristics; they can be merged again if this is undesirable.

STR (cost 2)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
40 +6d6 damage, flexible use (see earlier post)
12 +6 STR Roll
6 x64 lifting ability
6 +6 KB Resistance, Concentration (-1/4), unidirectional (-1/4), needs solid surface (-½)
6 +6 PD
12 +6 REC
15 +15 STUN
Total value: 97
Note: Have removed Leaping as derived from STR.

Still assumes that STUN and REC are priced appropriately. By the way, does STR stop enhancing HKA? That's another value adder for STR. Maybe that's in your "flexible use" category.

DEX (cost 2)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
25 +10 HTH Attack (10 HTH levels, can't be used for DCV (-½), can't add damage(-½))
12 +6 DEX Rolls
30 +6 DEX Skills
22 +15 Lightning Reflexes (is arguably worth less)
Total value: 89
Note: Have moved Ranged Attack to INT and DCV/SPD to AGI

Lightning reflexes is definitely overpriced, at least in my view.

Moving ranged attack to INT means a scientist always has great aim. I question the desirability of that link.

AGI (cost 2)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
62 +10 DCV levels, only halved when stunned (+1/4)
30 +3 SPD
Total value: 92
Note: Split off from DEX

Why would anyone buy a DCV level when they can buy this? 3 points buys +1 DCV (who ever sells back SPD?). It will make life a lot easier for mentalists - no need to buy all those other DEX abilities you never use. Just buy DCV and Speed by purchasing AGI.

CON (cost 2)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
30 +30 stunning threshold
12 +6 CON Roll
6 +6 ED
12 +6 REC
15 +15 STUN
15 +30 END
Total value: 90
Note: part of END moved to BODY

Are CON rolls even close to being as common as DEX rolls? Again, this assumes STUN, END and REC are appropriately priced. And I challenge "resistance to being STUNNed" at 1 point per. This is only one implication of damage, and seems much more ancillary to me.

BODY (cost 2)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
45 +30 'hit points'
30 +30 STUN
15 +30 END
Total value: 90
Note: part of END moved from CON

Why should "hit points" be increased in value by 50% over the current structure? BOD no Figured costs less than 45 points, and BOD is actually 1/2 STUN, 1/2 BOD at present. And STUN and END are assumed priced appropriately.

INT (cost 2)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
33 +10 Ranged Attack (10 Ranged levels, can't be used to bounce or add damage(-½))
30 +6 INT skills
12 +6 INT Roll
18 +6 PER Roll
Total value: 93
Note: Ranged Attacks moved from DEX

No new comments here. "Gee you're smart and all smart people are sharpshooters, as we all know! moves from DEX.

EGO (cost 2; optional mental-powers-only characteristic)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
18 +6 OCV, mental attacks
18 +6 DCV, mental attacks
6 +6 Mental Defense
30 +30 resistance to mental powers
15 +30 presence defense (not cumulative with that from PRE)
Total value: 88
Notes: Will Roll moved to PRE

So being strong willed is no longer a function of EGO? I'd rather see Ego as providing strong will and resistance to PRE attacks and let PRE be in charge of persuasiveness and impressiveness. Why should Ego add to mental defenses at all? And why is Resistance to Mental Powers (that work on Ego + X) worth as much as mental defense?

For that matter, why is strength of will separated from resistance to mental attacks like Mind Control?

PRE (cost 2)
+30 (cost 60 points) provides:
30 +6d6 PRE Attack
15 +30 presence defense
30 +6 PRE Skills
12 +6 PRE (Will) Roll
Total value: 88
Notes: Will Roll moved from EGO

COM (cost ½)
+30 (cost 15 points) provides:
15 +30 beauty
6 +6 COM Roll (complimentary roll to some skills)
Total value: 21

This seems to balance quite well. Having all characteristics have a cost of 2 (if COM is removed as a characteristic) seems worthwhile to me.

Does your proposal include elimination of the NCM rules? At present, skill levels are much more useful in heroic games (where skills tend to define characters) due to the NCM rules than they are in Supers games (where superhuman characteristics and powers tend to define characters). When the cost of a stat doubles, suddenly it's cheaper to buy all its component parts (except Figured which have already hit NCM) individually.

James Gillen

Aug 25th, '08, 12:16 PM

Does your proposal include elimination of the NCM rules? At present, skill levels are much more useful in heroic games (where skills tend to define characters) due to the NCM rules than they are in Supers games (where superhuman characteristics and powers tend to define characters). When the cost of a stat doubles, suddenly it's cheaper to buy all its component parts (except Figured which have already hit NCM) individually.

NCM really needs to be addressed, for precisely this reason, and because the guidelines for such in source fiction are not clear. There are some characters (say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer) who are clearly superhuman but do not throw trucks or outrun cars. If your "heroic" game includes that power level, how do you set limits?

jg

ajackson

Aug 25th, '08, 01:20 PM

NCM really needs to be addressed, for precisely this reason, and because the guidelines for such in source fiction are not clear. There are some characters (say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer) who are clearly superhuman but do not throw trucks or outrun cars. If your "heroic" game includes that power level, how do you set limits?
Generally speaking, you just say "this is a low power game". Characters like that don't generally smash cars either, so there's no reason for them to be doing more than 6 dice or so.

Klaus Mogensen

Aug 25th, '08, 02:07 PM

Still assumes that STUN and REC are priced appropriately. By the way, does STR stop enhancing HKA? That's another value adder for STR. Maybe that's in your "flexible use" category.
Yes it is. The damage-dealing parts of STR function much like a Multipower with different slots for different uses. At least, that's the way I have priced it.

Moving ranged attack to INT means a scientist always has great aim. I question the desirability of that link.
That's an artifact of PER being a part of INT. I wouldn't mind if PER was split off from DEX as a separate stat (I have suggested that on several occasions). At any rate, the connection is no more weird than the assumption that anybody with nimble fingers is a great judge of range and direction (as is the case now with ranged attacks under DEX). In fact, I'd say that judging distance and direction is much more linked to INT than to DEX.

Why would anyone buy a DCV level when they can buy this? 3 points buys +1 DCV (who ever sells back SPD?). It will make life a lot easier for mentalists - no need to buy all those other DEX abilities you never use. Just buy DCV and Speed by purchasing AGI.
Good point! Perhaps splitting AGI off from DEX is a bad idea, though I do dislike having a 4-point primary characteristic.

Are CON rolls even close to being as common as DEX rolls? Again, this assumes STUN, END and REC are appropriately priced. And I challenge "resistance to being STUNNed" at 1 point per. This is only one implication of damage, and seems much more ancillary to me.
Many of the aspects are quite difficult to price. My breakdown is open to being challenged. Regarding STUN, EBD and REC, I think the problem is rather that PD and ED are underpriced. I have suggested increasing their cost to 1½, leaving FF as it is, and let Armor be Resistant FF (at 2 points per 1 PD or ED).

Why should "hit points" be increased in value by 50% over the current structure? BOD no Figured costs less than 45 points, and BOD is actually 1/2 STUN, 1/2 BOD at present. And STUN and END are assumed priced appropriately.
I assume that characteristics are package deals. 30 BODY, no figureds, is currently 40 points, not far from 45. Make it 45 if it makes you happier; it doesn't change the general idea.

So being strong willed is no longer a function of EGO? I'd rather see Ego as providing strong will and resistance to PRE attacks and let PRE be in charge of persuasiveness and impressiveness.
In campaigns where there are no mental powers, EGO is next to useless. For this reason, I tried to make it optional and move the non-mental "Will Roll" ability to PRE.

Why should Ego add to mental defenses at all?
It does now. If you buy just 1 point worth of Mental Defense, you can add EGO/5 to it. Seems stupid not to spend that 1 point...

And why is Resistance to Mental Powers (that work on Ego + X) worth as much as mental defense?
Whoops, you're right. It shouldn't be.

For that matter, why is strength of will separated from resistance to mental attacks like Mind Control?
In order to make EGO an optional characteristic, since its usefulness is very limited in non-fantastic campaigns.

Does your proposal include elimination of the NCM rules?
No, it doesn't. I just tried to make a balanced set of characteristics. Still needs some work, obviously.

Thanks for your comments!

- Klaus

ajackson

Aug 25th, '08, 02:24 PM

In order to make EGO an optional characteristic, since its usefulness is very limited in non-fantastic campaigns.
Why not just scrap Ego totally and base mental combat on Pre? There's an awful lot of overlap between mental powers and presence already.

Hugh Neilson

Aug 25th, '08, 02:40 PM

That's an artifact of PER being a part of INT. I wouldn't mind if PER was split off from DEX as a separate stat (I have suggested that on several occasions). At any rate, the connection is no more weird than the assumption that anybody with nimble fingers is a great judge of range and direction (as is the case now with ranged attacks under DEX). In fact, I'd say that judging distance and direction is much more linked to INT than to DEX.

I think splitting PER from INT makes at least some sense. At that point, however, we may as well just divorce PER from characteristics, since a PER characteristic would have nothing to do but govern perception rolls.

Good point! Perhaps splitting AGI off from DEX is a bad idea, though I do dislike having a 4-point primary characteristic.

I think if DEX is to be split, there needs to be some logic behind it. The SPD and Lightning Reflexes aspect seem like they are linked to reaction speed. Gross motor skills impact many DEX rolls (do you fall on ice; acrobatics; breakfall; DCV) with fine motor skills being relevant to many others (lockpicking). Then there's hand/eye coordination and spatial relations/ranged attacking. If there is more than one DEX characteristic, each would have some rolls, and some skills, associated with it. That means that the more characteristics you have, the more they are worth in total, since your analysis assumes 3 points for +1 skill level and 1 point for +1 Char Roll for almost every characteristic.

Many of the aspects are quite difficult to price. My breakdown is open to being challenged. Regarding STUN, EBD and REC, I think the problem is rather that PD and ED are underpriced. I have suggested increasing their cost to 1½, leaving FF as it is, and let Armor be Resistant FF (at 2 points per 1 PD or ED).

That would require making force field nonresistant by default, and removing damage resistance. Now we need to reprice damage reduction, don't we? Special defenses could reasonably be worth less than PD/ED by virtue of being less commonly relevant, but that begs the question of relative value of PD and ED in some games, mental defenses in games where mental powers are more common, and so on.

I assume that characteristics are package deals. 30 BODY, no figureds, is currently 40 points, not far from 45. Make it 45 if it makes you happier; it doesn't change the general idea.

I'd buy that logic if I had ever seen a single character buy BOD, no Figured. The limitation is undervalued. Significantly so in my view. Say, should we be pricing "resistance to Transform" separately from "resistance to death"? If we split the components up enough, every characteristic should be worth infinite points.

In campaigns where there are no mental powers, EGO is next to useless. For this reason, I tried to make it optional and move the non-mental "Will Roll" ability to PRE.

In order to make EGO an optional characteristic, since its usefulness is very limited in non-fantastic campaigns.

I'd rather take away PRE's resistance to presence attacks and perhaps also resistance to PRE related skills and fold these, along with strength of will (including ability to resist temptation and ability to rise above psych lim's) and mental combat, into Ego. Is Ego more valuable to mentalists? Sure. And your system will make INT more valuable to ranged attackers, where it's presently more valuable to characters with enhanced senses. All stats will be of relative value.

It does now. If you buy just 1 point worth of Mental Defense, you can add EGO/5 to it. Seems stupid not to spend that 1 point...

I'd simply remove the link. You don't get extra Flash Defense from that INT that feeds your perception roll, or extra Power Defense from BOD that makes you more resistant to Transform. You want mental defense, pay the points.

Klaus Mogensen

Aug 25th, '08, 03:00 PM

Here's a new attempt at breaking down the values of the Primary Characteristics.

I think the Primary Characteristics should be package deals giving value equal to about 1½ x their cost. However, it should not be possible to buy back parts of a Characteristic and end with either a negative cost or a cheaper version of an existing Power/Skill/Talent.

In this post I won't attempt to come up with 'fixed' versions of the Characteristics, just try to analyze what they are worth now. As before, I look at 30 points of each characteristic to avoid rounding off divisions by 2, 3, and 5.

STR 30 (cost 30; 1½ x cost = 45)
30 30 point Multipower
2u 6d6 HA
1u 6d6 EB, OAF of opportunity, limited by OAF BODY+DEF
2u 2d6 HKA, can't more than double HKA from other sources.
3u Grab and Hold (variant Entangle that does damage)
3u Grab and Throw (variant double-KB HA)
6 +6 STR Roll
6 6" Superleap
6 6 KB Resistance, Concentration (-1/4), unidirectional (-1/4), needs solid surface (-½)
6 x64 lifting ability (setting each x2 at 1 point)
6 6 PD
12 6 REC
15 15 STUN
Total value: 98
Value that can be bought back (figureds and Superleap): 39

30 DEX (cost 90; 1½ x cost = 135)
62 10 DCV levels, only halved when stunned (+1/4)
40 10 All Combat levels, can't be used for DCV (-½), can't add damage or bounce attack (-½)
30 +6 DEX Skills
6 +6 DEX Rolls
15 +15 Lightning Reflexes (by-the-book cost is 22)
30 3 SPD
Total value: 183
Value that can be bought back (SPD): 30

30 CON (cost 60; 1½ x cost = 90)
30 +30 stunning threshold
6 +6 CON Roll
6 6 ED
12 6 REC
15 15 STUN
30 60 END
Total value: 99
Value that can be bough back (figureds): 63

30 BODY (cost 60; 1½ x cost = 90)
30 +30 'hit points'
30 30 STUN
Total value: 60
Value that can be bought back (STUN): 30

30 INT (cost 30; 1½ x cost = 45)
30 +6 INT skills
6 +6 INT Roll
18 +6 PER Roll
Total value: 54
Value that can be bought back: 0

30 EGO (cost 60; 1½ x cost = 90)
30 10 OCV levels, mental attacks
30 10 DCV levels, mental attacks
6 +6 EGO Roll
6 +6 Mental Defense (if just 1 point is spent on MD)
15 +30 resistance to mental powers
10 +30 presence defense (not cumulative with PRE)
Total value: 97 (22 if no mental powers in campaign; 12 if PRE is also larger)
Value that can be bought back: 0
Note: The fact that EGO is next to worthless if there are no mental powers in a campaign suggests that it should be made optional OR that is should have added value not relating to mental powers, e.g. as a skill basis.

30 PRE (cost 30; 1½ x cost = 45)
18 6d6 PRE Attack (setting each d6 at 3 points)
15 +30 presence defense
30 +6 PRE Skills
Total value: 63
Value that can be bought back: 0

30 COM (cost 15; 1½ x cost = 22)
15 +30 beauty (arguably worth less)
6 +6 COM Roll (complimentary roll to some skills)
Total value: 21
Value that can be bought back: 0

Edit: Have reduced value of Char Rolls, Lightning Reflexes and the 'hit point' part of BODY. Have corrected EGO's contribution to ECV.

- Klaus

James Gillen

Aug 25th, '08, 05:07 PM

Generally speaking, you just say "this is a low power game". Characters like that don't generally smash cars either, so there's no reason for them to be doing more than 6 dice or so.

That's pretty much what I'm gonna say the next time I run Pulp. :)

jg

Klaus Mogensen

Aug 26th, '08, 05:25 AM

Hugh Neilson

Aug 26th, '08, 06:29 AM

One major problem with figured characteristics now is that the primary characteristics don't contribute equally to figureds. STR and CON both contribute more than their cost, while BODY contributes half its cost and DEX one-third its cost. The mental characteristics don't contribute anything, unless you count EGO's addition to Mental Defense.

I've posted my fix for this before. Reducing the cost of REC, STUN and END, and re-jigging the structure somewhat, allows for contributions that are less than the cost of the primaries. It might also see characters occasionally choosing to buy up REC and END, rather than reduced END, or combining STUN and REC instead of buying more defenses.

This means that the "No Figured Characteristics" limitation on primary characteristics isn't worth the same for all characteristics. Also, Drains are less effective against characteristics that supply a lot to figureds, unless they also drain their contributions to figureds.

In order to achieve balance, all primary characteristics that contribute to figureds should contribute the same fraction of their cost (say 50%). Then a "No Figureds" limitation of -½ would affect all of them equally, and Drains against those characteristics could be given the same limitation.

I would suggest that No Figured should be priced for each characteristic, based on its contribution to Figured. Absent pricing changes, Dex at -1/2 works perfectly. It grants one third of its cost in Figured, and a -1/2 limitation reduces its cost by one third (not the 50% you use above).

The limitation on CON should be much higher because it grants far more figured's and because it does only one thing other than grant Figured's - resist being Stunned.

I statted this out above somewhere, fairly recently.

Klaus Mogensen

Aug 26th, '08, 07:42 AM

I would suggest that No Figured should be priced for each characteristic, based on its contribution to Figured. Absent pricing changes, Dex at -1/2 works perfectly. It grants one third of its cost in Figured, and a -1/2 limitation reduces its cost by one third (not the 50% you use above).
That was actually deliberate. Characteristics are package deals that generally provide much more value than their cost - I strive for 1½ x cost in my suggestions. If figured characteristics are worth one-half the cost, they make up one-third of the value; hence a -½ limitation for No Figureds.

- Klaus

Doc Democracy

Aug 26th, '08, 07:50 AM

Just thought I'd ask whether CV should be a figured characteristic? Or considered so in the system? It seems as much of one as either PD or ED are....

Doc

Chris Goodwin

Aug 26th, '08, 08:27 AM

Hugh Neilson

Aug 26th, '08, 10:06 AM

Just thought I'd ask whether CV should be a figured characteristic? Or considered so in the system? It seems as much of one as either PD or ED are....

I believe that CV should be decoupled if other Figured's are decoupled. The link there is no stronger than for other figured characteristics.

ajackson

Aug 26th, '08, 10:18 AM

I believe that CV should be decoupled if other Figured's are decoupled. The link there is no stronger than for other figured characteristics.
Of course, you can argue that stat rolls are figured char too -- 9 + STAT/5 is just as much a calculation as any other. Perhaps we should discard stats totally and just buy up the figured. Consider this variant:
Str Roll: 5/1d6 (base 2d6); used for damage and grappling
Lifting: 5/x2 (base 100 kg)
OCV: 5/+1 (base 3)
DCV: 5/+1 (base 3)
ECV: 5/+1 (base 3) (should OECV and DECV be separated?)
Dex Roll: 5/+1 (base 11)
Int Roll: 5/+1 (base 11)
Per Roll: 3/+1 (base 11)
Ego Roll: 5/+1 (base 11)
Pre Roll: 5/+1 (base 11)

In practice, you can do the same thing more simply by just dividing stat values by 5 and setting the average human stat to 2.

The Main Man

Aug 26th, '08, 10:39 AM

Let's not decouple too many things or else we'll have no CHAR at all. ;)

As for CV, check out the Combat and Skills Issues threads for some suggestions by Chris Goodwin about "Combat and Skill Consolidation."

levi

Aug 26th, '08, 10:59 AM

...Any alteration of Characteristic costs is going to hit someone. Altering the costs of Primaries to make the received Figureds is going to have exactly the same impact that fully decoupling will have. So why is there so much less resistance to the former than the latter?

I think Chris, its because this is a game built on points instead of Levels. I agree there is some measure of sacred-cowiness to the idea of Figured Characteristics. Beyond that, I like the way a Character with a higher CON has a better base REC, END & STUN than a Character with a lower CON, it just feels right to me. If we change to a system of Base Values (as proposed) then these Primary Characteristics all seemed diminished, no matter what the math tells you. For all the (minor) arithmetic involved in Champions, this is still a game about telling stories and simulating heroic fiction, which means the game has to feel right as much or more than the math has to work.

ajackson

Aug 26th, '08, 11:22 AM

I think Chris, its because this is a game built on points instead of Levels.
Um.... that's a total non sequitur. I can't even figure out how you think the concepts are related.
I agree there is some measure of sacred-cowiness to the idea of Figured Characteristics.
Just because a cow is sacred doesn't mean it shouldn't be sacrificed. Hero is an effects-based system; having stats as predesigned ECs breaks that.
For all the (minor) arithmetic involved in Champions, this is still a game about telling stories and simulating heroic fiction, which means the game has to feel right as much or more than the math has to work.
How is basing Defenses (PD and Stun) on an Offensive ability (Strength) an issue of feeling right? Yes, most strong characters should be tough, but most strong characters should also have a high Con and Bod, and if for some reason you have a strong character who doesn't have a high Con and Bod, should that character really have a high Stun?

Klaus Mogensen

Aug 26th, '08, 11:37 AM

I'm wondering if it might not be worth considering some radical redifining of characteristics.

Consider a system with 6 characteristics; 3 body and 3 mind.
Within each group, there's a power stat (used mainly to do damage), a toughness stat (used mainly to withstand damage) and a finesse stat (used to hit, avoid getting hit, and for initiative). Each group also has a secondary defense stat.

Body power: STR
Body toughness: CON (includes BODY)
Body finesse: DEX
Body defense: BD (PD+ED)

Mind power: PRE (PRE attacks)
Mind toughness: EGO
Mind finesse: INT
Mind defense: MD (Mental Defense + Presence Defense)

To enhance the symmetry, Interaction Skills should be redefined as 'Combat maneuvers' for PRE Attacks. The only skill-bonus characteristics will then be DEX and INT, though there will be four skill groups: Agility, Body Combat, Intellect, and Mind Combat. Background skills would not be based on any characteristic and perhaps wouldn't even need a roll.

EGO would work as CON and BODY for mental and Presence attacks, moving away from the "EGO + 0/10/20/30" incremental effects. Mind Control, Telepathy, etc., would require 'stunned' results against EGO for a small effect, but a full reduction of 'mental body' for a total effect.

Probably too radical, but it would streamline the system nicely.

- Klaus

Vulcan

Aug 26th, '08, 11:54 AM

It's true for me. Apparently it's true for Steve.

I would say that if you want figured characteristics to stay, you need to make an objective, general case for keeping them. Pretty much everything works for some people and not for others (witness comments on the SPD chart).

The problem being that apparently I haven't been objective enough for you to notice. I'll try stating things this way.

1) With figured characteristics, the game is pretty well balanced.

I'll grant you that there are some issues (STR being the big one), but they can be easily fixed. Several good fixes have been proposed on this very thread. Discarding figured characteristics penalizes 'characteristic heavy' concepts disproportionately to 'power heavy' concepts. So removing them requires a whole, through revision of the entire rules set to re-balance costs. Or we can make few small changes to figured characteristics and retain the original balance.

2) Figured characteristics can give new players a general guideline to the level these 'secondary' characteristics should be at without devoting pages in the book to the subject.

Are these fairly objective points? Or are they not because you disagree with them?

Now against that is the argument that they are too complicated for new players. My response to that is that if they can't handle the basic math for figured characteristics, how are they going to manage the more advanced issuse of purchasing a 40 base cost power with a +3/4 advantage and a -1.75 set of limitations when they can't even divide by 5?

Vulcan

Aug 26th, '08, 11:57 AM

I see a problem, though not a big one.

How often do you see people deal with potential END problems simply by buying END straight? If the price of END was fair, that very plain vanilla build would also be common. It's not. People play all sorts of highly efficient and complicated games with Charges, END Batteries etc. instead, even if they would rather go the simple way, the easy way for them and the GM both, if the simple way was reasonably priced.

<blinks hard again>

If I think my character needs more END I just buy it. Charges, END Reserves, and Reduced END I save for the concepts that fit them.

YMMV, of couse.

levi

Aug 26th, '08, 12:01 PM

Just because a cow is sacred doesn't mean it shouldn't be sacrificed. Hero is an effects-based system; having stats as predesigned ECs breaks that.

I agree that sometimes sacred cows should be sacrificed, but to use another anaolgy I've seen recently on this boards, don't throw the baby out with the bath water either. My point is that there will always be some trepidation about change, and you have to remember I was responding to Chris' question about why people are so resistant to it. If you change things too much it starts to look a different game entirely and alienates diehard fans. I'm not trying to say what should or shouldn't be done, just responding to Chris' question.

How is basing Defenses (PD and Stun) on an Offensive ability (Strength) an issue of feeling right? Yes, most strong characters should be tough, but most strong characters should also have a high Con and Bod, and if for some reason you have a strong character who doesn't have a high Con and Bod, should that character really have a high Stun?

Well, let's look at a character with a fairly high STR from heroic fiction (Comics in this case); Spider-Man. Spidey has a High STR, without a particularly high CON (gets colds on a regular basis) or BODY (he's a lil fella, although he has a strong will to live and that could be argued to increase his BODY). Spidey has taken shots on the chin from some world class bricks in the Marvel U (Rhino on a fairly regular basis as an example) and even though he's stunned momentarily by the shots, he's not unconscious or turned into paste like you or I would be. Now part of this damage is likely mitigated by his reaction times being heightened, but there has to be some accounting there for his STR as well.

Now just to be clear, I didn't bring up STR, you did. But I still feel like there needs to be a little more emphasis on making the game feel right than there has been on making the math work.

Vulcan

Aug 26th, '08, 12:05 PM

It's the theory of revealed preference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference) in action: what people choose to buy indicates what things are good deals. My experience is that it's very to see Str, Dex, and Con at 20+ (even for non-bricks), significantly less common for Bod, Ego, Int, Pre, and Com. For secondary attributes, PD, ED, and Speed are regularly bought up, Rec is rarely bought up, End and Stun are very rarely bought up, and End is fairly frequently bought down. Thus, by theory of revealed preference, Str, Dex, and Con are good deals, End and Stun are bad deals.

I am curious. Is this for your particular group, your group plus the couple other groups you have contact with, or do you have some worldwide survey on the subject to back that up with?

Our group pretty much never buys back any figured. The only time END was bought back was for a robot PC who had 0 END on everything - he never got tired, ever.

PD/ED get bought up for MA and some Bricks. Pretty much everyone else goes for FF/Armor. END and REC get bought up quite a bit. STUN gets purchased mainly by bricks. SPD...

Well, I see your point there. Everyone buys more SPD. Except for one guy, a brick with 'fast reflexes' bought a 30 DEX and left his SPD at 4. But that is the one and only time I saw a character not buy up his SPD.

Of course, this only applies to my gaming group.

Vulcan

Aug 26th, '08, 12:07 PM

Vulcan

Aug 26th, '08, 12:15 PM

I certainly agree that decoupling figured characteristics is a big step that should be carefully considered and playtested. If it breaks the rules, this should be apparent well in advance of publication and the problem can be corrected.

Ignoring the balance issues for a moment, Figured Characteristics require math. I can do that math in my head, or I can use Hero Designer or a calculator -- but not everyone can, and of those who can, not everyone wants to. It is a barrier to entry when learning the system. Those barriers should be dismantled wherever possible.

If someone cannot divide by 5 and 2 on paper to calcualte 'figured characteristics, HEROS is not the game for them. If they cannot add STR/2 + CON/2 + BODY, they are not going to be able to add the costs of all their characteristics up in the first place.

False argument. Please try again.

Bringing the balance issues back in, regardless of what you think the specific problems are, it's easier to test and fix them when characteristics are not interrelated.

But everything is interrelated. Anything that affects the point totals affects the balance of the final characters.

Vulcan

Aug 26th, '08, 12:19 PM

Mind You , I GM for Degreed/Professionals (Electronics, Metallurgy, Engineering & Math)

#1 B**ch about HERO system?

Math.

:help:

and I'M the yahoo who didn't even get the Associates in Advertising Art! :thumbup:

S'lpain that one Lucy! :nonp:

Interesting. Our generally non-degreed group has no problems with the math. We just bought $2 calculators to help figure it out.:D

Vulcan

Aug 26th, '08, 12:24 PM

Sorry about all the posts, guys. I missed a day of reading, and I find it easier to address points on a per-point basis.

Thanks for the Feedback Doc.

What if instead of buying Characteristics as Powers you could buy the following NEW Power?

Superhuman Strength
Each Rank in this Power provides +1d6 damage in HTH Combat, Doubles the Character's Lifting Capacity, and adds +1 to STR Rolls
Cost: 5 pts. / Rank

I know it seems like a dodge in some ways, but if it seems more elegant to have a Power that gives all the benefits of enhanced STR without buying more points of STR, then I would prefer that to doubling the cost of STR, completely rearranging which figured Chars are attached to which Primary, or removing Figured Chars altogether.

Because it's an additional mchanic to do exactly the same thing as something that already exists in the game. Takes more page space in the book.

Why not just use one of the proposed fixes for STR in the first place? Why change the way STR is puchased?

If we shift the figured characteristcs off STR and onto BODY, guess what? STR is no longer broken, and BODY becomes worth what you're paying for it. How is this bad?

The Main Man

Aug 26th, '08, 12:29 PM

Interesting. Our generally non-degreed group has no problems with the math. We just bought $2 calculators to help figure it out.:D

$2? I have one for $1.;)

It's not that the math is hard, it's just that... tell someone that they have to use algebra, even a little, and it's a turnoff.

Klaus Mogensen

Aug 26th, '08, 12:31 PM

Here's some ideas for Primary Characteristics costs, based on my recent analysis (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1674352&postcount=3055) of actual Characteristic values. Each characteristic rougly provides 1½ x its cost in value.

First with figured characteristics:
STR 2 - PD moved to BODY.
DEX 4
CON 2 - ED moved to BODY
BODY 2 - now includes PD and ED
INT 1½
EGO 2 - Will Roll moved to PRE; is now an optional mental-power-only characteristic
PRE 1½ - now includes Will Roll

Then with decoupled figureds (including Leaping):
STR 1½
DEX 3½
CON 1
BODY 1
INT 1½
EGO 2 - Will Roll moved to PRE; is now an optional mental-power-only characteristic
PRE 1½ - now includes Will Roll

In both versions, AGI may be split off from DEX.
AGI would include DCV, initiative and DEX Roll
In the 'figureds' version, DEX and AGI would each cost 2.
In the 'no figureds' version, DEX would cost 1½ and AGI 2.

Note: the 'figureds' characteristic set does not have balanced contributions to figured characteristics. 30 STR contributes 33 points (about half cost), 30 DEX contributes 30 points (about one-quarter cost), 30 CON contributes 57 points (almost full cost), and 30 BODY contributes 42 points (about three-quarters cost).

- Klaus

Chris Goodwin

Aug 26th, '08, 12:59 PM

If someone cannot divide by 5 and 2 on paper to calcualte 'figured characteristics, HEROS is not the game for them. If they cannot add STR/2 + CON/2 + BODY, they are not going to be able to add the costs of all their characteristics up in the first place.

It's not about cannot. It's about shouldn't. Why should I have to fill out a tax form in order to play a game? (From 1040: 155 pages according to IRS.gov. HERO 5er: 592 pages. It's debatable which takes more math...)

The Main Man

Aug 26th, '08, 01:06 PM

Making characters in HERO takes too long for a single session unless the following is true:

1. It is a Heroic-Level game (little Power creation).
2. You have HERO Designer (and probably multiple computers to use it on)
3. Everyone really knows what they are doing.
4. You just made the darn character before the game.

levi

Aug 26th, '08, 01:09 PM

...Because it's an additional mchanic to do exactly the same thing as something that already exists in the game. Takes more page space in the book.

Why not just use one of the proposed fixes for STR in the first place? Why change the way STR is puchased?

If we shift the figured characteristcs off STR and onto BODY, guess what? STR is no longer broken, and BODY becomes worth what you're paying for it. How is this bad?

I don't think it is bad, I'm just presenting another possible way of addressing the problem.

The Main Man

Aug 26th, '08, 01:13 PM

"Half a dozen in one hand, six in the other."

levi

Aug 26th, '08, 01:17 PM

It's not about cannot. It's about shouldn't. Why should I have to fill out a tax form in order to play a game? (From 1040: 155 pages according to IRS.gov. HERO 5er: 592 pages. It's debatable which takes more math...)

This arguement or something similar could be made about almost every aspect of the HERO System. (Why do I have so many Characteristics? Why do I have to make up my own Powers instead of choosing from a list?, etc.)

The general answer to these questions is that it allows for the diversity of character and options that I've seldom seen in an RPG.

Its been pointed out that there really isn't that much more math in HERO than in other RPGs, HERO just doesn't do the work for you. So if you feel it turns people away from the game (and I would agree that it does), then include more tables, USPD-style entries in the Powers Section, more Sample builds that can be plugged in to a standard campaign's point limits.

The Main Man

Aug 26th, '08, 01:20 PM

While the CHAR seem to need a little retooling, HERO needs to maintain its "Toolkit" aspect or else it becomes nearly worthless.

ajackson

Aug 26th, '08, 01:46 PM

1) With figured characteristics, the game is pretty well balanced.
My basic response to this is "I disagree".
2) Figured characteristics can give new players a general guideline to the level these 'secondary' characteristics should be at without devoting pages in the book to the subject.
Except that the guidelines are, IMO, generally bad.
Are these fairly objective points? Or are they not because you disagree with them?
They're subjective points. Which does not necessarily mean that they're invalid.

Vulcan

Aug 26th, '08, 03:14 PM

So my subjective points and your subjective points will repeat endlessly?;)

levi

Aug 26th, '08, 03:56 PM

Talon

Aug 26th, '08, 06:26 PM

1) With figured characteristics, the game is pretty well balanced.

I'll grant you that there are some issues (STR being the big one), but they can be easily fixed. Several good fixes have been proposed on this very thread. Discarding figured characteristics penalizes 'characteristic heavy' concepts disproportionately to 'power heavy' concepts. So removing them requires a whole, through revision of the entire rules set to re-balance costs. Or we can make few small changes to figured characteristics and retain the original balance.

A lot comes down to the definition of "pretty well". :) To me, the balance issues that figured characteristics create are significant (STR, CON, and DEX all get distorted at both the heroic and superheroic level).

(Someone else made a good point that once you balance figured characteristics to the point where the contribution from primary characteristics is perfectly in line with what you get, you might as well just decouple them because it will have no cost impact. I'm saying it poorly so just read back a few posts. :))

I do agree that decoupling them is a big revision, and that other changes (like removing ECs) might also need to take place to make sure the balance is restored. This kind of revisiting and streamlining is something I feel the system could benefit from. (It could also be hurt by it, of course, but that is what playtesting is for.)

2) Figured characteristics can give new players a general guideline to the level these 'secondary' characteristics should be at without devoting pages in the book to the subject.

PD, ED, and SPD have limits already (either in the text for AP limits or to handle SPD inflation). A paragraph or a table to cover REC, END, and STUN doesn't seem that bad.

Are these fairly objective points? Or are they not because you disagree with them?

You stated these points very well -- of course nothing is completely objective, but I think this brings focus to the discussion. Thanks for taking the time to write them.

Now against that is the argument that they are too complicated for new players. My response to that is that if they can't handle the basic math for figured characteristics, how are they going to manage the more advanced issuse of purchasing a 40 base cost power with a +3/4 advantage and a -1.75 set of limitations when they can't even divide by 5?

(This reason, to me at least, is the most important one. Everything we can do to make Hero easier to learn will bring more people into the game.)

Firstly, many genres don't require power construction -- if you are playing most heroic genres, or superheroic with something like the USDB, you can bypass those rules.

Secondly, power construction, with all it's flexibility, is the kind of thing that people expect to be a bit complicated. Characteristics, on the other hand, should be easy and straightfoward because everyone uses them and because they are the first thing you read about in the rules.

Some parts of Hero are complicated and are going to stay that way -- we should do as much as possible to make them easy to learn. If there are parts that we can actually make simpler, we should do so. Decoupling figured characteristics fits the latter category, to me at least.

Talon

Aug 26th, '08, 06:35 PM

If someone cannot divide by 5 and 2 on paper to calcualte 'figured characteristics, HEROS is not the game for them. If they cannot add STR/2 + CON/2 + BODY, they are not going to be able to add the costs of all their characteristics up in the first place.

I disagree. I ran several Hero games this year for people who had no interest in doing math. Please note that I said "interest"; whether or not someone can do math is completely irrelevant.

This is not a false argument. It is the most important argument for decoupling figured characteristics. The attitude that Hero is only for math-lovers keeps people away from a wonderful system.

Tweaking stats and re-calculating figured stats is annoying, if you don't have Hero Designer. More annoying if you don't have a calculator handy. It's not just like you pick stat values once and go from there.

If the game can be simplified without losing functionality, it should be. Decoupling figured characteristics is one of those cases.

[/quote]But everything is interrelated. Anything that affects the point totals affects the balance of the final characters.[/QUOTE]

Sure, but it's easier to figure the price of END when it is bought on its own vs. figuring how CON contributes to it plus the cost of END on its own.

James Gillen

Aug 26th, '08, 10:19 PM

Oh yeah. To summarize the last part of the argument: we can pretty much all agree that costs for Characteristics need fixing. The ideal way to fix them is so that every point worth of Primary Characteristics balances fully. In other words, spending, say, 30 points on a Primary Characteristic gets you 10 points worth of the Primary Characteristic's function plus 20 points worth of Figured Characteristics.

At that point, Figured Characteristics become mathematically unnecessary. The only reason to keep them is because of tradition.

Any alteration of Characteristic costs is going to hit someone. Altering the costs of Primaries to make the received Figureds is going to have exactly the same impact that fully decoupling will have. So why is there so much less resistance to the former than the latter?

The point being that they aren't balanced now. STR is cheap, and gets lots of Figured stats, but you need DEX even more than that, because there are other ways of getting raw power and bulk, but in HERO, if you're not quick, you're dead. CON also adds to Figured stats (and is most useful for END) but is mainly needed as the Stun threshold. EGO's usefulness depends entirely on the campaign. COM, of course, doesn't give you anything, but at least we don't have to debate decoupling it from a Figured stat. :D

jg

James Gillen

Aug 26th, '08, 10:22 PM

I disagree. I ran several Hero games this year for people who had no interest in doing math. Please note that I said "interest"; whether or not someone can do math is completely irrelevant.

This is not a false argument. It is the most important argument for decoupling figured characteristics. The attitude that Hero is only for math-lovers keeps people away from a wonderful system.

Tweaking stats and re-calculating figured stats is annoying, if you don't have Hero Designer. More annoying if you don't have a calculator handy. It's not just like you pick stat values once and go from there.

If the game can be simplified without losing functionality, it should be. Decoupling figured characteristics is one of those cases.

"But everything is interrelated. Anything that affects the point totals affects the balance of the final characters."

Sure, but it's easier to figure the price of END when it is bought on its own vs. figuring how CON contributes to it plus the cost of END on its own.

It's not that I don't see the logic of the argument, it's just that the solution of decoupling inevitably leads to point inflation, where a 5th Edition character converting to 6th needs more points to get the same stats or less. The main benefit I see would be that we would no longer have people bitching that STR is too cheap, but other than that...

jg