Characteristics Issues

[AnotherSkip]

Precisely correct, and I'd prefer it to be the same cost break mechanism rather than continuing to have different rules for different characters. Several of Klaus' sugestions, both here and in the Frameworks forum, might actually do this with some modifications, so if we go that path I believe it can be done. I'd like to be certain, but that's life.

if they are all the same it removes the fun of finding new ones.

less fun is baaaaad

[Talon]

Gotta disagree. I don't see less math unless Stun etc are eliminated all together because NOTHING will be able to not be messed with and you have to make the decision what to make it. OK maybe less of one mathematical decision but either you have to arrive at SOME campaign norm or just arbitrarily decide what everyone's formerly figures are.

There is the same amount of number-choosing (you have to pick STUN levels, etc.), but a lot less math -- you just say "I want X STUN" and pay for it.

[steamteck]

There is the same amount of number-choosing (you have to pick STUN levels, etc.), but a lot less math -- you just say "I want X STUN" and pay for it.


Not if you mostly use the norms. Without the figures or some scale it makes character creation actually more complicated seems to me. ( Gee I forgot to but Hercules stun up oops.)

[Hugh Neilson]

For the benefit of a new forum member: what benefits?

I am not getting the feeling from any of my campaigns that Bricks are over powered or under costed. A little imagination with the frameworks and characters with ECs or MPs are every bit as flexible as characters built on STR.

I'm on the same page - I don't see Bricks dominating, and I am concerned that this approach will see them reduced to solidly second-class characters.

I think a lot of the problem with Brick-dominated games is GM's allowing Bricks
to use objects of opportunity to readily and easily turn their STR into ranged area effect attacks doing the same damage their STR would with a punch. I think the "throwing things" rules need to be looked at in 6e. Large objects should add OCV, not become AoE. Penalties for balance and aerodynamic nature should scale, not simply be 0 or -2. It should be made clear that Grabbing (ie lifting a bus) is an attack action [perhaps with some exception for casual STR use on non-moving objects] and aiming and throwing it at someone is a SECOND attack action. Encumbrance issues should be considered - is that Brick holding a bus really able to get his full DCV? However, it should also be possible for large, hard, heavy objects to enhance damage.

There's mixed experiences about that. I've seen bricks dominate campaigns; others see them balance. I think it depends a lot on how much players min-max their characters.

The benefits of decoupling are generally seen as:

Less math. Even if the math is simple, it is seen as too much effort by many

While I agree these are mathematical steps to be taken, I challenge the view that players who think Hero has "too much math" will really be convinced the problem is solved if all we do is remove Figured's. If that truly is the issue, D&D also has too much math - you have to subtract 10 from each of 6 characteristics and divide by two to get the bonus/penalty each provides. That's the same number as Hero's Figured's. And we can solve the issue the same way, with a nice series of charts you look at to determine your base Figured's. D&D also makes you do minor addition - Armor Bonus + Shield Bonus + DEX Modifer = AC. So adding base PD and base ED to compute Recovery should not be any bigger a deal.

No hassle with "does/doesn't affect figureds"
No instances of getting more points back than you pay (as is currently the case with STR and CON)

I agree this issue needs to be corrected. My take on it, as set out previously, is that the solution lies in reducing the cost of STUN, END and REC, re-jigging the formulas to move Figured away from STR and re-setting "no figured" on a per stat basis to provide a limitation commensurate with the benefits foregone. This would also facilitate making Figured or No Figured the default rule and providing an optional rule that includes Figured's - the pricing would be the same either way for most characters.

More streamlined characteristics

We still have 14 characteristics. In many games, most players stick with their figured REC, STUN and END, so now they have more work. That's far from universal, but I don't see this reducing characteristics.

More transparent cost/benefits
- Klaus

Many proponents of Figured's would offset this with "less transparency of effect". So I'm healthy as a horse (high CON), but I tire easily (base END), have a glass jaw (low STUN) and puff and wheeze while slowly catching by breath (low REC). Shouldn't having a high CON improve my ability in all of these?

Of course, the "reason from effect" philosophy sets this off somewhat, but this is at least as much an issue as "removing Figured will reduce the math stigma".

There is the same amount of number-choosing (you have to pick STUN levels, etc.), but a lot less math -- you just say "I want X STUN" and pay for it.

Of course, now you probably have to calculate all 6 figured's costs. In my experience, many players now keep the REC, STUN and END granted by their stats.

[The Main Man]

Quick ideas for CON (overnight idea, you judge if I should have slept on it more):

- CON already functions as the "Stunning Threshold" but what if a character is Stunned anytime that they take more of any kind of damage than they have CON?
For example, if a PC with CON 15 is Flashed for 20 Segments he is not only flashed but he is stunned.
For another example, a PC with CON 18 takes 19 Transform Damage and so they are Stunned.


- Normally, characters are woozy from 0- -10 STUN and then they are officially knocked out at -11 STUN but what if CON (base of 10) acted as that sort of "woozy" threshold?

Example: A character with CON 20 takes enough STUN to be at -10 but due to their CON they are able to stay up if barely until they take another 11 STUN damage.

[Hugh Neilson]

Quick ideas for CON (overnight idea, you judge if I should have slept on it more):

- CON already functions as the "Stunning Threshold" but what if a character is Stunned anytime that they take more of any kind of damage than they have CON?
For example, if a PC with CON 15 is Flashed for 20 Segments he is not only flashed but he is stunned.

So can I stun him with a Dispel? At 3/die and only blocked by power defense, Stunning just became a whole lot easier! I guess an END Suppress will average a bit higher per AP, so maybe that's a better choice.

- Normally, characters are woozy from 0- -10 STUN and then they are officially knocked out at -11 STUN but what if CON (base of 10) acted as that sort of "woozy" threshold?

Example: A character with CON 20 takes enough STUN to be at -10 but due to their CON they are able to stay up if barely until they take another 11 STUN damage.

If he is at -15 STUN, when does he get his next recovery? Does this impact all levels of the chart (ie the higher your CON, the longer it takes before you need a whole turn to recover, in which case fights go on a lot longer) or just whether you remain aware of your surroundings? In many cases, I'd rather be at -11 and fall over since that makes it less tempting to take another shot at me.

[IndianaJoe3]

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

Since analogies have been drawn between Figured Characteristics and Elemental Controls, I decided to see how close they actually were. I revised Steve's sample characters from the start of this thread, placing some Characteristics in ECs. (I know that would normally require GM permission.) I created three ECs, derived from current relationships between Primary and Figured Characteristics:


Muscle: STR, PD, STUN
Health: CON, ED, REC, END
Reflexes: DEX, SPD

Since the idea of replacing ECs with a -1/4 Limitation has been floated, I also ran those numbers.

Brick:


5e: 236
Decoupled: 358
EC: 285
Lim: 295

Martial Artist:


5e: 161
Decoupled: 213
EC: 164
Lim: 178

Randall Irons


5e: 91
Decoupled: 122
EC: 105
Lim: 103

It seems that treating decoupled characteristics as ECs would help (although the brick is a hideously inefficient build). However, it complicates builds a great deal. Why should a normal human in a low-powered campaign need 3 ECs?

[Klaus Mogensen]

In many games, most players stick with their figured REC, STUN and END, [...] In my experience, many players now keep the REC, STUN and END granted by their stats.
I have suggested that rather than decoupling figureds, we let them become fixed at their figured values (i.e., no buying them up or down). That would make sense if they are supposed to be 'proper' values derived from the primary characteristics.

Having the secondary characteristics both figured from a formula and something you can buy is a strange neither/nor solution that makes very little sense except as a historical artifact.

Either we should aim for flexible secondary characteristics, in which case having a calculated base both reduces flexibility (e.g. you can only buy one down) and adds complexity (why bother claculating a base when you're not going to use it, anyway?)

Or we should aim for a 'proper' connection between primaries and secondaries: A character with so-and-so CON should have so-and-so STUN and EBD, etc. In this case it doesn't make sense that you can buy a secondary characteristic to 'unproper' values.

My recent suggestion for a characteristics set actually does both of these: Primary Characteristics have bonuses, which can't be bought up or down seperately, that are used for things like base CV, REC, and skill bonuses. The remaining seconday characteristics OTOH are entirely decoupled from the Primaries and can be freely bought up from their base values.

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

Brick:


5e: 236
Decoupled: 358
EC: 285
Lim: 295

[...]

It seems that treating decoupled characteristics as ECs would help (although the brick is a hideously inefficient build). However, it complicates builds a great deal. Why should a normal human in a low-powered campaign need 3 ECs?
What it shows to me is that the argument that bricks get all the figured characteristics because energy blasters can get the same discount through an EC is bogus. The current deal for figured characteristics from STR and CON is obviously a much better deal than an EC. And this is not even counting the fact that STR itself is a very efficient Multipower.

Thanks, you've just removed any doubts I had about bricks being much too cheap builds now.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

So can I stun him with a Dispel? At 3/die and only blocked by power defense, Stunning just became a whole lot easier! I guess an END Suppress will average a bit higher per AP, so maybe that's a better choice.

Don't forget that 1) you can only be Stunned by excess STUN after defenses and 2) I would assume that Dispel would have to actually work and have excess points to Stun an opponent


If he is at -15 STUN, when does he get his next recovery? Does this impact all levels of the chart (ie the higher your CON, the longer it takes before you need a whole turn to recover, in which case fights go on a lot longer) or just whether you remain aware of your surroundings? In many cases, I'd rather be at -11 and fall over since that makes it less tempting to take another shot at me.

Actually you just gave me a better idea: CON moves REC up the Time Chart.

For Example:
0- -10 STUN: Recover every Phase
-11-20 STUN: Recover Post Segment 12 only
-21-30 STUN: Recover every Minute

Basically, you subtract CON-10 (since the first 10 is already accounted for) from such totals to determine when such REC periods begin for the PC.

Like if a PC has 20 CON, his situation would be:
0- -20 STUN: Recover every Phase
-21-30 STUN: Recover Post Segment 12 only
-31-40 STUN: Recover every Minute

What about odd totals like maybe, oh, 32?
0- -32 STUN: Recover every Phase
-33-42 STUN: Recover Post Segment 12 only
-43-52 STUN: Recover every Minute

and so on.

[Hugh Neilson]

I have suggested that rather than decoupling figureds, we let them become fixed at their figured values (i.e., no buying them up or down). That would make sense if they are supposed to be 'proper' values derived from the primary characteristics.

Having the secondary characteristics both figured from a formula and something you can buy is a strange neither/nor solution that makes very little sense except as a historical artifact.

Or if you think the system should be flexible. We just end up with talents/limited stats under your model anyway ["Untiring - +10 CON, only for END"]

Either we should aim for flexible secondary characteristics, in which case having a calculated base both reduces flexibility (e.g. you can only buy one down)

This is not an essential component of Figured's. My "fix the costs" model would allow for as many buy-downs as you want.

and adds complexity (why bother claculating a base when you're not going to use it, anyway?)

Why have a base CV when you can modify it with skill levels and maneuver bonuses, then? Having a base provides a starting point. By the same logic, why bother having a base for primary characteristics? We don't typically leave stats there. It's not even human normal (that's all 8's).

Or we should aim for a 'proper' connection between primaries and secondaries: A character with so-and-so CON should have so-and-so STUN and EBD, etc. In this case it doesn't make sense that you can buy a secondary characteristic to 'unproper' values.

Probably shouldn't allow Hand Attacks either, then - these are just modifying your damage to "unproper" values. I guess skill levels should go as well, since they modify CV's and skill rolls to "unproper" values.

What it shows to me is that the argument that bricks get all the figured characteristics because energy blasters can get the same discount through an EC is bogus.

Of course, energy projectors can have more than three abilities in an EC, and most characters don't spend as much on PD or STUN as they do on STR, nor as much on ED and END as they do on CON. Nor can most Bricks leverage their primary attack into a series of attacks with varying advantages for a 20% added expenditure, plus 10% for each modified attack beyond the first (Bricks can have multipowers, but they can't use them as efficiently).

And other characters also benefit from those DEX/SPD and CON figured's.

Many of us have not found Bricks "much too cheap" as they do not dominate our games.

[Hugh Neilson]

Don't forget that 1) you can only be Stunned by excess STUN after defenses and 2) I would assume that Dispel would have to actually work and have excess points to Stun an opponent

That's not consistent with your Transform or Flash examples.

Actually you just gave me a better idea: CON moves REC up the Time Chart.

For Example:
0- -10 STUN: Recover every Phase
-11-20 STUN: Recover Post Segment 12 only
-21-30 STUN: Recover every Minute

Basically, you subtract CON-10 (since the first 10 is already accounted for) from such totals to determine when such REC periods begin for the PC.

Like if a PC has 20 CON, his situation would be:
0- -20 STUN: Recover every Phase
-21-30 STUN: Recover Post Segment 12 only
-31-40 STUN: Recover every Minute

What about odd totals like maybe, oh, 32?
0- -32 STUN: Recover every Phase
-33-42 STUN: Recover Post Segment 12 only
-43-52 STUN: Recover every Minute

and so on.

While this is not wholly unappealing, it will make combat extend much longer and/or require "heros" to pound downed opponents to keep them down (more than is presently the case). The latter may be mitigated by the characters still at REC/phase technically still standing, though - "only fall down when at REC per turn" better simulates the source anyway, IMO.

[IndianaJoe3]

Thanks, you've just removed any doubts I had about bricks being much too cheap builds now.

Actually, building that brick with ECs is so inefficient that it actually costs more than a brick with an EC with better stats. But with Figured Characteristics, you can't shift points around like you can in an EC.

I played around with the brick, BTW. Using ECs, I could bump his PD up to 50, his ED to 38, and his END to 76 for one more point. That's 30 points worth of inefficiency. :eek:

[PhilFleischmann]

For the benefit of a new forum member: what benefits?

I am not getting the feeling from any of my campaigns that Bricks are over powered or under costed. A little imagination with the frameworks and characters with ECs or MPs are every bit as flexible as characters built on STR.
I find that bricks are over powered (sometimes), but I agree with you that there is no real benefit to decoupling figured characteristics. It would be much simpler to just fix the costs (my solution is STR should cost 2 - and that's it).

More math? Less math? I don't see how it makes any difference. Powers would still be costed at Base x (1 + Advantages) / (1 + Limitations), and all the additional calculations you have to do for frameworks. Figured Characteristics are the least of it.

If HERO math is too tough for you, here's the simple solution: wait until you've passed 6th grade math before playing HERO, or have someone who has passed 6th grade math help you. And if you want, buy a cheap four-function calculator, or use the one on your cell phone/watch/computer.

It seems to me that many people are choosing the most complicated solution possible to the problem. Rather than changing the whole structure of figured chars so that the "can only buy one down" rule doesn't restrict flexibility, why not just fix the costs and get rid of the "can only buy one down" rule? Get rid of the thing that's the problem - don't make everything that works change to accommodate the problem.

As I've said before, my preferred solution is to increase the cost of STR to 2 (and remove the HA lim from HA, etc.) The second best solution, IMO, is Hugh's suggestion of reducing the cost of STUN, END, and REC. The third best solution, IMO, is to keep characteristics the same as they are now. All other proposals I've seen so far would make the system worse, IMO.

(Oh, and remove the Leaping from STR, too, but that seems to be something just about everyone agrees on.)

[James Gillen]

Since analogies have been drawn between Figured Characteristics and Elemental Controls, I decided to see how close they actually were. I revised Steve's sample characters from the start of this thread, placing some Characteristics in ECs. (I know that would normally require GM permission.) I created three ECs, derived from current relationships between Primary and Figured Characteristics:


Muscle: STR, PD, STUN
Health: CON, ED, REC, END
Reflexes: DEX, SPD

Since the idea of replacing ECs with a -1/4 Limitation has been floated, I also ran those numbers.

Brick:


5e: 236
Decoupled: 358
EC: 285
Lim: 295

Martial Artist:


5e: 161
Decoupled: 213
EC: 164
Lim: 178

Randall Irons


5e: 91
Decoupled: 122
EC: 105
Lim: 103

It seems that treating decoupled characteristics as ECs would help (although the brick is a hideously inefficient build). However, it complicates builds a great deal. Why should a normal human in a low-powered campaign need 3 ECs?

That's what *I'M* asking.

jg

[Vulcan]

I have suggested that rather than decoupling figureds, we let them become fixed at their figured values (i.e., no buying them up or down). That would make sense if they are supposed to be 'proper' values derived from the primary characteristics.

Having the secondary characteristics both figured from a formula and something you can buy is a strange neither/nor solution that makes very little sense except as a historical artifact.

Either we should aim for flexible secondary characteristics, in which case having a calculated base both reduces flexibility (e.g. you can only buy one down) and adds complexity (why bother claculating a base when you're not going to use it, anyway?)

Or we should aim for a 'proper' connection between primaries and secondaries: A character with so-and-so CON should have so-and-so STUN and EBD, etc. In this case it doesn't make sense that you can buy a secondary characteristic to 'unproper' values.

My recent suggestion for a characteristics set actually does both of these: Primary Characteristics have bonuses, which can't be bought up or down seperately, that are used for things like base CV, REC, and skill bonuses. The remaining seconday characteristics OTOH are entirely decoupled from the Primaries and can be freely bought up from their base values.

- Klaus

No altering secondary characteristics, eh? So if my 15 STR 25 CON Energy Projector (with a 70 AP E-blast and 50 AP of FF) wants more than 8 REC and 50 END so I can participate in the second turn of combat I'm $#!t outa luck? My DEX 29 Martial Artist has the same SPD as a DEX 20 Megablaster? My density increase brick cannot buy his STUN up to bricklike levels? Not a good idea, in my opinion. Severely cuts down on the viability of various character concepts.

You wind up with all characters looking pretty much the same as the best ways to metagame the system (I predict END Reserves making a HUGE comeback under your system) to try and recapture the 5E flexibility that is lost in a 'fixed secondaries' system.

Decoupled or not, one needs to at the very least buy secondary characteristics up from base. Otherwise, well, it looses too much flexibility to be considered 'the ultimate gamer's toolkit.'

It will also loose me as a customer.

[Vulcan]

It would be much simpler to just fix the costs (my solution is STR should cost 2 - and that's it).

Simplest solution, sure - except that it kills bricks in a AP cap game. And it introduces a big variable into the calculation of damage classes...

I think decoupling figured charateristics off STR and onto BODY (and to a lesser extent CON) on top of decoupling leaping, and STR is fine at 1 point per. And that way the AP caps/Damage class rules won't need a major revision.

PD = BODY/5
REC = CON/5 + BODY/5
STUN = CON + BODY

CON might have to come up to 3 point per in this case, though.

As an alternative, perhaps STUN = BODY x 2?

These aren't new suggestions, they've been floating around this thread for a while and they just kinda get ignored. I'm curious as to what the problem with them is? (aside from 'it still uses figured characteristics!')

[Klaus Mogensen]

Why have a base CV when you can modify it with skill levels and maneuver bonuses, then?
[...]
Probably shouldn't allow Hand Attacks either, then - these are just modifying your damage to "unproper" values. I guess skill levels should go as well, since they modify CV's and skill rolls to "unproper" values.
Combat skill levels aren't the same as base CV - they are more flexible, but also more limited. So it's not the same thing you buy up. Similarly with HA, which is a very limited form of STR (can't lift, throw or leap, etc.).

What I oppose is having two ways of buying exactly the same thing, since this leads to two costs of getting the same thing.

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

Nor can most Bricks leverage their primary attack into a series of attacks with varying advantages for a 20% added expenditure, plus 10% for each modified attack beyond the first.
Very true - for bricks, the series of attacks with varying advantages costs +0%.

Bricks can punch, throw, squeeze, leap, hold, add velocity to their damage, add their STR to killing attacks, and brace against knockback (probably plus a few things I can't think of offhand).

STR is by far the most versatile trait in Hero, and dirt cheap to boot! In fact so cheap that it has a negative cost (characters with high STR are less expensive than otherwise identical characters with low STR).

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

No altering secondary characteristics, eh? So if my 15 STR 25 CON Energy Projector (with a 70 AP E-blast and 50 AP of FF) wants more than 8 REC and 50 END so I can participate in the second turn of combat I'm $#!t outa luck? My DEX 29 Martial Artist has the same SPD as a DEX 20 Megablaster? My density increase brick cannot buy his STUN up to bricklike levels? Not a good idea, in my opinion. Severely cuts down on the viability of various character concepts.
If you'd actually read my proposal for characteristics, you would note that you can buy SPD, STUN and END (and PD, ED, BODY) up freely.

Also, by that proposal, your Energy Projector above would have REC 10. This is comparable to the BBB sample energy projectors Starburst (STR 15, CON 25, REC 9), Pulsar (STR 15, CON 23, REC 10), Quantum (STR 23, CON 23, REC 10) and Howler (STR 13, CON 23, REC 10). From this, I would say I have got it very right.

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

Simplest solution, sure - except that it kills bricks in a AP cap game. And it introduces a big variable into the calculation of damage classes...
It would be simple enough to say that the value of STR, rather than its cost, counts towards AP caps.

I think decoupling figured charateristics off STR and onto BODY (and to a lesser extent CON) on top of decoupling leaping, and STR is fine at 1 point per. And that way the AP caps/Damage class rules won't need a major revision.

PD = BODY/5
REC = CON/5 + BODY/5
STUN = CON + BODY

CON might have to come up to 3 point per in this case, though.

As an alternative, perhaps STUN = BODY x 2?

These aren't new suggestions, they've been floating around this thread for a while and they just kinda get ignored. I'm curious as to what the problem with them is? (aside from 'it still uses figured characteristics!')
I don't think they have been ignored, and they are certainly better than the current mess. However, it doesn't fix one of the main problems with figureds: how they are affected by adjustment powers.

As you say, CON needs to be bumped to 3. This suddenly makes CON much more expensive to drain and boost - but drains and boosts don't affect the figured characteristics that make CON so expensive. And if they did, then it would be a mathematical mess to sort the effects out as CON waxes and vanes.

Another thing I consider unfair with figured characteristics: Physical characteristics provide all sorts of free bonuses to figured characteristics, but mental characteristics provide nothing like it (unless you count EGO's contribution to mental defense). This severely handicaps character concepts based on mental characteristics over those based on physical characteristics. Decoupling figureds will level the playing field.

- Klaus

[Doc Democracy]

In my experience, many players now keep the REC, STUN and END granted by their stats.

I see this argument all the time. I wonder whether these are magically suitable for so many people or is it that the figured stats granted by the primaries are so generous that so few people feel the need to buy them up further?

I see people buying primaries to the point that all of the figureds are as high as they want or where they feel able to sell back one figured and recoup some cost.

My problem with STR is that it is too good a bennie not to use if you want PD. REC and STUN - you get all the benefits of that extra wee bit of STR as well - casual STR to break free from grabs, bursting out of entangles, lifting, leaping etc.

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Decoupled or not, one needs to at the very least buy secondary characteristics up from base. Otherwise, well, it looses too much flexibility to be considered 'the ultimate gamer's toolkit.'

So we should also be able to buy up base CV - whether you call it derived characteristic or figured characteristic - it is currently an element of the character that you cannot buy up seperate from buying DEX at a fixed rate.


Doc

[Markdoc]

Simplest solution, sure - except that it kills bricks in a AP cap game. And it introduces a big variable into the calculation of damage classes...

Sure, but the fixes are super-easy. STR gives 1 DC per 5 points. Use that for your AP. Done.

cheers, Mark

[Talon]

I see people keeping STUN at it's base value all the time; I think STUN is overpriced at 1 pt, so there's not a big incentive to improve it.

PD, ED, and SPD get bought up almost invariably in superhero games, and usually in heroic games.

REC and END get bought up less often -- or one of the two gets bought down for characters with 0 END powers or END batteries.

So my experience is that figured stats get altered from the starting values more often than not, STUN being the least often changed.

[JmOz]

nevermind, Klaus hit a sore point with me (No such thing as negative points, sorry, don't exist in the system unless you consider disadvantages a negative point), I am deleting the rant as it was more venomous than it should have been

Self moderation, it is a important skill everyone should learn

[Hugh Neilson]

Very true - for bricks, the series of attacks with varying advantages costs +0%.

Bricks can punch, throw,

A Throw cannot be directed at a second target without taking an extra phase and requires a penalty to both OCV and DCV.

squeeze, hold

Again, requires that Grab first, penalizing OCV and DCV. And doing damage again on a subsequenbt phase requires another roll to hit.

leap, add velocity to their damage

These seem to link, and I believe a consensus to de-link Leap is pretty clear, something I'm in favour of. Velocity damage also imposes penalties to CV's.

add their STR to killing attacks

I'm in favour of removal of that link as well, a much less popular stance.

and brace against knockback

Like Flight does! Both require a half phase and, IIRC, a DCV modifier.

STR is by far the most versatile trait in Hero, and dirt cheap to boot! In fact so cheap that it has a negative cost (characters with high STR are less expensive than otherwise identical characters with low STR).

Only if the low STR characters would buy up the Figured's otherwise, and I'm also on record believing the cost of those Figured's should be adjusted.

And I don't see Bricks dominating my games now.

Of course, Bricks cannot strike easily at range (absent a generous, inordinately in my view, GM). They cannot sacrifice some damage to increase their OCV (very handy against high DCV, low Defense martial artists and speedsters) or hit multiple targets. Note that, in 5e (IIRC you only have access to 4e), most attacks can be spread, but STR cannot.

[PhilFleischmann]

Simplest solution, sure - except that it kills bricks in a AP cap game.
Simplest solution: get rid of AP caps, or at the very least, use AP cap rules that make more sense. Maybe use DC caps instead.

And it introduces a big variable into the calculation of damage classes...
No it doesn't. Each d6 of normal damage is still one DC. And you still modify them by Advantages as you do now. Mr. Brickles does 12d6 normal HtH damage with his STR, that's 12 DC.

[Hugh Neilson]

It would be simple enough to say that the value of STR, rather than its cost, counts towards AP caps.

So we "simplify" by making every other power have AP = actual active points, but for STR, we use the stat, not the Active Points. Does CON could its AP or its value? What about DEX? END? END Batteries?

Now, the obvious answer is to ditch AP caps in favour of something else. I don't use AP caps myself. But a lot of Hero gamer DO use AP caps, and they must, I assume, derive some value from them. So messing up AP is an issue.

So we should also be able to buy up base CV - whether you call it derived characteristic or figured characteristic - it is currently an element of the character that you cannot buy up seperate from buying DEX at a fixed rate.

Yes, we absolutely should. OCV and DCV are a figured characteristics in all but name -so fix the name!

No it doesn't. Each d6 of normal damage is still one DC. And you still modify them by Advantages as you do now. Mr. Brickles does 12d6 normal HtH damage with his STR, that's 12 DC.

And 1d6 normal damage is 5 AP [5er p 403] Powers such as Drains and NND's, which cost 10 AP per d6 have ther own separate column.

[PhilFleischmann]

And 1d6 normal damage is 5 AP [5er p 403] Powers such as Drains and NND's, which cost 10 AP per d6 have ther own separate column.
Yeah, so?

[Vulcan]

If you'd actually read my proposal for characteristics, you would note that you can buy SPD, STUN and END (and PD, ED, BODY) up freely.

So I misinterpreted you from post 3258 when you said, "I have suggested that rather than decoupling figureds, we let them become fixed at their figured values (i.e., no buying them up or down). That would make sense if they are supposed to be 'proper' values derived from the primary characteristics." ?

Also, by that proposal, your Energy Projector above would have REC 10.

15 STR, 25 CON. Let's do the math.

REC = STR/5 + CON/5
= (15/5) + (25/5)
= (3) + (5)
=8 by my math.

Unless both of these points are referring to a far previous post, rather than the immediate one that I was quoting, in which case all bets are off.

This is comparable to the BBB sample energy projectors Starburst (STR 15, CON 25, REC 9), Pulsar (STR 15, CON 23, REC 10), Quantum (STR 23, CON 23, REC 10) and Howler (STR 13, CON 23, REC 10). From this, I would say I have got it very right.

- Klaus

Maybe if the GM only ever uses stock villians. Our GM uses a lot of custom villians, and our battles routinely last 2-3 turns. 8 REC and 50 END on a character that spends 48-60 END a turn just isn't enough, sorry. It'd be more than worthwhile to buy less STR and CON and spend the points on a BIG END Reserve, and a bigger Force Field.

It also does not address the issue of 'high-SPD' characters, or Power-build bricks vs. raw STR-build bricks.

So 'locking' secondary characteristics is not a viable option in my opinion. it dramatically reduces the flexibility of the system, and for this HEROS fan, that's a bad thing.

[Klaus Mogensen]

So I misinterpreted you from post 3258 when you said, "I have suggested that rather than decoupling figureds, we let them become fixed at their figured values (i.e., no buying them up or down). That would make sense if they are supposed to be 'proper' values derived from the primary characteristics." ?
Not really. However, I have also suggested that BODY, STUN, and END be termed "variable characteristics", which are bought up from an unfigured base.

Unless both of these points are referring to a far previous post, rather than the immediate one that I was quoting, in which case all bets are off.
They do - this post (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1682344&postcount=3195), where I suggest that primary characteristics have bonuses = CHA/2½ and that CON bonus is used for recovery (~ REC).

So 'locking' secondary characteristics is not a viable option in my opinion. it dramatically reduces the flexibility of the system, and for this HEROS fan, that's a bad thing.
In my proposal, only a few derived stats like recovery, characteristic rolls and CV would be 'locked' (the way characteristic rolls and CV are now). In my proposal, there should also be Talents available that allow recovering END, BODY and STUN faster seperately (like how you can buy combat skill levels for OCV and DCV seperately). This will in fact increase the flexibility of the system, not decrease it.

- Klaus

[Doc Democracy]

This will in fact increase the flexibility of the system, not decrease it.

Increase flexibility AND complexity.

Now for experienced HERO players the level of added complexity is nothing. For a new player it adds the already huge number of things to think about. All of those things - simple in themsleves add to the opaqueness of the system for those who do not know it.

There are a number of people that I play with who are not put off by the complexity of the system, they are put off by the sheer amount of work they have to put into the system to understand it. They decide to go and play another game.

They have enjoyed playing 4th Edition D&D - it provides a pretty different gaming experience straight out of the box even though it is complex. HERO does not provide the gameplay straight out of the box and is indeed far better after the GM has put some effort in to make it a well-defined gaming environment for his game.

So I dont think these are bad ideas......for experienced HERO gamers. They are not what I would want virgin HERO gamers to encounter. Possibly for the HERO Mechanics Toolbox that is printed another time for those who want some alternatives laid out for them.


Doc

[Klaus Mogensen]

Increase flexibility AND complexity.

Now for experienced HERO players the level of added complexity is nothing. For a new player it adds the already huge number of things to think about. All of those things - simple in themsleves add to the opaqueness of the system for those who do not know it.

There are a number of people that I play with who are not put off by the complexity of the system, they are put off by the sheer amount of work they have to put into the system to understand it. They decide to go and play another game.

They have enjoyed playing 4th Edition D&D - it provides a pretty different gaming experience straight out of the box even though it is complex. HERO does not provide the gameplay straight out of the box and is indeed far better after the GM has put some effort in to make it a well-defined gaming environment for his game.

So I dont think these are bad ideas......for experienced HERO gamers. They are not what I would want virgin HERO gamers to encounter. Possibly for the HERO Mechanics Toolbox that is printed another time for those who want some alternatives laid out for them.
I understand your concerns, but don't share them.

My proposal creates a simpler 'basic' Hero which is fully playable. I think most players will be happy with the fixed bonus-derived stats, just as most players now are happy with the initiative they get from DEX. If they e.g. want faster recovery of STUN, the Talents for that is there, just like the Talent for Improved Initiative is.

To continue your D&D comparison, Talents are like D&D feats: Players don't have to know the lists by heart, and characters without any feats are fully playable. However, they can find a suitable feat if they are unhappy with their characters' basic stats like initiative and saves.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

No it doesn't. Each d6 of normal damage is still one DC. And you still modify them by Advantages as you do now. Mr. Brickles does 12d6 normal HtH damage with his STR, that's 12 DC.

And 1d6 normal damage is 5 AP [5er p 403] Powers such as Drains and NND's, which cost 10 AP per d6 have ther own separate column.

Yeah, so?

So STR damage is now 10 AP per 1d6, which implies it is no longer 1 DC per 1 d6. Now, intuitively, normal damage is 1d6 = 1 DC, but from the perspective of a new player, do they look at the "normal damage, 5 AP" column because STR does normal damage, even if 1d6 costs 10 points, or do they look at the "10 AP for 1d6" column because 1d6 damage for STR costs 10 AP?

You and I know the answer, because we're deciding STR will be an exception, but there will likely be misinterpretation in the book. Or we need a section chart for "exception: STR works like this because it's twice as many AP for the same DC level; he's a chart with STR, STR with +1 advantages; STR with +2 advantages. And just to save time, here's the web address of the Rules FAQ pointed to the section on DC's from STR."

[The Main Man]

That's not consistent with your Transform or Flash examples.
Transform is cumulative but Dispel is not.

A Transform may not initially succeed, but the damage is still there.

Dispel must work with a single attack unless it is bought with Cumulative where your concern might be valid.

Flashes are BODY-based, so if an opponent takes more Flash damage than they have CON, that can be pretty impressive.


While this is not wholly unappealing, it will make combat extend much longer and/or require "heros" to pound downed opponents to keep them down (more than is presently the case). The latter may be mitigated by the characters still at REC/phase technically still standing, though - "only fall down when at REC per turn" better simulates the source anyway, IMO.
I think I can generally agree on both points.

I think that such an added function further enforces that CON means toughness.

[PhilFleischmann]

So STR damage is now 10 AP per 1d6, which implies it is no longer 1 DC per 1 d6.
I don't see how it implies that. There are many existing power constructs that don't fit the 5 AP = 1 DC mode. Many of these use Advantages that don't alter the damage of the attack (or the way the target takes the damage), such as: Affects Desolid, APW, AoE, Charges, Damage Shield, Delayed Effect, Difficult to Dispel, Duration Advantages, Explosion, Hole in the Middle, Indirect, IPE, MegaScale, Personal Immunity, Range Advantages, Range, Reduced END, Sticky, Time Delay, Transdimensional, Trigger, Uncontrolled, UBO, Variable SFX, and maybe others.

Now, intuitively, normal damage is 1d6 = 1 DC, but from the perspective of a new player, do they look at the "normal damage, 5 AP" column because STR does normal damage, even if 1d6 costs 10 points, or do they look at the "10 AP for 1d6" column because 1d6 damage for STR costs 10 AP?
It depends on whether they're capable of using common sense or not.

You and I know the answer, because we're deciding STR will be an exception, but there will likely be misinterpretation in the book.
If you and I know the answer, I believe others are capable of learning it as well. It's not brain surgery.

[The Main Man]

Well, while we're bucking traditions why not redefine Damage Classes' and Active Points' places in the HERO system?

[James Gillen]

Well, while we're bucking traditions why not redefine Damage Classes' and Active Points' places in the HERO system?

OK, how?

jg

[The Main Man]

I dunno.

I was kinda hoping that I was socking it to someone else. :o

[Netzilla]

Quick, off-the-cuff attempt to re-define Damage Classes:

Damage applies to a Common Defense (PD, ED, rPD, rED): 1d6 = 1DC (note: this assumes a change to Killing Attacks so that they are an Advantage on Normal Attacks rather than a completely separate mechanic)

Damage applies to an Uncommon Defense (Flash Defense, Mental Defense, Holding Breath, Hardened Defense): 1d6 = 2DC

Damage applies to a Rare Defense (Power Defense, Force Field, Force Wall): 1d6 = 3DC

Damage applies to an Extremely Rare Defense (Questionite, Unubtanium): 1d6 = 4DC

Different campaigns can define what constitutes Common, Uncommon, Rare and Extremely Rare defenses. For example, a Medieval Fantasy campaign might declare Energy Defense to be Uncommon or Rare.

Advantages like Armor Piercing, Penetrating and several forms of Indirect would bump your attack up a category.

This would also dove-tail into other folks suggestions about changing the Defense of an attack up or down the rarity scale determining the value of NND or AVLD.

[The Main Man]

Perhaps Damage Classes should be abstracted from Active Points (you didn't once mention them after all) and that might help clear up recosting STR.

[Netzilla]

Perhaps Damage Classes should be abstracted from Active Points (you didn't once mention them after all) and that might help clear up recosting STR.

Assuming your replying to me: In the off-the-cuff model I gave, Active Points don't directly relate to Damage Class at all. I don't really view the two as being directly related now as several Advantages don't change the Damage Class currently.

Also, I'm one of those people who view Active Points as a minor first step in balancing powers and no where near being an absolute balancing agent.

[Hugh Neilson]

I don't see how it implies that. There are many existing power constructs that don't fit the 5 AP = 1 DC mode. Many of these use Advantages that don't alter the damage of the attack (or the way the target takes the damage), such as: Affects Desolid, APW, AoE, Charges, Damage Shield, Delayed Effect, Difficult to Dispel, Duration Advantages, Explosion, Hole in the Middle, Indirect, IPE, MegaScale, Personal Immunity, Range Advantages, Range, Reduced END, Sticky, Time Delay, Transdimensional, Trigger, Uncontrolled, UBO, Variable SFX, and maybe others.

Emphasis added. All of these modify a base power from its 5 AP = 1 DC base. None reflect the base power.

It depends on whether they're capable of using common sense or not.

Way to encourage new players!

If you and I know the answer, I believe others are capable of learning it as well. It's not brain surgery.

The fact that it can be understood does not make adding complexity a good idea. It's one more blip in the system for new players, so I don't think the issue should simply be brushed off. It merits consideration. As many Hero gamers DO use AP limits (I know you place no real value on AP, but many players do), and many more use DC's and don't need it complicated with halving the DC's STR's point costing should lead to before applying any advantages that impact DC's.

[The Main Man]

Assuming your replying to me: In the off-the-cuff model I gave, Active Points don't directly relate to Damage Class at all. I don't really view the two as being directly related now as several Advantages don't change the Damage Class currently.

Also, I'm one of those people who view Active Points as a minor first step in balancing powers and no where near being an absolute balancing agent.
Fair enough but the long held belief is that 5pts always = 1 DC which does involve Active Points.

[Hugh Neilson]

Quick, off-the-cuff attempt to re-define Damage Classes:

Damage applies to a Common Defense (PD, ED, rPD, rED): 1d6 = 1DC (note: this assumes a change to Killing Attacks so that they are an Advantage on Normal Attacks rather than a completely separate mechanic)

If Killing is an advantage on normal attacks, won't it be more than 1 DC per d6? Maybe we should leave rDEF off the list for now.

Damage applies to an Uncommon Defense (Flash Defense, Mental Defense, Holding Breath, Hardened Defense): 1d6 = 2DC

Damage applies to a Rare Defense (Power Defense, Force Field, Force Wall): 1d6 = 3DC

This is a pretty arbitrary definition of "rare" and "uncommon". I suspect many games have force fields more often than mental or flash defense, and I view Flash, Power and Mental defense as about equally common. Force Walls are much less frequent.

And what about resistant special defenses (ditch 'em, in my view) and unusual flash defenses?

Damage applies to an Extremely Rare Defense (Questionite, Unubtanium): 1d6 = 4DC

Different campaigns can define what constitutes Common, Uncommon, Rare and Extremely Rare defenses. For example, a Medieval Fantasy campaign might declare Energy Defense to be Uncommon or Rare.

This makes it tough to have universal pricing, but that tradeoff's not unique to this issue.

Advantages like Armor Piercing, Penetrating and several forms of Indirect would bump your attack up a category.

So acting against Hardened defenses moves you up a category and having an advantage that is resisted by Hardened defenses also moves you up a category? Well, that's for fine tuning anyway.

This would also dove-tail into other folks suggestions about changing the Defense of an attack up or down the rarity scale determining the value of NND or AVLD.

Your scaling doesn't seem to differentiate between all or nothing (NND) and reduced by the defense (AVLD). Should it?

[AnotherSkip]

Perhaps Str Should be 2pts/die AND Hand Attack/ No figured characteristics should be at -1. thus if YOUR brick wants to spend 50 pts on str and get +25 pts in figureds he gets what he pays for. if he wants an 11d6 attack he buys 10 STR + HA/no figureds and weebles wooble from there.....

[Vulcan]

I don't see how it implies that. There are many existing power constructs that don't fit the 5 AP = 1 DC mode. Many of these use Advantages that don't alter the damage of the attack (or the way the target takes the damage), such as: Affects Desolid, APW, AoE, Charges, Damage Shield, Delayed Effect, Difficult to Dispel, Duration Advantages, Explosion, Hole in the Middle, Indirect, IPE, MegaScale, Personal Immunity, Range Advantages, Range, Reduced END, Sticky, Time Delay, Transdimensional, Trigger, Uncontrolled, UBO, Variable SFX, and maybe others.


It depends on whether they're capable of using common sense or not.


If you and I know the answer, I believe others are capable of learning it as well. It's not brain surgery.

The problem is that 1 DC = 5 AP of attack power, not 1d6 of attack power. So (to take an example from your list) 1d6 AEH is 2 damage clases, not 1. This is important in cases where extra damage classes are being added (say, from a haymaker). A haymakered AEH attack only gains two dice, not four.

So if STR costs 2 points per, it throws the whole damage class rule out of whack. Would haymakers still add 4 dice to STR, or only 2 because STR costs two? And if it adds 4 dice to STR, then why not to AEH Energy blasts, since the AP cost is the same?

You see where that goes.

Not to mention 2 pt. STR would cripple bricks in a strict AP limit game (which will happen with some GM's, don't think it won't; they may be wrong but they'll still do it - and then argue that the new rules are broken).

As far as common sense goes, I've noticed that RPG's attact a certain category of players - and even GM's - called 'rules lawyers.' These players will bend any rule to the breaking point in the name of 'strict interpretation' (by which they mean their interpretation of the rules).

[Netzilla]

Fair enough but the long held belief is that 5pts always = 1 DC which does involve Active Points.

Sure, I understand that people hold that belief, but I don't view it as accurate. I also realize that the book currently defines one Damage Class as being Active Points / 5, but there are so many exceptions to this rule that it's actually more confusing to define it that way (look at how many people argue over which Advantages should or shouldn't count). The sidebar on H5ER pg 404 is all about exactly which Advantages are supposed to affect Damage Class and which aren't and basically waves it off as a 'GM Judgement' issue. It seems better to just divorce DC from Active Points entirely and simply base Damage Classes on how hard that damage is to stop.

[Netzilla]

If Killing is an advantage on normal attacks, won't it be more than 1 DC per d6? Maybe we should leave rDEF off the list for now.

Maybe. Depends too much on the specifics of how Killing Attacks end up being represented in 6e to lock it down.

This is a pretty arbitrary definition of "rare" and "uncommon". I suspect many games have force fields more often than mental or flash defense, and I view Flash, Power and Mental defense as about equally common. Force Walls are much less frequent.

Remember, this was a quick, off-the-cuff idea, not a fully fleshed-out rule. Getting too hung up about which defenses go where is pointless at this stage.

And what about resistant special defenses (ditch 'em, in my view) and unusual flash defenses?

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of resistant special defenses either. I've actually never seen anyone buy them in our home game nor in any of the con games I've played in. I also can't think of any published characters with them off hand.

This makes it tough to have universal pricing, but that tradeoff's not unique to this issue.

Sure, but that's the case for several things in 5th edition right now: NND/AVLD defenses, attacks that effect Desolid, Limited Power, and plenty of others. Even the Everyman Skill List varies from campaign to campaign. I don't view this as being any different. The book just continues to do what it's always done in all of these cases, give an example list or two and note that GMs will want to adjust this as fits their campaign. Heck, that's pretty much what the side bar on 5ER pg 404 does now for which Advantages impact Damage Class.

So acting against Hardened defenses moves you up a category and having an advantage that is resisted by Hardened defenses also moves you up a category? Well, that's for fine tuning anyway.

Not clear in my post, but I meant for 'Only Stopped by Hardened Defense' (NND/AVLD) to be separate having the Armor Piercing/Penetrating Advantage applied. After all, normal defenses will stop an Armor Piercing attack, just not as effectively as hardened.

Your scaling doesn't seem to differentiate between all or nothing (NND) and reduced by the defense (AVLD). Should it?

Possibly. I haven't thought that far into it.

[Netzilla]

The problem is that 1 DC = 5 AP of attack power, not 1d6 of attack power.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. If you check the side bar on 5ER pg 404, there's a distinct list of Advantages that affect Damage Class. From my reading of the rules for Damage Classes on pgs 403-404, you determine the Active Points per DC of the Base Power (EB & Flash are 5 per, Ego Blast is 10 per, Killing is 15 per) and that determines your base AP per DC. Then you check the sidebar on pg 404 to see which apply and modify the AP per DC from there. So, it's not simply the Active Points of the Power as a whole. So, an EB with Armor Piercing is 7.5 AP per DC, but an EB with 0 END is still only 5 per DC.

[PhilFleischmann]

Emphasis added. All of these modify a base power from its 5 AP = 1 DC base. None reflect the base power.
So what? They all affect the AP, but not the DC.

Way to encourage new players!
I am. If they're choosing HERO, I think it can be assumed they do have a modicum of common sense. They can learn to use the system just as you or I did. Unless you think that current players of HERO, such as you and I, are especially brilliant, and everyone who doesn't yet play HERO is an idiot.

The fact that it can be understood does not make adding complexity a good idea.
I agree, but I don't think that's what I'm doing. I'd say that I'm removing complexity.

It's one more blip in the system for new players, so I don't think the issue should simply be brushed off. It merits consideration. As many Hero gamers DO use AP limits
Well, they may need to stop in 6E, and the rulebook can give them that advice.

(I know you place no real value on AP
Stop saying this. It isn't true. I've told you several times now. You're really starting to piss me off!

and many more use DC's and don't need it complicated with halving the DC's STR's point costing should lead to before applying any advantages that impact DC's.
It certainly doesn't make it any more complicated than it is now. The idea is actually quite simple, and it can be spelled out quite easily in 6E. DC is a measure of the amount of damage that gets to the target.

[PhilFleischmann]

Perhaps Str Should be 2pts/die AND Hand Attack/ No figured characteristics should be at -1. thus if YOUR brick wants to spend 50 pts on str and get +25 pts in figureds he gets what he pays for. if he wants an 11d6 attack he buys 10 STR + HA/no figureds and weebles wooble from there.....
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. The "standard" STR-for-2 proposal includes removing the -1/2 limitation from HA, so that it costs a flat 5 points per d6, making it more consistant with killing attacks: for 5 points per d6, you can have either Range, or STR Adds. (Also, extra DCs for MAs would probably go up to 6 points, but that's a separate discussion.)

A brick who wants a 12d6 punch can buy any combination of STR and HA. The more STR (and less HA) he buys, the more extra stuff he gets with it: lifting, throwing, grabbing, figured chars, etc.

60 STR + 0 HA = 100 points = 12 DC
50 STR + 2d6 HA = 90 points = 12 DC
40 STR + 4d6 HA = 80 points = 12 DC
30 STR + 6d6 HA = 70 points = 12 DC
20 STR + 8d6 HA = 60 points = 12 DC
10 STR + 10d6 HA = 50 points = 12 DC

[PhilFleischmann]

The problem is that 1 DC = 5 AP of attack power, not 1d6 of attack power.
Actually, that turns out not to be the case, as I mentioned in my post. 12d6 EB, 1/2 END is 75 AP, but still 12 DC.

So (to take an example from your list) 1d6 AEH is 2 damage clases, not 1. This is important in cases where extra damage classes are being added (say, from a haymaker). A haymakered AEH attack only gains two dice, not four.
Eh? What's "AEH"? I assume you mean AoE. A 1d6 AoE (although in this case it would be a +1/2 for One Hex) would still be 1 DC, even though it's 7 (.5) AP.

So if STR costs 2 points per, it throws the whole damage class rule out of whack.
It was like that when I found it.

Would haymakers still add 4 dice to STR, or only 2 because STR costs two? And if it adds 4 dice to STR, then why not to AEH Energy blasts, since the AP cost is the same?

You see where that goes.
Where does it go? Common sense rules. As it should.

Not to mention 2 pt. STR would cripple bricks in a strict AP limit game (which will happen with some GM's, don't think it won't; they may be wrong but they'll still do it - and then argue that the new rules are broken).
Well, then they need to stop using strict AP limits. Toss out the rule that's broken, not the one that works.

As far as common sense goes, I've noticed that RPG's attact a certain category of players - and even GM's - called 'rules lawyers.' These players will bend any rule to the breaking point in the name of 'strict interpretation' (by which they mean their interpretation of the rules).
And what rule is being strictly interpreted here that is a problem? It's not strict AP caps - that isn't a rule. It's not the definition of DCs - there doesn't seem to be anything "strict" about it. These things can certainly be clarified in 6E.

[The Main Man]

I guess that the lesson here is that the core book is treated as gospel.

Then heretics come riding in and make a new edition.


Take that metaphor the way you want.

[Istaran]

<snip>
And I don't see Bricks dominating my games now.

Of course, Bricks cannot strike easily at range (absent a generous, inordinately in my view, GM). They cannot sacrifice some damage to increase their OCV (very handy against high DCV, low Defense martial artists and speedsters) or hit multiple targets. Note that, in 5e (IIRC you only have access to 4e), most attacks can be spread, but STR cannot.

I play a brick in my game. I have played from 110 CP to 250 CP without improving my offensive abilities and the rest of the party is just catching up. For 14-15 cp I could add 8 DCs to my main attack, since I can only use half my STR with it as is. (Only half of that damage increase is within the current DC cap.) But I'm trying to stop dominating. I'm looking foreward to an upcoming character rewrite opportunity so I can scale back my combat effectiveness and pick up some more fun toys instead.

I can hit a target 14" away quite easily in many cases: 1/2 phase (accurate) leap and then attack. I can fly to stay engaged with arial combatants, and I have buddies that can teleport me if that's needed to get me into position. So I haven't seen lack of range be an issue. More often I've seen the party's ranged attackers get hit by harsh range modifiers that I don't suffer.
I can sacrifice some OCV to increase my damage. It's like being able to sacrifice damage to increase my OCV. Thanks to CSLs I can hit very accurately, or slam in some extra damage.
I can sweep to hit multiple targets. My OCV is high and DCV negligible so it's mostly just the time cost that's a problem. (I could just pay 5 pts to fix that though.) Granted, if the targets are spread out I can't.

[The Main Man]

It sounds like DC caps should be far more important than AP caps.

[James Gillen]

i guess that the lesson here is that the core book is treated as gospel.

Then heretics come riding in and make a new edition.


Take that metaphor the way you want.

crucify him! Crucify him!!

[The Main Man]

Mr. Long may have to check his door for messages.

[Chris Goodwin]

Mr. Long may have to check his door for messages.

95 of them, with nails? :eek:

[Markdoc]

am. If they're choosing HERO, I think it can be assumed they do have a modicum of common sense. They can learn to use the system just as you or I did. Unless you think that current players of HERO, such as you and I, are especially brilliant, and everyone who doesn't yet play HERO is an idiot.

Yeah, well, we were taking that as a given.

cheers, Mark

[The Main Man]

95 of them, with nails? :eek:

Basically what Markdoc said but in response to your post. ;)

[Jagged]

The more I read the more I am convinced figured characteristics are best left alone. Maybe replacing STR with BODY in the calculations ... I don't know.
Anything else seems too drastic.

[Markdoc]

The more I read the more I am convinced figured characteristics are best left alone. Maybe replacing STR with BODY in the calculations ... I don't know.
Anything else seems too drastic.

I used to feel the same but have gone the other way, while reading the debate.

I'd like to see:
1) Figureds retained, for ease of use
2) The rule about "only buy down one figured" removed, so that people who wanted the flexibility of lowered figures could do that.

For #2 to work, a couple of primary characteristics would need to increase in price so that you couldn't break even or make a profit by selling all the figureds you derived back. That should give us maximum flexibility and maximum ease of use - plus removing some cheese from the system.

cheers, Mark

[Klaus Mogensen]

I'd like to see:
1) Figureds retained, for ease of use
2) The rule about "only buy down one figured" removed, so that people who wanted the flexibility of lowered figures could do that.

For #2 to work, a couple of primary characteristics would need to increase in price so that you couldn't break even or make a profit by selling all the figureds you derived back. That should give us maximum flexibility and maximum ease of use - plus removing some cheese from the system.
This still doesn't adress that adjustment powers affect characteristics differently depending on how many points worth of figured characteristics they provide. If the cost of STR e.g. is increased to 2, it becomes twice as hard to drain or aid - but since drains and aids don't affect figured characteristics, you don't drain twice the value.

If figured characteristics are to remain, then every single characteristic ought to provide the same fraction of its value to figureds. Otherwise, the characteristics will remain unequal, even if their costs as such balance.

I would like to see such a balanced set of characteristics, but I think it is simpler - and less radical - to simply decouple figureds.

- Klaus

[PhilFleischmann]

It sounds like DC caps should be far more important than AP caps.
Should be? It seems to me that they already are.

[The Main Man]

Should be? It seems to me that they already are.

I meant that it should probably be revised and reemphasized in 6e.

5pts = 1 DC seems to be more of a coincidence than a line of logic per se.

[Markdoc]

This still doesn't adress that adjustment powers affect characteristics differently depending on how many points worth of figured characteristics they provide. If the cost of STR e.g. is increased to 2, it becomes twice as hard to drain or aid - but since drains and aids don't affect figured characteristics, you don't drain twice the value.

Sure but that's a feature, not a bug. Drains drain active points. If the cost reflects actual utility (and it should) then I have zero problems with the drain being less effective in terms of raw characteristic points

If figured characteristics are to remain, then every single characteristic ought to provide the same fraction of its value to figureds. Otherwise, the characteristics will remain unequal, even if their costs as such balance.

In general, I'd agree, with the caveat that the balance need only be approximate - and that in the case of STR, point out that HA is also a figured.

cheers, Mark

[AnotherSkip]

Instead of the Size proposed char how about SCALE (SCL abbreviation).

tying in with my "people can have differing scales of Hexes" (it could be that giants have 2-5x scale while dwarves have .75 scale and halflings have .6 and insects have .1) so when Giant 3x strides, he crosses 3 human hexes a dwarf strides .6 and the insects cover .1 of normal human hex (maybe even .0001! if that is their ratio to the ). Percieving larger scale or smaller scale targets involves multiplication/division and use of the range penalties scale. even power range could be based upon this also (gigantic Cyclops gets more range than Insect sized Cyclops)

and this ties in with Megascale also, Megascale is just Scale gone mega....

[The Main Man]

Some thoughts:

1. I am still in favor of CHAR bonuses being equal to CV calculation (making them one and the same)

2. If Figured CHAR stay (unlikely) perhaps they should be presented similarly to "Derived" CHAR like CV

3. Also if they stay, I agree that STR should be replaced by BODY for figured CHAR.

Here's an example Stat Block

STR (2pt: +1) HTH Damage (STR/5; 5pts: +1d6)
DEX (2pts: +1) SPD (1 + DEX/10; 10pts: +1)
CON (3pts: +1) ED (CON/5; 1pt: +1) REC (CON/2.5; 1pt: +1) END (CONx2; ½pt: +1)
BODY (4pts: +1) PD (BODY/5; 1pt +1) REC (BODY/2.5; 1pt: +1) STUN (BODYx2; 1pt: +1)
INT (1pt: +1)
EGO (2pts: +1) MD (EGO/5; 1pt: +1)
PRE (2pts: +1) PRE Attack (PRE/5; 5pts: +1d6)

All of this is assuming a rather basic logic of the following:

1. Each Primary CHAR serves a basic function for 1pt

2. Each Primary CHAR generates a "Resolution Roll" bonus for free

3. Each additional function of the CHAR (basically its Derived CHAR) adds +1 to the cost per point, rounded down in favor of the player.

4. Each Derived CHAR can be bought up separately.

5. OTOH, if Figured CHAR go away, they can be separated and decoupled, at which point all CHAR except for SPD and END cost 1pt each, while REC is recombined to 2:1

6. Each Primary CHAR, when affected by Adjustment Powers, also affects their Derived CHAR

[Hugh Neilson]

Time for another cross-post. Since it deals with balance of STR vs other attack powers, I'll post it here, where the effectiveness of STR is discussed in detail.

Why not have the extra STR - it comes in handy in many situations such as breaking out of that entangle. A 3 DEF 3 BODY entangle can delay a STR 10 Energy Projector but if he had 60 STR then a casual us of his STR would allow that to be broken and still have time to launch a ranged attack on his opponents.

Simple answer: other attacks should also be usable as "casual" with rules the same as casual STR. The Brick can charge through a 2 DEF/2 BOD wall using half his 60 STR. The EP should be able to Casually blast through the same wall with half his 12d6 EB, and the guy with the claws should be able to Casually claw through with half his KA.

For some reason, we keep adding new abilities to STR, but not to other attack powers. I'd rather see the effectiveness of STR being converted to ranged attacks sharply curtailed, and abilities like "Casual Use" extended over other attack powers. I would note that:

- the FAQ notes that Grabbing is an attack action and that, while you can throw as part of a Grab, if you want to target someone else with that throw, you CANNOT do that as part of the Grab, but must use another attack action. This should make its way to 6e.

- 5e extended many combat maneuvers to attacks other than STR. Casual Use could easily be made a combat maneuver to apply to other attacks.

- the Brick did not pay for the objects he throws - they should be considered non-proficient.

- it would make sense to apply some Encumbrance rules when the Brick lifts and throws heavy objects.

I think this gets crossed to 6e.

[Starlight]

Simple answer: other attacks should also be usable as "casual" with rules the same as casual STR. The Brick can charge through a 2 DEF/2 BOD wall using half his 60 STR. The EP should be able to Casually blast through the same wall with half his 12d6 EB, and the guy with the claws should be able to Casually claw through with half his KA.

I think I like this. I'll know for sure if I like it or not after giving it some serious thought but as a first reaction I like it.

I'd rep you if I could. :)

[Vulcan]

Time for another cross-post. Since it deals with balance of STR vs other attack powers, I'll post it here, where the effectiveness of STR is discussed in detail.



Simple answer: other attacks should also be usable as "casual" with rules the same as casual STR. The Brick can charge through a 2 DEF/2 BOD wall using half his 60 STR. The EP should be able to Casually blast through the same wall with half his 12d6 EB, and the guy with the claws should be able to Casually claw through with half his KA.

For some reason, we keep adding new abilities to STR, but not to other attack powers. I'd rather see the effectiveness of STR being converted to ranged attacks sharply curtailed, and abilities like "Casual Use" extended over other attack powers. I would note that:

- the FAQ notes that Grabbing is an attack action and that, while you can throw as part of a Grab, if you want to target someone else with that throw, you CANNOT do that as part of the Grab, but must use another attack action. This should make its way to 6e.

- 5e extended many combat maneuvers to attacks other than STR. Casual Use could easily be made a combat maneuver to apply to other attacks.

- the Brick did not pay for the objects he throws - they should be considered non-proficient.

- it would make sense to apply some Encumbrance rules when the Brick lifts and throws heavy objects.

I think this gets crossed to 6e.

Good ideas all around. Helps cut STR down to size and gives a logical 'little extra' to everything else...:thumbup:

[JmOz]

Time for another cross-post. Since it deals with balance of STR vs other attack powers, I'll post it here, where the effectiveness of STR is discussed in detail.



Simple answer: other attacks should also be usable as "casual" with rules the same as casual STR. The Brick can charge through a 2 DEF/2 BOD wall using half his 60 STR. The EP should be able to Casually blast through the same wall with half his 12d6 EB, and the guy with the claws should be able to Casually claw through with half his KA.

For some reason, we keep adding new abilities to STR, but not to other attack powers. I'd rather see the effectiveness of STR being converted to ranged attacks sharply curtailed, and abilities like "Casual Use" extended over other attack powers. I would note that:

- the FAQ notes that Grabbing is an attack action and that, while you can throw as part of a Grab, if you want to target someone else with that throw, you CANNOT do that as part of the Grab, but must use another attack action. This should make its way to 6e.

- 5e extended many combat maneuvers to attacks other than STR. Casual Use could easily be made a combat maneuver to apply to other attacks.

- the Brick did not pay for the objects he throws - they should be considered non-proficient.

- it would make sense to apply some Encumbrance rules when the Brick lifts and throws heavy objects.

I think this gets crossed to 6e.


Wow---a new house rule for me...good idea

[Vulcan]

(Copied from a post in the HERO SYSTEM Discussion, in reply to a 'decouple figured' post)

But I use figured characteristics as a guide to how much - well, how much figured characteristics I should have.

Granted, I usually raise some of them. But others - especially STUN - I tend to leave alone. Changing them from figured to secondary steals that tool from new players. Sure, I can go back and do the math, but a new player will be clueless. So when his first character EPIC FAILS in his first combat because he forgot to buy up STUN, will he keep trying? Or will he throw up his hands in frustration and go back to whatever he was playing before?

Even one player doing so is a tragic loss to the HEROS community.

So is it worth it? To 'simplify' a bit of basic math at the beginning of character creation that, ultimately, is nothing compared to the math of calcualting powers?

Sure, STR needs to be balanced. So take the figureds off STR! That brings STR back into line in a hurry!

[Talon]

Granted, I usually raise some of them. But others - especially STUN - I tend to leave alone. Changing them from figured to secondary steals that tool from new players. Sure, I can go back and do the math, but a new player will be clueless. So when his first character EPIC FAILS in his first combat because he forgot to buy up STUN, will he keep trying? Or will he throw up his hands in frustration and go back to whatever he was playing before?

With decoupling, it's possible and sensible to have non-bricks with high STUN values. Right now, if I make a Martial Artist or an Energy Projector, my STUN may be EPIC-FAIL-low because my STR and CON aren't high enough. Why should I have to build a brick to be properly informed of what my STUN value should be?

[Beast]

there was never any restriction on how high your stun could be
you just needed to pay for what you want

as for building
what you need to know is what is the max DC's
and max defenses to figure out what you feel your character should be able to withstand before going down

example
12dc max(average 42 stun 12 body)
25 max def(average 17 stun and no body taken)
I feel this character should be able to stand up to 5 average hits before going down
so 17x5= 85 stun needed
note that I have made no indication of what the character is(Brick,MA,Mentalist,EB)
I just drew up part of what the character concept was to be
now I need to figure out how to pay for it

maybe you need a checklist to go through when designing a character
I do it in my head
some may need a hard copy


With decoupling, it's possible and sensible to have non-bricks with high STUN values. Right now, if I make a Martial Artist or an Energy Projector, my STUN may be EPIC-FAIL-low because my STR and CON aren't high enough. Why should I have to build a brick to be properly informed of what my STUN value should be?

[Hugh Neilson]

With decoupling, it's possible and sensible to have non-bricks with high STUN values. Right now, if I make a Martial Artist or an Energy Projector, my STUN may be EPIC-FAIL-low because my STR and CON aren't high enough. Why should I have to build a brick to be properly informed of what my STUN value should be?

How does high STUN become any more proper and sensible with a fixed base than it is with a floating base? I rarely buy up my characters' STUN. Defenses are a much better buy. Make STUN and REC cheaper (which is also part of dealing with the figured characteristics dilemma) and maybe buying these up will become a more viable option. At present, they are too expensive, so they are rarely chosen as an alternative to defenses. Similarly, END + REC is rarely selected as an alternative to reduced END or END batteries.

Simple economics - if no one buys it, chances are it's too expensive compared to the alternatives.

[James Gillen]

With decoupling, it's possible and sensible to have non-bricks with high STUN values. Right now, if I make a Martial Artist or an Energy Projector, my STUN may be EPIC-FAIL-low because my STR and CON aren't high enough.

True, but then we have to figure out what the base STUN "should" be if STR/CON/BODY are not the basis, and how much STUN your Martial Artist ought to have relative to a Brick in the first place. ;)

jg

[Talon]

there was never any restriction on how high your stun could be
you just needed to pay for what you want

Sure, but the point made by Vulcan and others is that the initial value derived at from figured stats is what the character "should have".

I happen to agree with you -- but to Vulcan's point, I am questioning that this initial value was ever really correct.

as for building
what you need to know is what is the max DC's
and max defenses to figure out what you feel your character should be able to withstand before going down

Yup, and doing this is just as easy with decoupled figured characteristics.

[Talon]

True, but then we have to figure out what the base STUN "should" be if STR/CON/BODY are not the basis, and how much STUN your Martial Artist ought to have relative to a Brick in the first place. ;)


Indeed -- just like you have to figure out what SPD, PD, ED, etc. should be for a character.

To Hugh's point -- if you lower the cost of STUN (.5 seems about right to me), then people might actually consider what the appropriate level is and buy it to that level.

[Southern Cross]

This is true.Though if figured characteristics are dropped,STUN won't be the only characteristic that needs to be affected,not by a long shot.:thumbdown:help:

[Doc Democracy]

True, but then we have to figure out what the base STUN "should" be if STR/CON/BODY are not the basis, and how much STUN your Martial Artist ought to have relative to a Brick in the first place. ;)

Don't we have to do that anyway? There's nothing in the rules that says just coz my character is a martial artist that he should have a fixed ration of STUN as compared to a brick...

This is all GM call and eyeball at the moment. Decoupling wont change that. NCM gives an idea of standard human range - we should be basing our decisions based on how much better than normal human we want the character to be, not the high variability of other characters.


Doc

[steamteck]

Don't we have to do that anyway? There's nothing in the rules that says just coz my character is a martial artist that he should have a fixed ration of STUN as compared to a brick...

This is all GM call and eyeball at the moment. Decoupling wont change that. NCM gives an idea of standard human range - we should be basing our decisions based on how much better than normal human we want the character to be, not the high variability of other characters.


Doc

Doc, its still easier to have a formula that sets a norm for every character. You may always change and eyeball it but even then to me knowing the norm for the character with the figures and having to do nothing if all I want is that norm makes my life easier. Also as is I can certainly deviate but I know automatically how much I'm different from the norm.

I must say our conversations have convinced me how much I like figured characteristics and how much less interest I have in 6th if they're eliminated without at least some alternate for having them. Ditto with some others for ECs.

[Hugh Neilson]

I must say our conversations have convinced me how much I like figured characteristics and how much less interest I have in 6th if they're eliminated without at least some alternate for having them. Ditto with some others for ECs.

I'm inclined to agree. I wonder how much ongoing use these forums have for their initial purpose if we've all reached the point we're entrenched in our own positions and just repeating what Steve has already heard. Areas on which there is consensus are crowded out pretty quickly by the areas of heated debate. I suspect Steve will be removing a lot of the posts on a first pass for useful data.

[Vulcan]

With decoupling, it's possible and sensible to have non-bricks with high STUN values. Right now, if I make a Martial Artist or an Energy Projector, my STUN may be EPIC-FAIL-low because my STR and CON aren't high enough. Why should I have to build a brick to be properly informed of what my STUN value should be?

A Energy Projector usually has a high CON to bring his STUN up, and decent Defenses to soak damage. A proper Martial Artist doesn't need STUN all that often, he hardly ever gets hit! :D

But a BRICK with 20 STUN is going to take a dive early in the first round, so to speak...:nonp: He'll quickly gain the reputation 'glass jaw!'

[Vulcan]

as for building
what you need to know is what is the max DC's
and max defenses to figure out what you feel your character should be able to withstand before going down

example
12dc max(average 42 stun 12 body)
25 max def(average 17 stun and no body taken)
I feel this character should be able to stand up to 5 average hits before going down
so 17x5= 85 stun needed
note that I have made no indication of what the character is(Brick,MA,Mentalist,EB)
I just drew up part of what the character concept was to be
now I need to figure out how to pay for it

<supressing laughter>

Sure, the PC's are limited to 25 DEF/12d6. No one ever said the GM was. If I were to build a character to take 5 hits, I would have to take into account that our GM usually uses attacks 4 DC's higher than he allows the PC's to have...

So, it's more like 31 STUN per hit, (more than 25 DEF is getting into Brick territory according to our GM), so 5 hits = 155 STUN. :nonp: Or, spend about half the points of a starting 275 point character in our game. http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/shock.gif And then a 32 CON to keep from being stunned all the time (again getting well into - theoretical - Brick territory...)

Okay, our game is an extreme example which (I'm sure it's not intentional) vastly favors DCV over DEF. I tend to run 11-15 DEF, 15-20 DCV, and a bare minimum of STUN - and find my characters last longer in combat than the PC bricks! :eek: I don't think the GM has noticed the discrepancy his actions have caused, though. :rolleyes:

Not sure what this has to do with the general subject, but it's certainly relavent to me.:help:

[Vulcan]

Sure, but the point made by Vulcan and others is that the initial value derived at from figured stats is what the character "should have".

I happen to agree with you -- but to Vulcan's point, I am questioning that this initial value was ever really correct.



Yup, and doing this is just as easy with decoupled figured characteristics.

My point was that figured characteristics give a new player a place to start from.

Sure, those of us who have been playing for a while can do calculations (oh noes! more math!) based on the allowed DEF and expected DC's of the game to figure out how much STUN a character should have. A brand new player has NO idea how much is enough. I was simply pointing out that figured characteristics give new players a starting point to work from!

[schir1964]

I still think the best solution for both sides is to let the GM decide what characteristic levels are normal and how they interact with each other by giving the GM a different templates to choose from for his game. He tells his players what template to use for creating characters and they follow that.

- Christopher Mullins

[Doc Democracy]

Doc, its still easier to have a formula that sets a norm for every character. You may always change and eyeball it but even then to me knowing the norm for the character with the figures and having to do nothing if all I want is that norm makes my life easier. Also as is I can certainly deviate but I know automatically how much I'm different from the norm.

I rteckon that Steve shoudl sit down and have a think about the whole character generation text. I think the mechanics of the game will work better without 'hidden' benefits and formulae. But it might be worth having a couple of guidesheets on what you might expect to go with what in a couple of the main genres. The balance between STR and STUN is likely to vary in superheroes as opposed to Pulp. It might be possible to have the best of both worlds.


Doc

[Doc Democracy]

I'm inclined to agree. I wonder how much ongoing use these forums have for their initial purpose if we've all reached the point we're entrenched in our own positions and just repeating what Steve has already heard. Areas on which there is consensus are crowded out pretty quickly by the areas of heated debate. I suspect Steve will be removing a lot of the posts on a first pass for useful data.

I keep waiting for these forums to be removed and for us to get a whole new set with some very specific questions. Possibly two or three a week as ideas pop into the man's head.

[BobGreenwade]

I keep waiting for these forums to be removed and for us to get a whole new set with some very specific questions. Possibly two or three a week as ideas pop into the man's head.We'll probably have another six months or so to wait before we get anything remotely similar to that.

[Doc Democracy]

We'll probably have another six months or so to wait before we get anything remotely similar to that.

I dont want to get all back seat on us....

"Are we there yet?


Are we there now?


How much longer before we get there?"

:D

[steamteck]

I dont want to get all back seat on us....


How much longer before we get there?"

:D

When the madness crawls into our brains and we are purified by it we will have arrived!:fear::angst:

[The Main Man]

STUN costing 1/2-pt is a good idea

REC should then be recosted to 1-pt (1 END (1/2-pt) + 1 STUN (1/2-pt) = 1-pt).

As to Bricks with low STUN, there's always The Worf Effect (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect) to think about.

[Talon]

REC at 1 point seems low. Except for fights that end during the first full Turn, REC will give 2 boosts of END and 2 of STUN (not counting in-Phase Recoveries).

[James Gillen]

Simple.
Take the Average Effect of a Damage Class (3 per d6) and times it to determine what would get through your character defense. e.g. if 10d6 does an average of 30 STUN, it's gonna do 6 STUN average if your defense is 24 (which is low-average for a Brick, high for a Martial Artist and about average for an Energy Projector).

If your character has 30 STUN (average for most characters with Figured stats between 15 and 20) it would take 5 of these shots to take him down.

Now the GM just has to decide if he wants characters lasting that long, longer, or shorter. But assuming our new "base" STUN is 20, that means you'd have to sink 10 points into STUN to get it where most non-Brick supers end up "naturally" in earlier editions.

JG

[The Main Man]

REC at 1 point seems low. Except for fights that end during the first full Turn, REC will give 2 boosts of END and 2 of STUN (not counting in-Phase Recoveries).

Doesn't REC do that already? (assuming that I read your post correctly)

[Talon]

REC does do that already, but the current situation makes it hard to assess the cost (figured characteristic, STUN being expensive). Personally I see REC bought up a moderate amount, which makes sense -- 1 point of REC, for 2 points, will give back 2 points of END and 2 points of STUN, which cost 3 points together, in a combat which lasts into the second full Turn.

In the context of decoupling figured characteristics and lowering STUN to .5, 1 point of REC would give back exactly 2 points of stuff in such a combat. Thus, having REC cost 1 seems too cheap to me.

[The Main Man]

So you are saying that REC should function based on the costs of END and STUN?

[Talon]

So you are saying that REC should function based on the costs of END and STUN?

Well...I'm saying it's one way of assessing the cost (and, it seems to me, a pretty good way). It does seem to indicate that costing REC at 1 point would make it too cheap...but that's a judgment call based on some assumptions. You could certainly argue that having the extra STUN might make the difference between getting to the second post-12 and not.

REC also gives you back BODY and LTE, which should also be considered but which might or might not affect the cost.

My thinking is that 1 point for REC is too cheap, 3 points "feels" too expensive, which leaves one whole-number option.

[Hugh Neilson]

Simple.
Take the Average Effect of a Damage Class (3 per d6) and times it to determine what would get through your character defense. e.g. if 10d6 does an average of 30 STUN, it's gonna do 6 STUN average if your defense is 24 (which is low-average for a Brick, high for a Martial Artist and about average for an Energy Projector).

If your character has 30 STUN (average for most characters with Figured stats between 15 and 20) it would take 5 of these shots to take him down.

Now the GM just has to decide if he wants characters lasting that long, longer, or shorter. But assuming our new "base" STUN is 20, that means you'd have to sink 10 points into STUN to get it where most non-Brick supers end up "naturally" in earlier editions.

This would be more useful if the average roll on 1d6 were 3. Your hypothetical character will actually be down in 3 hits, on average.

[PhilFleischmann]

My thinking is that 1 point for REC is too cheap, 3 points "feels" too expensive, which leaves one whole-number option.
I agree. I was looking over characters I've created, and found that for quite a few of them, I bought up REC. If we go by the theory of "if no one buys it, it's too expensive," then it's definitely *not* too expensive, in my case.

[James Gillen]

This would be more useful if the average roll on 1d6 were 3. Your hypothetical character will actually be down in 3 hits, on average.

Some of us roll worse than others. And again, this, like measuring CV and DC, helps determine what the GM wants his standard of "lethality" to be.

jg

[AnotherSkip]

having bought Rec to campaign max in a FH campaign I have to say the little noted rule on being stunned and unconsiousness (if you are less than or = to your Recovery in negative stun you automatically recover from being stunned when you use your forced recovery) was Very very important to the groups survival in many cases. Since i was VPP man for that campaign.
Loss of actions was more damaging to our characters than actual damage since recovering from damage was usually just rounds away.

[etherio]

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?...
...makes more sense to eliminate it (and its annoying 1/2-point cost) and replace it with a Talent, Beautiful/Handsome, that’s defined as Interaction Skill bonuses in certain situations (and naturally there’d be a variant form called Ugly ;) ).

I suggest it be a Perk. Reasons:

- Physical attraction is not the ability to do something or a limited or specialized version of a Power. It's a social response between characters. It seems to fit better as a Perk for that reason.

- It would work well using the same mechanic as the Reputation Perk.

[The Main Man]

Welcome to the club :dh:

[etherio]

Welcome to the club :dh:

So...I'm guessing this has been covered? Sarcasm is a wonderful tool.

[Klaus Mogensen]

So...I'm guessing this has been covered? Sarcasm is a wonderful tool.
COM has been suggested as a Talent; I'm not sure if anybody else has suggested it should be a Perk. I think the Main Man refers to the expected attacks from people that think COM is perfectly alright as it is (the debate has been rather heated at times).

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

the nice thing about Com AS IS is that while mechanically there is no difference between say 18 and 20 it can be stated that way. Sure both the girls are hot (Fer instance) but the 20 has just that Little Edge that makes her slightly more special....

ya know what i think part of the problem is? Transforms.

the usage of Cosmetic in the power description is confusing with Com being there. because Cosmetic changes can't alter Com (It is points based an you need Major to do that). Even if we change Com to some kind of Perk it still doesn't matter, Cosmetic/subtle transforms needs to have a title change

Going over the characters in my campaign not a one kept their 10 Com IIRC. if it wasn't a significant ability everyone would have left it alone. If you move Com Anywhere there won't be that gradient among characters. the Game isn't just about the points and I think that Com is the first sign of that.

[Vulcan]

Totally agreed. Take the following examples:

Player: Is she hot?

GM: Well, she has a 24 COM...

Player: http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/love.gif

vs.

Player: Is she hot?

GM: Well, she has a +5 to Interaction skills

Player: So did Hitler. http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/rolleyes.gif So is she hot?

GM: :nonp:

[The Main Man]

COM has been suggested as a Talent; I'm not sure if anybody else has suggested it should be a Perk. I think the Main Man refers to the expected attacks from people that think COM is perfectly alright as it is (the debate has been rather heated at times).

- Klaus

Yeah, basically. :rolleyes:

Every time I leave, they pull me back in!

[The Main Man]

Totally agreed. Take the following examples:

Player: Is she hot?

GM: Well, she has a 24 COM...

Player: http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/love.gif

vs.

Player: Is she hot?

GM: Well, she has a +5 to Interaction skills

Player: So did Hitler. http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/rolleyes.gif So is she hot?

GM: :nonp:
:celebrate Godwin's Law is here at last! :celebrate

[The Main Man]

Totally agreed. Take the following examples:

Player: Is she hot?

GM: (looks at +5 to Interaction Skills with SFX that she's hot) Yep, she's a "10."

Player: http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/love.gif



Edited for simplicity.

[Hugh Neilson]

So you're saying Hitler was a 10?

[The Main Man]

So you're saying Hitler was a 10?
Uh... no.

They both have +5 with Interaction Skills* but different SFX.



* I am only using this quantity since it was provided in the original example. I think Hitler had just a TAD bit more charisma than a 10-woman.

[Markdoc]

So you're saying Hitler was a 10?

Well, diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. He's not exactly my type, but I suppose if you like short, dark megalomaniacs.... :D

cheers, Mark

[Vulcan]

Our GM tends to quote the sheet rather than make things up (beyond a vague description...)

[The Main Man]

SFX are your friend.

[BobGreenwade]

And once again people are falling into the trap of COM representing only sexual attractiveness.

[Navar]

Comeliness reflects the character’s beauty or handsomeness.

FRED 38

[StGrimblefig]

Comeliness reflects the character’s beauty or handsomeness.

FRED 38
Which says nothing about sexuality.

[The Main Man]

Which says nothing about sexuality.

Nope not really.:thumbup:

Just their sexual attractiveness (whatever that means in this day and age).

[Vulcan]

And once again people are falling into the trap of COM representing only sexual attractiveness.

When it applies to a character, that's pretty much what COM does. And since characters are the ONLY thing currently in the game with COM...

Although I suppose there is a partial exception for 'underage' characters... and there are sickos for who it would still be a measure of sexual attractiveness.



Edit: And since a Perk for attractiveness is going to be bought as modifers to Interaction skills (as I understand it) then characters are still going to be the only part of the game with 'attractiveness'. At which point I refer back to the beginning of this post...

[Hugh Neilson]

When it applies to a character, that's pretty much what COM does. And since characters are the ONLY thing currently in the game with COM...

Horses, dogs, automatons and griffons are among the many writeups in the Hero System with COM scores.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Horses, dogs, automatons and griffons are among the many writeups in the Hero System with COM scores.
I'm sure some find any of those sexually attractive...:idjit:

I've always considered COM to be more a measure of how aesthetically pleasing somebody (or something) is to look at. However, I think there are more important traits that we could have characteristics for.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

Horses, dogs, automatons and griffons are among the many writeups in the Hero System with COM scores.

And almost all of them are at "10," which means that they weren't bought up, and that apparently if not accidentally sends the message that COM is for sentient beings or something like that.

[BobGreenwade]

I've always considered COM to be more a measure of how aesthetically pleasing somebody (or something) is to look at.Precisely! :celebrate (I won't elaborate further because I've already gone over it at least twice already.)However, I think there are more important traits that we could have characteristics for.That's a reasonable thought. I'd like to hear more.

[nexus]

It's BAAAACK...

I'll just say that "important" is relative and Comeliness has been quite important in my games and most of the ones I've played in

[nexus]

And almost all of them are at "10," which means that they weren't bought up, and that apparently if not accidentally sends the message that COM is for sentient beings or something like that.

Well allegedly the base "norm" is 8...which brings up some thing I'd like to see settled. Either use the base 8 for the default or use 10. Is the straight 10 characteristics supposed to represent that PCs and other heroic (in the main character sense) sorts are slightly above average by default or that most humans are subpar? The line seems to go back and fourth on that.

[etherio]

the nice thing about Com AS IS is that while mechanically there is no difference between say 18 and 20 it can be stated that way. Sure both the girls are hot (Fer instance) but the 20 has just that Little Edge that makes her slightly more special....Going over the characters in my campaign not a one kept their 10 Com IIRC. if it wasn't a significant ability everyone would have left it alone....

Interesting, but in my experience pretty much every player leaves their character's COM at 10 unless they're supposed to be especially attractive or ugly.

...the Game isn't just about the points and I think that Com is the first sign of that.

Agreed, of course, but my experiences with COM don't support your point that COM is a sign of that. But I'm on board with your sentiment about points.

[nexus]

Interesting, but in my experience pretty much every player leaves their character's COM at 10 unless they're supposed to be especially attractive or ugly.


FWIW, my experience is that almost everyone alters their Comeliness scores It all varies according to a number of factors and there's really no way to say who's in the "majority" or not (or if that really matter even). If nothing else all the debate over it seems to indicate some strong feelings about the subject.*

*of course part of that is gamers like to argue about game stuff.

[Vulcan]

Horses, dogs, automatons and griffons are among the many writeups in the Hero System with COM scores.

.....

Got me on that one.

[Vulcan]

Interesting, but in m