Characteristics Issues [Archive] - Page 19 - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Hugh Neilson

Feb 17th, '09, 06:27 PM

No, it's not a clarification. It's just your interpretation. From my read of FREd, and all of Hugh's quotes from 5ER, I see that:

- You can buy Characteristics as Powers.
- Characteristics bought as Powers are treated as Standard Powers.
- Characteristics bought as Powers can have Advantages and Limitations.
- Characteristics bought as Powers aren't affected by whatever NCM rules are in effect.
- Characteristics can have Limitations and Advantages.

Actually, the statement that

Characters can purchase Characteristics as Powers, with Advantages, Limitations and/or in Power Frameworks. For these purposes, treat a Characteristic as a Standard Power, and compute the cost using the regular cost for that Characteristic (see page 32).

is under the discussion of Characteristics as Powers. This is the only reference I am aware of to characteristics with modifiers or in frameworks. As I read this, it means that if you want the Characteristic to have a limitation or an advantage, it must be purchased as a power. Otherwise, it is a Characteristic NOT purchased as a Power and, as such, it CANNOT be purchased with Advantages, Limitations and/or in Power Frameworks.

They are Power Modifiers and Power Frameworks. There are no Characteristic Modifiers or Characteristic Frameworks.

There is nothing in FREd or Hugh's quotes from 5ER that says that:

- Characteristics with Modifiers are automatically considered Powers.
nor

They are only referred to as having modifiers if they are powers. These are, you will recall, Power Modifiers. They are not Skill Modifiers or Characteristic Modifiers. Characteristics do not have Modifiers. Powers do.

- Characteristics that don't have Modifiers are automatically not Powers.
nor

I agree - nothing prevents you buying unmodified characteristics as Powers - in which case, they are not subject to NCM. Just put your extra STR over 20 as a Power, and NCM is no longer an issue.

- You can't buy Characteristics as Characteristics and still have Modifiers on them.

Nothing permits this.

nor
- Characteristics with Modifiers are automatically immune to NCM rules.

Once they are powers, they are immune to the NCM rules.

Normal Characteristics Maxima Characteristics purchased as Powers are not affected by Normal Characteristics Maxima doubling requirements (whether Normal Characteristics Maxima are a campaign ground rule, or taken as a Disadvantage).

BTW, there are even Powers (Running and Swimming) that *are* subject to NCM rules!

Yes. But Characteristics purchased as Powers are not subject to the NCM rules, as defined in 5er.

Remember also that the Defender munchkin was from 4th edition, not 5th. Defender has no NCM Disadvantage in 5th. So this munchkin example has already been eliminated.

An example in 5er shows this exploit continues into 5e, as does the discussion of Characteristics as Powers.

PhilFleischmann

Feb 17th, '09, 07:23 PM

Actually, the statement that

is under the discussion of Characteristics as Powers. This is the only reference I am aware of to characteristics with modifiers or in frameworks. As I read this, it means that if you want the Characteristic to have a limitation or an advantage, it must be purchased as a power. Otherwise, it is a Characteristic NOT purchased as a Power and, as such, it CANNOT be purchased with Advantages, Limitations and/or in Power Frameworks.
But it doesn't say that. It says you *can* purchase Characteristics as Powers with Modifiers. It does not say that you *must* purchase Modified Characteristics as Powers.

They are Power Modifiers and Power Frameworks. There are no Characteristic Modifiers or Characteristic Frameworks.

They are only referred to as having modifiers if they are powers. These are, you will recall, Power Modifiers. They are not Skill Modifiers or Characteristic Modifiers. Characteristics do not have Modifiers. Powers do.
Modifiers *are* sometimes applied to Characteristics (No Figured), and to Skills. And they can still be Characteristics and Skills.

Nothing permits this.
The page 32 citing that you quoted does. And nothing forbids it.

schir1964

Feb 17th, '09, 11:41 PM

Here we go again...

Phil, should I even bother asking Steve Long what the actual "Intent" of the rules are on this, or will you just dismiss what he says if it does not match your interpretation of the rules?

It's a serious question.

- Christopher Mullins

Greywind

Feb 18th, '09, 01:03 AM

Well, since I interpreted the "can" the same way that Phil did...

"Can" is a permissive, not an absolute.

Markdoc

Feb 18th, '09, 01:16 AM

Netzilla

Feb 18th, '09, 03:24 AM

Regardless of can/must/maybe-only-if-you-feel-like-it, I think that if NCM is kept, Char bought as Powers should still be subject to NCM. I have never seen can, nor can I think of, a good reason that a Char bought as a Power should be exempt from NCM; especially in light of Running & Swimming apparently not being treated the same way.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 18th, '09, 04:47 AM

But it doesn't say that. It says you *can* purchase Characteristics as Powers with Modifiers. It does not say that you *must* purchase Modified Characteristics as Powers.

Modifiers *are* sometimes applied to Characteristics (No Figured), and to Skills. And they can still be Characteristics and Skills.

The page 32 citing that you quoted does. And nothing forbids it.

To my knowledge, the only references to modifiers to characteristics are in the "characteristics as powers" section and in the "naked advantages" section. I don't have the book in front of me, and I didn't go over the book with a fine tooth comb to try to find other references, so I stand to be corrected by someone with a page reference stating that characteristics can be modified without being powers. Although not every published character follows the rules perfectly, examples of published characters with characteristics with modifiers other than naked advantages are purchased as characteristics, not as powers, would also support the view that modifiers can be applied to characteristics without purchasing them as powers.

Does anyone have any examples in this regard?

Hugh Neilson

Feb 18th, '09, 05:01 AM

Yep, I agree. The rules state pretty explicitly that you "can" buy characteristics as powers, and if you do so they are treated as standard powers. There isn't a single line in the book suggesting that modified CHA "must" be bought as powers - and in fact the suggestion that buying Reduced END or no Figured CHA on your STR somehow automatically makes it a power is so ludicrous, that I marvel - I genuinely marvel - that someone would seriously suggest it.

I'm still looking for a single line in the book that indicates modified CHA can be bought in any other fashion. Is there a reference to modified characteristics outside the description of characteristics as powers?

I believe the book-official means of buying reduced END on STR is to purchase a naked advantage on STR, which does not convert the STR itself to a power. I am not aware of any rule for naked limitations.

As to the ludicrousness of the suggestion, the rules aren't short of ludicrous results. For example, 1 point KA penetrating always gets through non-hardened defenses when 1/2d6 KA penetrating gets no BOD through half the time and 1d6 gets no BOD through 1/6 of the time and averages the same 1 BOD through. Or, for that matter, that characteristics purchased as a power are exempt from NCM doubling.

If we're suggesting changes to the core rules, we need to know what those core rules are. If, in fact, the core rules permit adding modifiers to characteristics without converting them to powers (as opposed to purchasing a naked advantage for the characteristic as a separate power), then let's explicitly state this in the 6e rules. If it's not, let's make that explicit in the 6e rules. Clearly, there's enough confusion that a clarification makes sense even if these rules are not changed.

Of course, whether it SHOULD be possible to place limitations on a characteristic is another issue. Maybe the rules should say "you can apply advantages or limitations to characteristics, or even put them in power frameworks, as if they were standard powers, rather than converting them to powers for this purpose.

And, if we keep NCM, so is the question of whether it should ever be possible to purchase characteristics as a power without applying NCM doubling. To me, it's clearly a hole in the NCM system. If it weren't for NCM doubling costs of characteristics, but not of "characteristics as powers", would anyone even care whether they were classified as characteristics or powers? Fix this and the question of whether modifiers can be applied to characteristics without turning them into powers goes away.

NCM also exacerbates pricing issues for Aid or Succor, if those powers get around NCM doubling. Should Aid/Succor only have half effect on additions over the NCM maximum? If it should not, do we get complex versions of Aid/Succor designed to circumvent NCM (Powered Armor Strength built as Standard Effect Self Only Succor on a Continuing Charge or a Fuel Charge, for example)?

schir1964

Feb 18th, '09, 05:55 AM

Markdoc

Feb 18th, '09, 07:51 AM

I'm still looking for a single line in the book that indicates modified CHA can be bought in any other fashion. Is there a reference to modified characteristics outside the description of characteristics as powers?

The line you quoted certainly indicates it. There are two references to limited or advantaged CHA (page 40, page 132) and both use conditional clauses rather than indicating that this is in any way required. In addition, the discussion of NCM on 33 differentiates between powers bought with advantages limitations which are subject to NCM and those that are not. This is for movement rather than CHA, but rather explicitly differentiates between "Powers intended to represent special abilities or the like (rather than general increases in the character’s ability"

Likewise, the rules for lightning reflexes (which is modified DEX) specifically state that it is not affected by Normal Characteristic Maxima - which would be unnecessary, if all modified CHA were treated as powers, since powers are specifically excluded from Normal Characteristic Maxima.

Last of all, Hero Designer allows you apply modifiers directly to your base characteristics. If that converts them to powers, then you end with the odd situation that that particular character no longer has that characteristic.

cheers, Mark

caris

Feb 18th, '09, 09:56 AM

Last of all, Hero Designer allows you apply modifiers directly to your base characteristics. If that converts them to powers, then you end with the odd situation that that particular character no longer has that characteristic.

What exactly is so odd about a character that has a characteristic at 0?

Chris Goodwin

Feb 18th, '09, 11:23 AM

I went ahead and asked Steve Long about this since there are other people who have the same view. It's possible I've been reading too much into the rules all these years (not the first time that has happened), but now I want to know for sure what the original intent was.

If he hasn't already, I predict his answer will be something like "Sorry, but I don't discuss design philosophy or intent."

Edit: Sorry, I misinterpreted. Intent in use, not intent in philosophy. Carry on.

PhilFleischmann

Feb 18th, '09, 12:54 PM

As to the ludicrousness of the suggestion, the rules aren't short of ludicrous results.
True, and likely true of any sufficiently complex RPG system written by fallible humans. Therefore, it seems to me that the best interpretation of the rules is one which decreases, rather than increases, the amount of ludicrousness.

And yes, Characteristic Powers that bypass NCM are often a bit wonky, but are appropriate in some cases. I favor trusting the GM to keep things fair and balanced. A character with, say 8" of Running, and a pair of rollerskates that give +6" Running is not subject to NCM - he pays 4 points for is fast feet, and another 8 points (12, with -1/2 OIF) for the skates. But another character who wants 14" of Running has to pay 24 points - 8 not doubled up to 10", and 8 doubled for the last 4" above the NCM of 10".

schir1964

Feb 18th, '09, 01:34 PM

Question:
I've always had the impression that in order to apply an Advantage/Limitation directly to a Characteristic that the Characteristic must be purchased as a Power or that by applying an Advantage/Limitation to a Characteristic then the Characteristic is then considered a Power. I'm not talking about using a Naked Power Advantage to apply Advantages/Limitations to Characteristics.

Was this the intent of the rules, or have I been reading too much into them all these years? (not the first time this has happened)

Thanks.

- Christopher MullinsAnswer:
Per 5ER 40, you have to use the Characteristics Power to apply a Power Modifier to a Characteristic, or buy it as a naked Advantage.
Well, he does use the words "have to" in his answer. I take this as an affirmative response to my and Hugh's interpretation of the rules actual meaning/intent (regardless of vague/poor wording to get that meaning/intent across).

- Christopher Mullins

PhilFleischmann

Feb 18th, '09, 03:56 PM

Well, he does use the words "have to" in his answer. I take this as an affirmative response to my and Hugh's interpretation of the rules actual meaning/intent (regardless of vague/poor wording to get that meaning/intent across).

- Christopher Mullins
I can't help but notice that you conveniently left out the whole reason for the question in the first place - the NCM factor. Maybe you could have asked him this question instead:

"In a game with Normal Characteristic Maxima, a character who buys his DEX up to 30 has to pay 90 points = 30 + (30 doubled for exceeding NCM). But a character who buys his DEX to 30 with "No Figured Characteristics" on the last 10 points of DEX only pays 50 points = 30 + (30 / 1.5 not doubled because it's a Power due to the modifier). Is this correct?"

Notice also that he doesn't say that you have to buy it as a Power. He says that you have to buy it as a power or as a naked Advantage. Thus Advantaged Characteristics are not really an issue. But Limitations on Characteristics still are.

Here's a bit of ludicrousness that can easily be eliminated in 6E.

schir1964

Feb 18th, '09, 04:29 PM

I can't help but notice that you conveniently left out the whole reason for the question in the first place - the NCM factor.
I did not conveniently leave out anything. The question is whether or not a Characteristic must be purchased as a Power in order to apply Power Modifiers.

I replied specifically to your portion of the post that asked, "By who's Definition", concerning this requirement mentioned by Hugh.

I gave a Just A Clarification for what the rules intended for this particular rule.

Now that it's shown that my interpretation for the intent of this rule is correct, you can't just admit that your interpretation was wrong and say that you disagree with it, instead you try change history and say that my posts were not about the Characteristics and Power Modifiers question, but about a prior Normal Characteristic Maxima question that you had.

If you want Steve Long to answer your question, you can go ask him yourself.

The essence of our exchange consists solely of this:

You asked, "By whose definition?"
I replied, "Per the rules...Characteristics must be purchased as Powers in order to apply Power Modifiers... Just A Clarification."
You responded, "The rules don't mean that..."
I replied, "Should I bother asking Steve Long to verify?"
Others responded, "The rules don't mean that..."
I thought, 'Wow, maybe I'm completely wrong about this. I want to know if I am or not."
I returned with Steve Long's answer to the question above, "Yes, the rules do mean this...".
You responded with, "You did not ask the right question..."

That is how this exchange went down. You might not like it, but that is how it went down.

I was fully prepared to admit that I was wrong about this, and it certainly seemed as if I were, but as it turned out, I was correct.

Now how this affects your discussion of Normal Characteristic Maxima is not my concern. Too bad if you thought it was my concern.

Now you can go on and try to validate yourself however you want, but the question was asked and answered the way it was whether you like it or not.

- Christopher Mullins

The Main Man

Feb 18th, '09, 06:09 PM

I'm thinking that CHAR being bought as Powers shows the relative uselessness of the NCM rules.

To me, they are a built-in house rule.

Steve Long does not live in my house (but he is invited).

Chris Goodwin

Feb 18th, '09, 06:48 PM

Hugh Neilson

Feb 19th, '09, 05:33 AM

Notice also that he doesn't say that you have to buy it as a Power. He says that you have to buy it as a power or as a naked Advantage. Thus Advantaged Characteristics are not really an issue. But Limitations on Characteristics still are.

:rolleyes:You can buy a Naked Advantage on your characteristics. That's a power. You can buy characteristics with an advantage or a limitation only if you buy them as a power.

There is a difference between a naked advantage and an advantaged characteristic. If your STR is Armor Piercing, that is a power. It is always AP. You cannot choose to use it in a non-AP manner. If you buy a Naked Advantage, you have the ability to make your STR AP or not. You can use this AP STR, or not use the AP function, as you see fit. These are different constructs.

If I have a character who has NCM who has a chi-focusing power which allows him to make his STR AP, he would logically buy that as a Naked Advantage. If he wants 30 STR, he pays 20 points to increase it from 20 to 30. But, if his chi is so focused that his STR is always AP - he simply has the advantage on his STR - then he only pays 10 points for that bump from 20 to 30, because his STR is built as a power - it has to be, because it has an advantage.

And if his DEX has No Figured, he can only buy it as a power, so it cannot have its cost doubled.

Here's a bit of ludicrousness that can easily be eliminated in 6E.

The easiest elimination is to ditch NCM. The example of extra running vs roller skates was noted earlier. Extra STR from a powered exoskeleton seems something equally valid to avoid the NCM doubling - the exoskeleton does the work.

NCM means I can't have more than 10" Running without paying double. But I can sell back all my Running and buy 25" Flight at normal cost. There's no NCM limit for flight. NCM does not mean "Normal Human". It means "mechanically, you pay double if you exceed the maxima on your characteristics, or a few movement modes, unless you buy them in such a fashion that we don't impose that doubling".

I'm thinking that CHAR being bought as Powers shows the relative uselessness of the NCM rules.

Absolutely.

To me, they are a built-in house rule.

Steve Long does not live in my house (but he is invited).

Technically, I would have to say that they are the default rule for heroic campaigns and variances, deviations or elimination of the NCM rules are the house rules. And those house rules are fine.

I would like to see the NCM rules not be the standard rules in 6e or, alternatively, see them work in a more consistent and equitable fashion, without scores of exceptions and GM overrides. The former allows the costing of skill levels to be corrected, prevents disparities in the value of Aid and Succor between heroic and superheroic games, and avoid the need to assess which advantages, limitations or SFX allow the character to avoid the cost doubling effect of NCM (effectively converting a -0 limitation to a -1, a -1/4 to -1 1/2, -1/2 to -2, -1 to 3, etc. by virtue of avoiding the doubling rules - a +1 advantage is effectively free when applied to characteristics over NCM.).

To me, the fact that a character gets 20 points for a Disadvantage that says, essentially, that he is a normal person, would suggest that superhuman Characteristics are generally not part of his concept.

To me, normal human suggests something far beyond that. It should also not allow laser beam eyes, force fields and supersonic flight. Yet none of these are altered in any way by NCM. Even if we fix the "characteristics as powers" dilemma, we still find that it can be cheaper to buy flight than running, or just buy Flight, Usable as Running.

Normal Characteristics Maxima as a Disadvantage is relatively inoffensive on its own (except for that 20 point value), but its existence calls for a string of exceptions, special cases, and patches to the rules that, frankly, the system shouldn't need.

I agree absolutely. Ditch NCM and all these problems go away. Seems a petty simple answer. And replace it with, as you say,

I'd be okay with keeping Normal Characteristics Maxima as a campaign "dial", but if the notion of paying double beyond it is kept there should be an option of making NCM a "soft cap". The latter is especially desirable in games with multiple races that have differing levels of NCM. But the concept really needs to be looked at and gotten right this time around.

a better discussion of campaign rules for characteristics - whether an across the board restriction, differing restrictions for different types of characters, exceptions where concept demands or what have you. Don't impose one way to play - set out the options and let the gamers choose the ones that work for their games.

Chris Goodwin

Feb 19th, '09, 07:40 AM

To me, normal human suggests something far beyond that. It should also not allow laser beam eyes, force fields and supersonic flight. Yet none of these are altered in any way by NCM. Even if we fix the "characteristics as powers" dilemma, we still find that it can be cheaper to buy flight than running, or just buy Flight, Usable as Running.

There are plenty of settings where "NCM level" characters have Powers -- spells are one example, and "normals with psi" is another. I don't even see it as that big of a stretch that in those settings it's possible to have spells or Powers that drive someone's Characteristics into superhuman levels. But it depends on genre and setting.

I agree absolutely. Ditch NCM and all these problems go away. Seems a petty simple answer. And replace it with, as you say,

a better discussion of campaign rules for characteristics - whether an across the board restriction, differing restrictions for different types of characters, exceptions where concept demands or what have you. Don't impose one way to play - set out the options and let the gamers choose the ones that work for their games.

Totally. It may very well be that the best fix for NCM is to get rid of it entirely. It wouldn't hurt my feelings in the slightest to see the Disadvantage go away.

The Main Man

Feb 19th, '09, 08:32 AM

I think that I might be better able to deal with the "dial" concept.

Something like HERO's CHAR Benchmarks would probably suffice so that the GM can set the limit at a certain point.

For instance, the GM may want PC's to consistently be as good as Olympic Level athletes (~30) so any point beyond ~30 would be the doubling point, and as mentioned earlier, it would make Fantasy/Sci-Fi races have that extra touch of uniqueness(?).

ghost-angel

Feb 19th, '09, 10:14 AM

PhilFleischmann

Feb 19th, '09, 01:41 PM

You asked, "By whose definition?"
I replied, "Per the rules...Characteristics must be purchased as Powers in order to apply Power Modifiers... Just A Clarification."
You responded, "The rules don't mean that..."
I replied, "Should I bother asking Steve Long to verify?"
Others responded, "The rules don't mean that..."
I thought, 'Wow, maybe I'm completely wrong about this. I want to know if I am or not."
I returned with Steve Long's answer to the question above, "Yes, the rules do mean this...".
You responded with, "You did not ask the right question..."
Not quite. I, and others said, "The rules don't say that..."

I was fully prepared to admit that I was wrong about this, and it certainly seemed as if I were, but as it turned out, I was correct.

Now how this affects your discussion of Normal Characteristic Maxima is not my concern. Too bad if you thought it was my concern.

Now you can go on and try to validate yourself however you want, but the question was asked and answered the way it was whether you like it or not.
Apparently we have different goals and priorities here. Your priorioty seems to be obedience to the rulings of Steve. My priority is making sure 6E is an improvement over 5E - more logical, more fair, etc. Since we are having this discussion on the 6E boards, I assumed you had a similar goal.

PhilFleischmann

Feb 19th, '09, 02:12 PM

There is a difference between a naked advantage and an advantaged characteristic. If your STR is Armor Piercing, that is a power. It is always AP. You cannot choose to use it in a non-AP manner. If you buy a Naked Advantage, you have the ability to make your STR AP or not. You can use this AP STR, or not use the AP function, as you see fit. These are different constructs.
I know that already. What I'm saying is that the only functional difference between the two is that one gets around the NCM rules and the other doesn't - which isn't fair and doesn't make sense.

If I have a character who has NCM who has a chi-focusing power which allows him to make his STR AP, he would logically buy that as a Naked Advantage. If he wants 30 STR, he pays 20 points to increase it from 20 to 30. But, if his chi is so focused that his STR is always AP - he simply has the advantage on his STR - then he only pays 10 points for that bump from 20 to 30, because his STR is built as a power - it has to be, because it has an advantage.
Exactly. Which isn't fair and doesn't make sense. One pays 10+20+20=50, and the other pays 20+15=35. For the extra 15 points, NA guy can turn off his AP to save 2 END when he wants to, just paying the 4 END for his non-AP STR. AP STR-Power guy pays 4 END all the time for his 45-Active AP-STR-Power.

And if his DEX has No Figured, he can only buy it as a power, so it cannot have its cost doubled.
Again no fair and no sense. 90 points for 30 DEX and a base SPD of 4, vs. 50 points for 30 DEX and a base SPD of 3. With the 40 points worth of savings, you can buy your SPD up to the same 4 and still have 30 points left over. In fact, why not go ahead and use the extra 40 points to buy another +20 DEX with No Figured? Then you get 50 DEX and a base 6 SPD for the same price as the other guy got 30 DEX and a base 4 SPD. And why? Because you said, "It's a Power."

The easiest elimination is to ditch NCM.
Yes, that would be the easiest solution, but not the most useful. More useful would be to ditch the "Characteristics with Modifiers are always Powers" rule.

The example of extra running vs roller skates was noted earlier. Extra STR from a powered exoskeleton seems something equally valid to avoid the NCM doubling - the exoskeleton does the work.
Agreed.

NCM means I can't have more than 10" Running without paying double. But I can sell back all my Running and buy 25" Flight at normal cost. There's no NCM limit for flight. NCM does not mean "Normal Human". It means "mechanically, you pay double if you exceed the maxima on your characteristics, or a few movement modes, unless you buy them in such a fashion that we don't impose that doubling".
Yes. What I'd like to see is a change in what constitues "such a fashion that we don't impose that doubling". Simply putting a modifier on it shouldn't be enough.

schir1964

Feb 19th, '09, 09:08 PM

Apparently we have different goals and priorities here. Your priority seems to be obedience to the rulings of Steve. My priority is making sure 6E is an improvement over 5E - more logical, more fair, etc. Since we are having this discussion on the 6E boards, I assumed you had a similar goal.
We do have different goals and priorities.

Your priority is to only read the rules your way and even if Steve Long tells you point blank that is not what the intent of the rules are you'll still think you know better than he does about what the rules were meant to do. You'll gag at a gnat and then swallow a camel. So be it.

My priority is to understand the rules as they were intended. Thus, I'm not a slave to the very letter of the written words as you are. I choose to ask the author of those rules to get clarifications on those rules to enhance my understanding. I can then offer changes to the rules since I am now well informed about how the current rules work. And a well informed person will better understand how those changes will affect the current rules.

So it would seem that you've chosen a poor method to try to change the system to be more logical or more fair, since you won't even try to understand what the original intent of the rules are from the author of those rules.

I've probably said too much, but I'm not going to let you belittle me or my ideas. I'm done with this argument you've been trying to win and I suggest you stop now for I'm very close to reporting you to the moderators.

- Christopher Mullins

Hugh Neilson

Feb 20th, '09, 05:48 AM

My priority is to understand the rules as they were intended. Thus, I'm not a slave to the very letter of the written words as you are. I choose to ask the author of those rules to get clarifications on those rules to enhance my understanding. I can then offer changes to the rules since I am now well informed about how the current rules work. And a well informed person will better understand how those changes will affect the current rules.

I'm on much the same page. The purpose of these forums is to discuss what should change, and what should not, in 6e. If we don't understand what the rules are in 5e, it's tough to identify what we are suggesting as a change.

I know that already. What I'm saying is that the only functional difference between the two is that one gets around the NCM rules and the other doesn't - which isn't fair and doesn't make sense.

Fair enough. However, you suggest below that the line should be moved. We will still have some abilities subject to doubling and some that are not. How will that be any more fair, any more sensible or any less arbitrary? Even if the point of differentiation is **exactly** where you would view as being appropriate, that does not make it any less arbitrary.

Exactly. Which isn't fair and doesn't make sense. One pays 10+20+20=50, and the other pays 20+15=35. For the extra 15 points, NA guy can turn off his AP to save 2 END when he wants to, just paying the 4 END for his non-AP STR. AP STR-Power guy pays 4 END all the time for his 45-Active AP-STR-Power.

Again no fair and no sense. 90 points for 30 DEX and a base SPD of 4, vs. 50 points for 30 DEX and a base SPD of 3. With the 40 points worth of savings, you can buy your SPD up to the same 4 and still have 30 points left over. In fact, why not go ahead and use the extra 40 points to buy another +20 DEX with No Figured? Then you get 50 DEX and a base 6 SPD for the same price as the other guy got 30 DEX and a base 4 SPD. And why? Because you said, "It's a Power."

No, because The Rules say that POWER modifiers like limitations only apply to POWERS, which seems perfectly logical. And because they say "powers are never subject to NCM doubling", which seems more a simplifying assumption which results in a loss of fairness.

Again, I agree this doesn't make sense. The problem is the NCM rules. They need to be fixed. The simplest fix is to remove them so that we never have to assess whether it makes sense for any given approach to permit avoidance of the doubling rule. No doubling rule, no issue.

Another approach would be to eliminate any situation under which the doubling rule is avoided. But that means a character with 10" Running has to pay more for his roller skates than a character with 6" or Running. That's probably fair - both pay doubled costs at the same level - but it's not sensible.

If we establish certain limitations which allow circumvention of the doubling rule, we at best sacrifice fairness for common sense (some limitations gain a much more effective point reduction in heroic games), and at worst we still have common sense gaffes so we don't even achieve the desired benefit.

Yes, that would be the easiest solution, but not the most useful. More useful would be to ditch the "Characteristics with Modifiers are always Powers" rule.

An alternative approach would be to ditch the "characteristics purchased as powers ignore the NCM doubling rule. But only one approach - elimination of NCM - eliminates the pricing issues for skill levels, adjustment powers, etc. which is caused by having two different prices for increased characteristics.

Yes. What I'd like to see is a change in what constitues "such a fashion that we don't impose that doubling". Simply putting a modifier on it shouldn't be enough.

What I'd like to see is more emphasis put on GM's defining campaign parameters and players designing reasonable characters within those parameters. If the GM says "this game is based on normal humans, whose characteristics seldom exceed 20 and never exceed 30", then I should not be putting forward a character with 30 STR, 30 CON and 30 DEX. I should be looking at the GM's parameters, giving my character careful consideration and deciding that he is an extremely high characteristic person, which in this game means a 20 STR, 18 CON and 18 DEX.

Or, if I and the GM agree, he is a character at the absolute pinnacle of human perfection, we agree that he can have the three stats at 30. Or, perhaps, the GM imposes a restriction that NO character may have more than one characteristic over 20, and exceeding the 25 mark for that one characteristic requires him to lower the limit on his other characteristics below 20.

Or the GM sets a perk which must be paid to raise a characteristic above 20, if he wants to impose an extra cost for exceeding the usual campaign baseline. If the GM wants to use a doubling rule, let him - and let him deal with the pricing issues that creates for other abilities. But write the rules, and balance them, with one set of costs in mind, and eliminate the problems created by having to consider two possible prices for exactly the same ability.

And maybe consider using the old NCM doubling rules as a "setting specific" rule, just like the Turakian Age setting's reduction of the cost of magic spells.

At the end of the day, if I say this game has a DC max of 8d6, maximum defenses of 15 and maximum characteristics of 20, I mean "These are as high as you go" (or, if I mean "exceptions are possible in special cases", I will say so). I do not mean "you can violate my campaign guidelines to your heart's content as long as you pay extra points". I mean "these are the parameters of this game - work within them".

StGrimblefig

Feb 20th, '09, 01:24 PM

To me, the fact that a character gets 20 points for a Disadvantage that says, essentially, that he is a normal person, would suggest that superhuman Characteristics are generally not part of his concept.

Which, I'm aware, is different from suggesting that that character shouldn't have Characteristics built as the HERO System construct called "Powers".

Normal Characteristics Maxima as a Disadvantage is relatively inoffensive on its own (except for that 20 point value), but its existence calls for a string of exceptions, special cases, and patches to the rules that, frankly, the system shouldn't need.

I'd be okay with keeping Normal Characteristics Maxima as a campaign "dial", but if the notion of paying double beyond it is kept there should be an option of making NCM a "soft cap". The latter is especially desirable in games with multiple races that have differing levels of NCM. But the concept really needs to be looked at and gotten right this time around.

If you present that as an option, wouldn't it also make sense to present the opposite -- call it an "adamantium cap?" Specifically, if a player chooses to take the NCM disadvantage for a character, there is no way for that character's stats to go above the stated maximums -- no paying double for the privilege, no limited-characteristics-as-powers, no naked advantages. Nothing inherent to the character can make those stats go higher. If they have chosen to be normal, they must remain normal. Period. If the player wants the character to occasionally exceed the "normal" values, then that character is not normal, and should not get points for being so. This goes back to the old guideline: "a disadvantage that doesn't disadvantage the character isn't worth any points."

It seems reasonable also (in appropriate genres) to have a "Racial Characteristic Maxima" disadvantage -- of course that assumes that most PCs are expected to exceed one or more of those maximum values (otherwise, why would it be a disadvantage to choose to not exceed them?).

Just my opinions (and they probably do not take into consideration all possible permutations of genres and settings that someone will now bring up to make me look foolish).

JmOz

Feb 23rd, '09, 05:07 AM

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 23rd, '09, 06:05 AM

A couple of ideas that occured to me today...they might have been said before

First the assumption is that the figured characteristics are no longer figured

What if we merged Con/Body, keep the cost at 2 points still, does this have any value as an idea? my thinking is that Con is next to useless w/o figured characteristics, body also seems somewhat undervalued after loosing the stun element.
Yep, that's been up before. I think a merged CON/BODY at 2 points is acceptable, but perhaps slightly overpriced. I have suggested making REC a derived value of the combined stat (like CV; i.e., not 'figured' as such).

Here is a link (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1772966&postcount=2126) to a set of suggested Primary Characteristics which I'm rather happy with.

- Klaus

rjcurrie

Feb 23rd, '09, 09:58 AM

What I'd like to see is more emphasis put on GM's defining campaign parameters and players designing reasonable characters within those parameters. If the GM says "this game is based on normal humans, whose characteristics seldom exceed 20 and never exceed 30", then I should not be putting forward a character with 30 STR, 30 CON and 30 DEX. I should be looking at the GM's parameters, giving my character careful consideration and deciding that he is an extremely high characteristic person, which in this game means a 20 STR, 18 CON and 18 DEX.

Or, if I and the GM agree, he is a character at the absolute pinnacle of human perfection, we agree that he can have the three stats at 30. Or, perhaps, the GM imposes a restriction that NO character may have more than one characteristic over 20, and exceeding the 25 mark for that one characteristic requires him to lower the limit on his other characteristics below 20.

Or the GM sets a perk which must be paid to raise a characteristic above 20, if he wants to impose an extra cost for exceeding the usual campaign baseline. If the GM wants to use a doubling rule, let him - and let him deal with the pricing issues that creates for other abilities. But write the rules, and balance them, with one set of costs in mind, and eliminate the problems created by having to consider two possible prices for exactly the same ability.

And maybe consider using the old NCM doubling rules as a "setting specific" rule, just like the Turakian Age setting's reduction of the cost of magic spells.

At the end of the day, if I say this game has a DC max of 8d6, maximum defenses of 15 and maximum characteristics of 20, I mean "These are as high as you go" (or, if I mean "exceptions are possible in special cases", I will say so). I do not mean "you can violate my campaign guidelines to your heart's content as long as you pay extra points". I mean "these are the parameters of this game - work within them".

I'd just like to say this is exactly what I would like to see as well. Encouraging the GM to set logical guidelines for characters in his campaign is, in my mind, a far superior approach than the current NCM rules.

ghost-angel

Feb 23rd, '09, 01:28 PM

NCM as a concept should stay in - I find it far too useful.

I think we could do to retool it to be variable based on Campaign and GM Discretion. Most the Genre books already give suggestions for changing NCM to fit the campaign or avoid Characteristic Cluster Syndrome - just move it into the main rules.

PhilFleischmann

Feb 23rd, '09, 03:30 PM

We do have different goals and priorities.

Your priority is to only read the rules your way
No. My priority is to read the rules in a way that makes sense and is fair. Regardless of whose way it is.

and even if Steve Long tells you point blank that is not what the intent of the rules are you'll still think you know better than he does about what the rules were meant to do.
If Steve's online clarifications make less sense and are less fair, then yes, I do know better. If Steve, or you, or anyone else would care to give some explanation as to how his rulings are fair or make sense, by all means, go right ahead. My ego isn't on the line here. I want to create as good a game as possible. If there's something I've missed in my interpretations that isn't as fair as some other, I want to know. Steve's "intent" or anyone else's doesn't matter (to me). What matters is the results of the rules, not the intent of the rules.

My priority is to understand the rules as they were intended. Thus, I'm not a slave to the very letter of the written words as you are.
That strikes me as a truly bizarre statement. I deviate from the "letter of the written words" all the time - and you know this! You say you want to understand what the intent of the rules are. OK, then what? What do you do with that information? Do you compare the intent with the result? Do you evaluate the intended rule interpretation against common sense and fairness? What do you do when the intended rules fall short in this area?

I choose to ask the author of those rules to get clarifications on those rules to enhance my understanding. I can then offer changes to the rules since I am now well informed about how the current rules work. And a well informed person will better understand how those changes will affect the current rules.

I've probably said too much, but I'm not going to let you belittle me or my ideas.
But I guess it's perfectly OK for you to do the same to me. :rolleyes:

I'm done with this argument you've been trying to win and I suggest you stop now for I'm very close to reporting you to the moderators.
For what infraction, I wonder?

PhilFleischmann

Feb 23rd, '09, 03:50 PM

Fair enough. However, you suggest below that the line should be moved. We will still have some abilities subject to doubling and some that are not. How will that be any more fair, any more sensible or any less arbitrary?
It becomes more fair, more sensible, and less arbitrary because it lets the GM decide what's appropriate for his game. The players won't be able to point to the rules and say, "See! It has a Modifier, therefoe it *has* to be a Power, and therefore it *has* to be immune to the doubled cost rule. So you *have* to let me have it for the regular, non-doubled cost, otherwise you're breaking the rules."

Again, I agree this doesn't make sense. The problem is the NCM rules. They need to be fixed. The simplest fix is to remove them so that we never have to assess whether it makes sense for any given approach to permit avoidance of the doubling rule. No doubling rule, no issue.
You said that already. You could just as easily say you should have your legs amputated so you never have to worry about breaking your legs or getting athelete's foot. But legs are useful, and NCM is useful.

Another approach would be to eliminate any situation under which the doubling rule is avoided. But that means a character with 10" Running has to pay more for his roller skates than a character with 6" or Running. That's probably fair - both pay doubled costs at the same level - but it's not sensible.
Right, and I don't think anybody is advocating this.

If we establish certain limitations which allow circumvention of the doubling rule, we at best sacrifice fairness for common sense (some limitations gain a much more effective point reduction in heroic games), and at worst we still have common sense gaffes so we don't even achieve the desired benefit.
So we let the GM decide what's best for his games. As we do with just about every other aspect of the system.

What I'd like to see is more emphasis put on GM's defining campaign parameters and players designing reasonable characters within those parameters.
....
And maybe consider using the old NCM doubling rules as a "setting specific" rule, just like the Turakian Age setting's reduction of the cost of magic spells.
As I understand it, that's the way the current NCM rules are. Unless this was changed between FREd and 5ER, "Normal Characteristic Maxima" does not even have its own entry under Disadvantages. Its primary use is as a campaign setting, not as an individual character Disad, that some characters take and some don't. Perhaps this needs to be clarified more in the rulebook, but I already use it this way exclusively - you don't get points in a Champions game for NCM, nor any other, it's in effect for the whole campaign setting, or it isn't.

ghost-angel

Feb 23rd, '09, 04:24 PM

'Fair' is subjective. I can say almost without fail that everyone here wants a fair set of rules.
Which then leads to what makes "your fair" better than "his fair"?

The Intent and to some extent the Letter of the rules is the common ground from which we all launch to our own versions of fair. To accuse anyone otherwise is folly.

PhilFleischmann

Feb 23rd, '09, 05:44 PM

'Fair' is subjective.
In some cases it is, but in many cases it isn't. It's actually fairly easy to demonstrate fairness or unfairness objectively when dealing with specific values and costs, as in my example:

One character spends 60 points to raise his DEX from 20 to 30, with NCM applying, getting +10 DEX and +1 SPD for 60 points.

Another spends 40 points for DEX-No-Figured to raise his DEX from 20 to 40, not doubled because the Limitation makes it a power, then buys 2 points of SPD, so for the same 60 points, this second character gets +20 DEX and +2 SPD.

That is obviously and objectively unfair.

ghost-angel

Feb 23rd, '09, 05:45 PM

only assuming a GM let's that into his game.

Thag13

Feb 23rd, '09, 06:03 PM

Hey Folks

I know that there are a lot of opinions here on thsi subject, but lets cool off the heated comments here.

I am speaking as a mod here that everyone needs to take a bit of a break and chill just a little bit.

No warnings or infractions are being issued or anything close to that.

I just want everyone to take a breath and relax.

Thank you everyone....

:):)

Hugh Neilson

Feb 23rd, '09, 06:38 PM

In some cases it is, but in many cases it isn't. It's actually fairly easy to demonstrate fairness or unfairness objectively when dealing with specific values and costs, as in my example:

One character spends 60 points to raise his DEX from 20 to 30, with NCM applying, getting +10 DEX and +1 SPD for 60 points.

Another spends 40 points for DEX-No-Figured to raise his DEX from 20 to 40, not doubled because the Limitation makes it a power, then buys 2 points of SPD, so for the same 60 points, this second character gets +20 DEX and +2 SPD.

That is obviously and objectively unfair.

Here I can readily agree. But the same unfairness will exist, to some extent, under any system where some characters pay double for an ability and others do not pay double for the same ability.

My preference is clearly "eliminate double cost rules". You want 12" running? My choice is to let you buy 12" Running, or say "no, in this game 10" running is as high as characters can go". Or perhaps "as high as characters can purchase without a Focus".

The next step down, and it's a far step away, is "if an ability costs double, it costs double regardless of how it is purchased". Thus, the character can buy 12" Running. But a character with 10" Running who buys another 2" with OIF Roller Skates also pays double for that extra 2" running.

The GM can always choose to change the rules, but the base rules form the default. A constant cost for all abilities, to me, is the best approach as the default. This removes the need to price numerous abilities with the possiblity that characteristics will have their costs doubled in some games, and not in others. Set one price for everything and balance on that basis. If someone wants to change the costs, let them work out the ramifications. If the costs are changed for a specific setting, the setting rules can adjust any and all costs with require adjustment.

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 24th, '09, 12:45 AM

The next step down, and it's a far step away, is "if an ability costs double, it costs double regardless of how it is purchased". Thus, the character can buy 12" Running. But a character with 10" Running who buys another 2" with OIF Roller Skates also pays double for that extra 2" running.
Given that NCM generally only applies to heroic campaigns, where roller skates would be equipment bought with money, not points, I don't think this situation would come up very often.

However, I favor hard, campaign-based characteristic maxima. If the maximum is 20, you can't get 21 no matter what you pay. Some effects, like spells, could possibly boost characteristics temporarily above this level, but such effects should include a +1 advantage "may boost characteristics temporarily above campaign max".

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Feb 24th, '09, 05:08 AM

Given that NCM generally only applies to heroic campaigns, where roller skates would be equipment bought with money, not points, I don't think this situation would come up very often.

While roller skates are a bad example, purchase of signature gear is not uncommon in heroic games.

However, I favor hard, campaign-based characteristic maxima. If the maximum is 20, you can't get 21 no matter what you pay. Some effects, like spells, could possibly boost characteristics temporarily above this level, but such effects should include a +1 advantage "may boost characteristics temporarily above campaign max".

I also favour hard caps. The GM can then set the paramaters under which it is possible to exceed them, if any (eg. gear, spells, etc.).

A +1 advantage "may exceed campaign max" seems, to me, simply a permutation of the doubling rule which adds in the issues around advantage stacking.

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 24th, '09, 05:47 AM

A +1 advantage "may exceed campaign max" seems, to me, simply a permutation of the doubling rule which adds in the issues around advantage stacking.
This is true. However, a trope of fantasy is magic that can boost e.g. strength or constitution to superhuman levels. In pulp adventures, drugs can have the same effect. There needs to be some way to achieve this.

About advantage stacking: I suggested way back that the current advantage system should be replaced with a table (see below) where whole-numbered advantages are indexed with a multiplier that increases about 20% per step. This removes the imbalances of advantage stacking and also removes the diminishing effects of limitation stacking (which may or may not be a good thing).

http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=29621&d=1222767035

- Klaus

JmOz

Feb 24th, '09, 10:18 AM

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 24th, '09, 11:53 AM

OK...this may seem like a heathnistic idea, but regarding the NCM debate:

I am in favor of rewriting the basic rule book for "Heroic" only setting. Then in the new Champions book they introduce a number of tweaks that will create the "Super Heroic" but for the basic books it is only heroic...
While I can see where you're going, I think the Powers chapter is needed in many Heroic campaigns as well: Magic spells in fantasy campaigns, mesmerism in pulp campaigns, advanced technology in SF settings, supernatural abilities in horror campaigns, etc.

While I can see that some things, like Frameworks, could be taken out out in a basic book, I don't think that in itself will slim the book down enough to justify it.

- Klaus

Vulcan

Feb 24th, '09, 12:32 PM

Vulcan

Feb 24th, '09, 12:35 PM

ghost-angel

Feb 24th, '09, 01:08 PM

StGrimblefig

Feb 24th, '09, 01:39 PM

OK...this may seem like a heathnistic idea, but regarding the NCM debate:

I am in favor of rewriting the basic rule book for "Heroic" only setting. Then in the new Champions book they introduce a number of tweaks that will create the "Super Heroic" but for the basic books it is only heroic...
Cardinal Fang! Put the heathen in . . . The Comfy Chair! :)
O.K., seriously.
If any part of the rules are removed from the core rule book, that would remove the ability to buy only the one book and define whatever game, in whatever genre you wanted. It would force you to buy one book to get the "shared" rules, and another book for the specific type of game you want to play. That was one of the big things that turned me off about the "new" World of Darkness games.

The 5th Ed. got that part right, I thought. The core rulebook presented everything I needed to play the game how I want. The Champions book gives depth and genre background and examples that are nice to have, but purely optional.

JmOz

Feb 24th, '09, 02:45 PM

While I can see where you're going, I think the Powers chapter is needed in many Heroic campaigns as well: Magic spells in fantasy campaigns, mesmerism in pulp campaigns, advanced technology in SF settings, supernatural abilities in horror campaigns, etc.

While I can see that some things, like Frameworks, could be taken out out in a basic book, I don't think that in itself will slim the book down enough to justify it.

- Klaus

Powers are needed, no doubt. Never said different. I was getting at the idea of Knockback (instead of Knockdown), NCM not applying, and buying equipment with points rather than in game money. Not really going for slimming down the book, rather I am going for simplifying the core mechanics

I agree that Champions is a majority of players BTW, maybe the champions stuff could be put in the rule book as sidebars explaining how to tweak the system for different genre's/games.

I see the game write now as two extremly related games not one, where I feel that the slight differences can cause issues.

ghost-angel

Feb 24th, '09, 05:51 PM

What bugs me - Knockback is already optional, why is it treated like the default norm?

Vulcan

Feb 24th, '09, 05:55 PM

Because a large number - if not an outright majority - of the players play Superheroic games, where it normally is the default rule.

ghost-angel

Feb 24th, '09, 06:02 PM

I fail to see that as a valid argument. I see that as an excuse to ignore the greater Hero System's design.

Oh well. Guess I'll see my way back out of these forums.

Greywind

Feb 24th, '09, 06:38 PM

Because a large number - if not an outright majority - of the players play Superheroic games, where it normally is the default rule.
But it isn't the default for the overall rules.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 24th, '09, 07:09 PM

This is true. However, a trope of fantasy is magic that can boost e.g. strength or constitution to superhuman levels. In pulp adventures, drugs can have the same effect. There needs to be some way to achieve this.

Allowing Aid, Succor, etc. can achieve this quite easily. Or you can simply rule that, in this game, you cannot have characteristics in excess of X naturally, but you can buy them using spells in fantasy (with whatever restrictions you place on spells) or with drugs (and a mandatory suite of limitations for drugs) in your pulp game. You're just fine tuning the requirements and restrictions for the game.

Vulcan

Feb 25th, '09, 11:37 AM

But it isn't the default for the overall rules.

I'm not arguing that. What happens is that people who usually play superheroic rules forget that knockback is actually an optional rule.

The Main Man

Mar 13th, '09, 06:58 PM

I may be dropping a bomb here, but...

I got to slightly rethinking SPD's Base Calculation, particularly that of a suggestion in TUSp while I watched Watchmen for the second time.

The suggestion in question (SPD = (INT/10) + (DEX/10)) was inspired when I was watching the fight between Night Owl II, Ozymandias, and Rorschach.

I got to thinking that while he is certainly supposed to be an impressive physical specimen, he is not exactly dealing with chumps here (physiques aside, they are still supers; plus we have the benefit of continuity to remove all doubt about their abilities) but yet he was still schooling them.

I prefer to attribute this to his superior intellect, which allows him to react faster than they can react to him, represented as such by him having higher SPD.

So part one of this is that I am suggesting that Base SPD = (DEX/10) + (INT/10) in which a starting character will still have a SPD of 2.

Secondly, it's obvious that SPD would have to rise in value, to which I suggest a solid 2 CP per point.

But I am also just as much an advocate of INT as the determinant for "Mental" (as opposed to "Ego") Combat Value, to which it supplants EGO, and should probably cost another point, bringing it to a total of 3 CP per point.

The Main Man's Crux:
INT/10 figures into SPD
Intelligence supplants Ego for determining "Mental" Combat Value
These changes bring INT's total value to 3 CP per point.

BobGreenwade

Mar 14th, '09, 09:34 AM

I could go along with INT being a factor in SPD. As for the cost changes, I'm not so sure.

The Main Man

Mar 14th, '09, 10:33 PM

Hugh Neilson

Mar 15th, '09, 05:10 AM

BobGreenwade

Mar 15th, '09, 09:34 AM

Assuming that INT did factor into SPD, wouldn't it be a tad unbalanced if it still costed 1:1?

As TUSp points out, number crunchers would quickly deduce that SPD is not worth buying separately when +10 INT can be acquired for the same price - who would buy DEX for the residual SPD when it would come effectively free with INT?

OTOH, am I simply misreading you, and you are more talking about INT's cost relative to Mental Combat Value?No, I meant overall, and you raise a very good point on that -- good enough to convince me. If base SPD = (INT + DEX) / 10, then INT should be raised to 2:1, or maybe 1.5:1 if half-point purchases become allowed (as I suggested elsewhere).

An increase in cost would also help solve the problems of +5 INT costing the same as +1 Skill Level with all Intellect Skills; now to just come up with something similar for +5 PRE versus +1 with Interaction Skills.

I'd rather leave MCV based on EGO as the default, though I'd still allow for CVs based on INT, PRE, and even COM for special cases.

nexus

Mar 15th, '09, 09:42 AM

A suggestion for Bleeding: Replace the current system which is a little wonky with a penalized Constitution roll to stop bleeding. It could also be a Body roll (to give Body rolls something to do officially).

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 15th, '09, 09:46 AM

If base SPD = (INT + DEX) / 10, then INT should be raised to 2:1, or maybe 1.5:1 if half-point purchases become allowed (as I suggested elsewhere).

An increase in cost would also help solve the problems of +5 INT costing the same as +1 Skill Level with all Intellect Skills
If we make INT cost 2 and let it count 1/10 towards SPD, then for any given SPD, +5 INT still costs 5 points, same as +1 Skill Level with all Intellect Skills. Problem not solved.

If instead we make INT cost 1.5, as you also suggest, then for any given SPD, +5 INT still costs 2.5 points, half the cost of +1 Skill Level with all Intellect Skills. Problem gets bigger.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Mar 15th, '09, 11:27 AM

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 16th, '09, 01:43 AM

SOLUTION: Lower the cost of +1 with all intellect skills. Make +2 with all perception rolls cost 5 points, and +2 with all intellect skill rolls cost 5 points, make INT feed into SPD and cost INT at 2 points. +10 INT costs 20 points. +2 with INT skills, +2 wirth PER rolls and +1 SPD costs 20 points.

There is no reason INT should cost anything different than the benefits it provides.
Which means there's no reason to buy INT unless you're interested in every single component in equal measure.

Otherwise, looks okay, though I'd rather decouple figureds entirely. That kind of enforcement of stereotype doesn't fit with Hero's "build anything" philosophy.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Mar 16th, '09, 05:07 AM

Which means there's no reason to buy INT unless you're interested in every single component in equal measure.

IOW, there's no reason to buy INT unless your character should exhibit all the traits of having high INT. To me, that's a feature, not a flaw.

I would suggest there's no reason there should be a discount provided for characters who want every single component in equal measure, compared to a character whose conception calls for only a subset of those components.

Otherwise, looks okay, though I'd rather decouple figureds entirely. That kind of enforcement of stereotype doesn't fit with Hero's "build anything" philosophy.

To me, what doesn't fit with the philosophy is a discount for a character wanting a specific group of abilities when another doesn't.

Of course, decoupling figured's becomes very easy once we know the cost of every derived function of the characteristic. If INT provides bonuses to INT rolls, bonuses to PER rolls and a bonus to SPD (for example), we can ditch INT entirely and just have people buy the bonuses to simulate INT.

We could even allow an Elemental Control: High Intelligence, in which the character buys bonuses to INT rolls, bonuses to PER rolls and additional speed to reflect his quick thinking.

This would be an interesting alternative in deconstructing characteristics. If I can buy, say:

10 EC: High Int:

10 Sharp as a Tack +4 to INT rolls (leaving these at 5 points each)
10 Amazingly Perceptive +4 to PER rolls (boosting this to 5 points each)
10 Quick Thinking +2 SPD

the total of 40 points makes an appropriate cost for +20 INT. This would preserve a discount for buying all the components of a characteristic. However, it would also allow a discount for only buying some of the elements (take out the extra PER and it costs 30 - we now have the brilliant, but unperceptive, scientist) or adding in related elements ("Strong Mind - +20 Mental Defense").

It means getting over the "must cost END" restriction currently applied to EC's, but I find that an arbitrary restriction in any case.

There is, however, a feeling that EC's provide a discount for common SFX, and that this discount is excessive. If the EC goes away, that bolsters the theory that there should be no discount for characteristics granting a tight group of benefits related by their SFX either. But, to me, that means more than figured characteristics - it needs to extend to all the benefits the characteristic provides.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 16th, '09, 06:57 AM

IOW, there's no reason to buy INT unless your character should exhibit all the traits of having high INT. To me, that's a feature, not a flaw.

I would suggest there's no reason there should be a discount provided for characters who want every single component in equal measure, compared to a character whose conception calls for only a subset of those components.
I don't say your philosophy is wrong, just that mine is different. I fear that if we do as you suggest, then character sheets will become extremely cluttered with micro-details.

To me, what doesn't fit with the philosophy is a discount for a character wanting a specific group of abilities when another doesn't.
There's a difference between saying "these things are inherently a part of this characteristic" and "if you buy this characteristic, you must also buy at least so and so much of this other, separate characteristic" (which is really what figureds do). The CV you get from DEX, and the lifting ability you get from STR, are part of makes these characteristics what they are, and they cannot be bought seperately. I'm fine with that, because that makes it always meaningful to buy characteristics - they provide something that cannot be copied exactly by other traits.

I'm against too much redundancy in Hero because it complicates things and causes balance issues (the same thing has different costs depending on how you build it). Hence, it should come as no surprise that I'm in the camp that wants to merge Armor and FF. Hell, I might even go so far as to suggest that the PD/ED figured/secondary characteristics should go away, and instead let all characters start with 3 points of nonresistant, persistant Defense that can only be bought up by buying more Defense through powers or equipment.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Mar 16th, '09, 12:36 PM

There's a difference between saying "these things are inherently a part of this characteristic" and "if you buy this characteristic, you must also buy at least so and so much of this other, separate characteristic" (which is really what figureds do). The CV you get from DEX, and the lifting ability you get from STR, are part of makes these characteristics what they are, and they cannot be bought seperately. I'm fine with that, because that makes it always meaningful to buy characteristics - they provide something that cannot be copied exactly by other traits.

I find this a very spurious argument. If REC, END and STUN could not be bought up or down separately, and OCV and DCV could, the same logic would apply except that you would be forced to buy at least so and so much OCV and DCV, while REC, STUN and END would be "part of what makes these characteristics".

They can all be segregated. The only difference is that some of the derived abilities arbitrarily got named "Figured Characteristics" to be bought up separately. Others got named "Skill Levels", or "PER Bonuses" or "Leaping". It doesn't make those components any more, or any less, intrinsic to the characteristic from which their base values are derived.

I'm against too much redundancy in Hero because it complicates things and causes balance issues (the same thing has different costs depending on how you build it). Hence, it should come as no surprise that I'm in the camp that wants to merge Armor and FF. Hell, I might even go so far as to suggest that the PD/ED figured/secondary characteristics should go away, and instead let all characters start with 3 points of nonresistant, persistant Defense that can only be bought up by buying more Defense through powers or equipment.

Emphasis added.

Currently, INT and PER bonuses carry a different cost depending on whether you buy levels or INT. PRE bonuses have the same issue - if you buy PRE defense and PRE skill levels, it costs more than buying PRE.

While I like the idea of merging Force Field and Armor to reduce duplication, I question whether that "less options" simplification actually results in "enhanced playability" simplification. I'd like to see the characteristics priced as bundles of abilities that we associate with those characteristics.

You want to buy the abilities separately? Sounds reasonable. Let's provide for that. You want to buy the characteristic and get the abilities built right in? Sure, why not? Let's allow for that. Make it simple for the player to buy what he wants!

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 16th, '09, 02:50 PM

I find this a very spurious argument. If REC, END and STUN could not be bought up or down separately, and OCV and DCV could, the same logic would apply except that you would be forced to buy at least so and so much OCV and DCV, while REC, STUN and END would be "part of what makes these characteristics".
Exactly! (And not spurious at all;).) There us a big difference IMO between a derived ability (an integral part of a characteristic) and a figured characteristic (which can be bought up seperately and which isn't affectd when the primary characteristics is drained or boosted).

Currently, INT and PER bonuses carry a different cost depending on whether you buy levels or INT. PRE bonuses have the same issue - if you buy PRE defense and PRE skill levels, it costs more than buying PRE.
I agree that there is a bigh problem with INT and PRE because +5 INT/PRE costs exactly the same as a level in all INT/PRE skills and does a lot more. As I said, there are balance issues when you can buy the same thing in more than one way. However, I see no problem with a slight discount when you buy bundles. If a PRE skill level and +5 PRE defense cost, say, 3 points each, I would have no problem with +5 PRE costing 5 points - though I would prefer if PRE bought you something unique to the characteristic rather than being just a bundle of things you could buy seperately. Perhaps a Will Roll might be enough.

While I like the idea of merging Force Field and Armor to reduce duplication, I question whether that "less options" simplification actually results in "enhanced playability" simplification. I'd like to see the characteristics priced as bundles of abilities that we associate with those characteristics.
Merging FF and Armor would not mean "less options". You can now make Armor from Force Field by applying advantages and limitations: 0 END (+½), Persistant (+½), Invisible Power Effects (+1), Doesn't Protect Focii (-1/4). The cost is very different, though, which I see as a problem (but I already said that). Consolidating the two into a single Defense power would prevent this discrepanct, but not reduce options.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Mar 16th, '09, 05:29 PM

Merging FF and Armor would not mean "less options". You can now make Armor from Force Field by applying advantages and limitations: 0 END (+½), Persistant (+½), Invisible Power Effects (+1), Doesn't Protect Focii (-1/4). The cost is very different, though, which I see as a problem (but I already said that). Consolidating the two into a single Defense power would prevent this discrepanct, but not reduce options.

But the player looking for Force Fields and Armor doesn't find them. Now, to me, the answer is to provide Force Field and Armor as example powers for "Characteristics as Powers - PD + ED + Damage Resistance".

Hugh Neilson

Mar 16th, '09, 05:32 PM

Exactly! (And not spurious at all;).) There us a big difference IMO between a derived ability (an integral part of a characteristic) and a figured characteristic (which can be bought up seperately and which isn't affectd when the primary characteristics is drained or boosted).

Tell me a difference between DCV and Recovery that makes a compelling case for why one should be a figured characteristic and the other should not. If 1e had left REC as being derived from STR and CON, with no option for buying it up or selling it back, but set a price for DCV and allowed it to be purchased separately, then you would be arguing that we should decouple DCV from DEX and REC is an integral part of STR and CON.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 17th, '09, 03:08 AM

Tell me a difference between DCV and Recovery that makes a compelling case for why one should be a figured characteristic and the other should not. If 1e had left REC as being derived from STR and CON, with no option for buying it up or selling it back, but set a price for DCV and allowed it to be purchased separately, then you would be arguing that we should decouple DCV from DEX and REC is an integral part of STR and CON.
The fact that REC is figured from two characteristics clearly means that it isn't an integral part of any one characteristic - even if it couldn't be bought up or down. Also, REC is not affected when STR or CON is aided or drained - another sign that it isn't an integral part of the characteristics.

However, I have earlier suggested making REC a derived trait from CON, much like CV is derived from DEX. I don't mind integral, derived traits nearly as much as I mind separate, figured traits. In fact, I think that all the current figured characteristics should either be entirely decoupled (become independent characteristics) or be made derived traits that can't be bought up or down and which will be affected by aids and drains on the characteristic from which they are derived.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Mar 17th, '09, 04:53 AM

The fact that REC is figured from two characteristics clearly means that it isn't an integral part of any one characteristic - even if it couldn't be bought up or down. Also, REC is not affected when STR or CON is aided or drained - another sign that it isn't an integral part of the characteristics.

:rolleyes:We seem to miss the point here. My point is that there is no dividing line between most of the "derived characteristics" such as DCV and the "figured characteristics" other than the arbitrary decision to have the latter available for purchase separately, and affected independently by adjustment powers, and the former unavailable for direct independent purchase and afected with the related characteristic by adjustment powers.

With no overarching philosophy behind the differentiation, I am in favour of eliminating that differentiation in 6e.

However, I have earlier suggested making REC a derived trait from CON, much like CV is derived from DEX. I don't mind integral, derived traits nearly as much as I mind separate, figured traits. In fact, I think that all the current figured characteristics should either be entirely decoupled (become independent characteristics) or be made derived traits that can't be bought up or down and which will be affected by aids and drains on the characteristic from which they are derived.

I favour the model of making all derived traits available for separate, independent purchase. This is, to me, consistent with the desired flexibility of Hero, and its toolbox approach. It allows the players to choose:

- the ability to purchase primary characteristics if they want all the benefits of same, or purchase those components which are relevant, and not those which are not, at an equitable price.

- if a group wants to eliminate some or all such derived stats from independent buyup, they simply do so - as a house or campaign rule, you cannot buy up those derived stats.

- if a group wants to decouple one or more such derived stats, they simply adjust the price of the stat from which it is derived accordingly as a house or campaign rule.

For easier comparison of prior editions, and the rational connection many people see between the primary and many derived characteristics, I suggest the first approach should be the defualt, with such repricing, revision of formuli and setting prices for certain derived stats as is necessary to implement this.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 17th, '09, 07:42 AM

We seem to miss the point here. My point is that there is no dividing line between most of the "derived characteristics" such as DCV and the "figured characteristics" other than the arbitrary decision to have the latter available for purchase separately, and affected independently by adjustment powers, and the former unavailable for direct independent purchase and afected with the related characteristic by adjustment powers.

With no overarching philosophy behind the differentiation, I am in favour of eliminating that differentiation in 6e.
On that I agree. I simply favor derived traits, where you favor figured characteristics.

I favour the model of making all derived traits available for separate, independent purchase. This is, to me, consistent with the desired flexibility of Hero, and its toolbox approach.
That may well be, but I fear it will also make an already very complicated (not the same as complex) game even more complicated. However, I would like to see a writeup of what you visualize to get a better idea of your proposal.

- Klaus

ajackson

Mar 17th, '09, 09:05 AM

We seem to miss the point here. My point is that there is no dividing line between most of the "derived characteristics" such as DCV and the "figured characteristics" other than the arbitrary decision to have the latter available for purchase separately, and affected independently by adjustment powers, and the former unavailable for direct independent purchase and afected with the related characteristic by adjustment powers.
DCV is perfectly buyable; it's a special case of levels. Looking at the stats:

Str: lifting is not easily buyable independently, nor is strength damage.
Dex: CV is buyable independently. Dex rolls are buyable independently. Spd is buyable independently. Initiative is really the only thing that can't be bought by itself.
Con: there is no easy way to buy the effects of con on your stun threshold. All other benefits are easily buyable as figured stats.
Bod: there is no easy way to buy body points separately, though stun is obviously buyable.
Int: everything granted by Int can be done with levels.
Pre: everything except presence attack/defense can be done with levels. I wouldn't mind seeing presence attack removed; just use Intimidate and a Leadership skills.
Ego: the way ego determines threshold values for mental powers cannot easily be bought by itself. All other effects are easily buyable as levels. I'm not especially fond of the way mental powers work at the moment.
Com: to the degree this even has an effect in the game, buyable with levels.

BobGreenwade

Mar 17th, '09, 09:10 AM

DCV is perfectly buyable; it's a special case of levels. Looking at the stats:

Str: lifting is not easily buyable independently, nor is strength damage.
Dex: CV is buyable independently. Dex rolls are buyable independently. Spd is buyable independently. Initiative is really the only thing that can't be bought by itself.

Actually, STR Damage sort of can be bought independently, with Hand-To-Hand Attack. And Initiative can be bought separately, as Lightning Reflexes.

ajackson

Mar 17th, '09, 09:21 AM

Actually, STR Damage sort of can be bought independently, with Hand-To-Hand Attack. And Initiative can be bought separately, as Lightning Reflexes.
You can't add HA to thrown objects, improvised weapons, and the like. You can't add HA to your Str roll in grappling. You can actually get the functions of Str damage with martial arts, but doing so is quite complicated.

For lightning reflexes, I thought it was just limited Dex.

Vulcan

Mar 17th, '09, 11:45 AM

But the player looking for Force Fields and Armor doesn't find them. Now, to me, the answer is to provide Force Field and Armor as example powers for "Characteristics as Powers - PD + ED + Damage Resistance".

And the player looking for Ice Powers doesn't find that either - or Fire Powers, or Magical spells, or Hypnosis....

Armor and FF are FX imposed upon a capability - Resistant PD and ED.

However, I don't support breaking all defenses down to just PD, ED and Damage Resistance. I think a Resistant Defenses power is a must - for power framework's sake, if nothing else. I just don't see why the FX of 'Armor' or 'Force Field' should automatically carry certain benefits - or hinderances. :confused:

bwdemon

Mar 17th, '09, 12:56 PM

And the player looking for Ice Powers doesn't find that either - or Fire Powers, or Magical spells, or Hypnosis....

Armor and FF are FX imposed upon a capability - Resistant PD and ED.

However, I don't support breaking all defenses down to just PD, ED and Damage Resistance. I think a Resistant Defenses power is a must - for power framework's sake, if nothing else.
Unless you get rid of resistant defenses and KAs...

I just don't see why the FX of 'Armor' or 'Force Field' should automatically carry certain benefits - or hindrances. :confused:
Nostalgia?

ghost-angel

Mar 17th, '09, 07:48 PM

And the player looking for Ice Powers doesn't find that either - or Fire Powers, or Magical spells, or Hypnosis....

Armor and FF are FX imposed upon a capability - Resistant PD and ED.

However, I don't support breaking all defenses down to just PD, ED and Damage Resistance. I think a Resistant Defenses power is a must - for power framework's sake, if nothing else. I just don't see why the FX of 'Armor' or 'Force Field' should automatically carry certain benefits - or hinderances. :confused:

They're SFX Implied - not SFX Imposed (like Missile Deflection does).

Armor - Persistent Resistant Defense
Force Field - Constant Resistant Defense

and all that comes along with Persistent and Constant Powers Mechanically.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 18th, '09, 03:40 AM

DCV is perfectly buyable; it's a special case of levels. Looking at the stats:

Str: lifting is not easily buyable independently, nor is strength damage.
Dex: CV is buyable independently. Dex rolls are buyable independently.

No they aren't. I can buy a DCV level, but it shuts off if I'm surprised. DCV from DEX is halved if I'm surprised. There is no provision for buying +1 OCV across the board. I can buy a level with DEX skills, but if my Contortionist would be complementary to my Acrobatics in a tight spot, I have to assign the level to one or the other.

Spd is buyable independently. Initiative is really the only thing that can't be bought by itself.

Lightning reflexes are overpriced, but effectively are the purchase of initiative.

Con: there is no easy way to buy the effects of con on your stun threshold. All other benefits are easily buyable as figured stats.
Bod: there is no easy way to buy body points separately, though stun is obviously buyable.

Well, there's BOD no Figured, but it's cheaper to buy BOD and sell the STUN back.

Int: everything granted by Int can be done with levels.

Again, we get the issue of complementary rolls. And even if I accept that 1 level with INT rolls can apply to PER rolls, my PER roll goes down while I'm thinking about Forensics.

Pre: everything except presence attack/defense can be done with levels. I wouldn't mind seeing presence attack removed; just use Intimidate and a Leadership skills.

"Everything except" is 2 of the 3 things PRE does, and the third suffers the same effect as INT and DEX rolls.

Ego: the way ego determines threshold values for mental powers cannot easily be bought by itself. All other effects are easily buyable as levels. I'm not especially fond of the way mental powers work at the moment.

Again, levels must be assigned. Straight EGO's always there. The mental damage threshhold is the easiest to bump - Mental Defense not vs Ego Attack.

Com: to the degree this even has an effect in the game, buyable with levels.

Minimial impact, but the same issues levels have above.

And the player looking for Ice Powers doesn't find that either - or Fire Powers, or Magical spells, or Hypnosis....

True enough - and that's why I'd be OK with Armor and Force Field as sample powers derived from PD + ED + Damage Resistance.

However, I don't support breaking all defenses down to just PD, ED and Damage Resistance. I think a Resistant Defenses power is a must - for power framework's sake, if nothing else. I just don't see why the FX of 'Armor' or 'Force Field' should automatically carry certain benefits - or hinderances. :confused:

All we need to do is clarify that characteristics (especially characteristics bought as powers) can be placed in frameworks. Several example characters will doubtless have frameworks with Force Field or Armor powers in frameworks to clarify that this is not only allowable, but commonplace.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 18th, '09, 07:36 AM

All we need to do is clarify that characteristics (especially characteristics bought as powers) can be placed in frameworks.
I think it might be a good idea to distinguish between "natural" characteristics (bought normally) and "powered" characteristics (with limitations or advantages or in frameworks), even if only that the "natural" ones are harder to drain. Or perhaps "powered" characteristics should cost END unless bought with 0 END. Otherwise I fear that applying limitations on characteristics or putting them in frameworks will be such a good idea that few will choose to buy them normally.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Mar 18th, '09, 11:13 AM

I think it might be a good idea to distinguish between "natural" characteristics (bought normally) and "powered" characteristics (with limitations or advantages or in frameworks), even if only that the "natural" ones are harder to drain. Or perhaps "powered" characteristics should cost END unless bought with 0 END. Otherwise I fear that applying limitations on characteristics or putting them in frameworks will be such a good idea that few will choose to buy them normally.

How are characteristics different from other powers in this regard? Generally, I don't want a Multipower for my DEX, PRE, CON and EGO. I want them to be in effect at all times.

Why is limited or advantaged STR somehow worse for the game than a limited or advantaged Energy Blast?

Assuming that characteristics are appropriately priced, and frameworks are appropriately priced, I don't see where mixing them should create a problem.

Vulcan

Mar 18th, '09, 12:31 PM

Assuming that characteristics are appropriately priced, and frameworks are appropriately priced, I don't see where mixing them should create a problem.

The problem comes when someone makes a concept where all of their characteristics go into an EC. I did this once, the GM allowed it, and man was it cheese! :o The charcter could take on NPC's 2-3x his point level by himself! http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/sick.gif Against NPC's of the same point level, it just wasn't fair at all...

Ice9

Mar 18th, '09, 02:31 PM

That's more an issue with ECs though - they do give you points (almost) for free. The only counter-factor is that a character who bought their characteristics in one would be extremely vulnerable to Suppress/Drain.

ajackson

Mar 18th, '09, 03:54 PM

No they aren't. I can buy a DCV level, but it shuts off if I'm surprised. DCV from DEX is halved if I'm surprised. There is no provision for buying +1 OCV across the board. I can buy a level with DEX skills, but if my Contortionist would be complementary to my Acrobatics in a tight spot, I have to assign the level to one or the other.
What makes you think levels can't be assigned outside of combat? If it's a DCV level, there's no reason it won't always be on DCV.

Nothing prevents you from buying 2 point levels at both. Sure, it's inefficient, but I never said it was reasonably priced, just that it's doable. In any case, that particular use of complimentary skills is dubiously balanced to start with, so I can't say I would really care about it not working (actually, I'd be okay with a complimentary skill rule that is just 'If you have an appropriate complimentary skill at better than a familiarity, you get a +1'.)

Well, there's BOD no Figured, but it's cheaper to buy BOD and sell the STUN back.
It's still Bod, which was my point. You can do any sub-attribute by going 'Char: only for X'.

Again, we get the issue of complementary rolls. And even if I accept that 1 level with INT rolls can apply to PER rolls, my PER roll goes down while I'm thinking about Forensics.
So buy enhanced perception at 3/level. Cost for Int is a bit low anyway.

"Everything except" is 2 of the 3 things PRE does, and the third suffers the same effect as INT and DEX rolls.
I consider every Pre-based skill to be a different thing, so it's more like 2/13.

Again, levels must be assigned. Straight EGO's always there. The mental damage threshhold is the easiest to bump - Mental Defense not vs Ego Attack.
Doesn't work on NNDs (as NND mind control is totally useless, it might not be a problem to not have Ego apply against an NND mind control, but currently it does). For the level point, see above.

ajackson

Mar 18th, '09, 04:04 PM

Assuming that characteristics are appropriately priced, and frameworks are appropriately priced, I don't see where mixing them should create a problem.
For more or less the same reason that special powers aren't allowed in frameworks; when you have an effect that's rarely needed but very potent when needed, pricing it within a framework is kind of broken.

This is actually a general problem with non-combat powers in a framework. If you have two attack powers in a multipower, the point savings tends to be valid, because having two different styles of energy blast (or whatever) doesn't really make you all that much stronger. If you have attacks and defenses in a framework, again, it's not a problem -- sure, you might be invulnerable, but you can't do anything either. However, if you multipower together two abilities that you have no real reason to use at the same time in the first place (say, Energy Blast and Forensics) you wind up with bogus savings. As such, multipower slots for Int and Pre tend to be abusive (most other stats are substantially about combat, for less of a problem).

Hugh Neilson

Mar 18th, '09, 07:22 PM

What makes you think levels can't be assigned outside of combat?

This...

When can characters assign Combat Skill Levels? If two characters begin a scene not in combat, and then confront one another, does the one with the lower DEX get to assign any CSLs before the higher-DEX one attacks?
Levels are assigned as a Zero Phase Action (5ER 53). A character can perform a Zero Phase Action at the beginning of his Phase, or after a Half Phase Action, but not after an Attack Action (5ER 357-58). A character’s Phase begins on his DEX in the Segments indicated by his SPD (5ER 356).

Therefore, characters assign (or change the assignment of) CSLs when they begin their Phases, which is to say on the order of their DEX in the Segment. That means that, at the very beginning of a fight, the slower character isn’t going to get the benefit of any CSLs until his Phase first comes up (unless he Aborts to assign them to DCV, or to OCV to Block).
************************************************** ********
Can a character apply his Skill Levels in a “Persistent” fashion, such as always keeping them assigned to Perception Rolls when they’re not used for something else?

Generally speaking, characters shouldn’t be allowed to use Skill Levels in this sort of “Persistent” manner. It’s clearly illegal for CSLs and DCV, and allowing some uses but not others could lead to a slippery slope of definitions. A character could perhaps even assign them to Danger Sense all the time and effectively get to DCV via a back door.
That being said, as always the GM should let reason, common sense, and dramatic sense be his watchwords. While he shouldn’t let a character walk around with his Levels assigned every waking minute of the day, there are undoubtedly situations where it would be reasonable and not abusive to have Levels assigned to a particular function for a long period of time. It’s up to the GM to make the call based on the situation and his faith in the player.

If it's a DCV level, there's no reason it won't always be on DCV..

Except for the rules as explained by Steve Long.

Nothing prevents you from buying 2 point levels at both. Sure, it's inefficient, but I never said it was reasonably priced, just that it's doable. In any case, that particular use of complimentary skills is dubiously balanced to start with, so I can't say I would really care about it not working (actually, I'd be okay with a complimentary skill rule that is just 'If you have an appropriate complimentary skill at better than a familiarity, you get a +1'.)

You can do it but it`s overly expensive for what it does is not a solution. It`s a problem. 6e should make every effort to balance these abilities.

It's still Bod, which was my point. You can do any sub-attribute by going 'Char: only for X'

So why not make it easy to do and make the cost equitable

So buy enhanced perception at 3/level. Cost for Int is a bit low anyway.

So this character should pay 8 points for most of the benefits the guy who spend 5 points on +5 INT gets. That seems fair. I`d like 6e to strike a better balance. The cost of the components should not differ markedly from the cost of the bundle.

I consider every Pre-based skill to be a different thing, so it's more like 2/13.

I assume you don`t allow 5 point skill levels, then, since each PRE based skill is a separate thing. But I`d be quite happy to buy PRE not for Pre-Based skills for 2/13 of the usual price. Even 20% seems like a bargain.

Doesn't work on NNDs (as NND mind control is totally useless, it might not be a problem to not have Ego apply against an NND mind control, but currently it does). For the level point, see above.

I can live with that, as no one sane would ever buy an NND mind control anyway. That said, I would also be OK with allowing the mental power threshhold to be bought up independent of EGO. It is another component part, so it should be priced out.

ajackson

Mar 18th, '09, 11:17 PM

You can do it but it`s overly expensive for what it does is not a solution. It`s a problem. 6e should make every effort to balance these abilities.
Agreed, though I'm not sure what the point of debate is at this point. I was just addressing whether you can buy the components of attributes without buying the attributes themselves, not whether the price for doing so is reasonable.

BobGreenwade

Mar 19th, '09, 07:16 AM

The problem comes when someone makes a concept where all of their characteristics go into an EC. I did this once, the GM allowed it, and man was it cheese! :o The charcter could take on NPC's 2-3x his point level by himself! http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/sick.gif Against NPC's of the same point level, it just wasn't fair at all...

That's more an issue with ECs though - they do give you points (almost) for free. The only counter-factor is that a character who bought their characteristics in one would be extremely vulnerable to Suppress/Drain.Actually, despite your very valid point regarding Suppress/Drain, I'd favor a rule that Characteristics should never go into an EC. At the very least, if Figured Characteristics remain as such, one could even argue that the Characteristics used to figure them (STR, DEX, CON, and BODY) are Power Frameworks for purposes of fitting into other Power Frameworks; or, that such abilities take the No Figured Characteristics Limitation for no bonus.

Greywind

Mar 19th, '09, 09:44 AM

Characteristics should stay out of frameworks. Same as now.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 19th, '09, 10:18 AM

Actually, despite your very valid point regarding Suppress/Drain, I'd favor a rule that Characteristics should never go into an EC. At the very least, if Figured Characteristics remain as such, one could even argue that the Characteristics used to figure them (STR, DEX, CON, and BODY) are Power Frameworks for purposes of fitting into other Power Frameworks; or, that such abilities take the No Figured Characteristics Limitation for no bonus.

Or we could ensure that characteristics are equitably priced in respect of what they grant (in part by repricing what they grant and likely in part by repricing a very few of the characteristics) and remove the need to bar them from frameworks.

If Figured's are eliminated, and ECs remain, one could even reasonably take a "Good Health" EC with CON, REC, STUN and END in it.

MicroMike

Mar 19th, '09, 11:00 AM

Man, am I late to the parade or what. Anyway, my .02 on characterists before Steve starts writing.

COM: suggested to replace with good looking/sexy/model talent. Negative COM can be a disadvantage.

PRE: suggested to replace with leadership or some such skill. Can be resisted with EGO as PRE is now.

Figured Characterists: suggested no longer figured, buy outright.

PD/ED: suggested to fold into one stat: DEF. Already done for all inanimate objects.

END: suggested to get rid of it. Currently its based on CON x2, so why not just use CON? Truth time: keeping track of END use and recovery is BORING. OTOH, you do want some kind of fatigue/exhaustion model. Link it to CON, as there is no need to invent a new stat.

SPD: keep this, its not HERO without the speed chart.

Finally, my most contriversial suggestion (just throwing it out there)

Simplify the numbers. Currently there is no difference in game mechanics from STR 10 and STR 11, or INT 14 and INT 15. So just say you have to buy such stats in multiples of 5. No more math breakpoints. No more INT 13 for the +1 to all INT and PER skills. DEX or other expensive stats might be bought in multiples of 3, but removing SPD and/or DV from DEX might bring its cost down to other characteristics.

Then....you can take a normal human, and call him/her stats +0. To make a buff human, say we add STR+1, DEX+1, SPD+1, and EGO+2. This equals:

STR 15, DEX 15, SPD 3, EGO 10 at a cost of (5+10+10+20=45, or whatever values you place on STR, DEX, SPD and EGO)

You could take a archetype like Heroic Normal and say he/she starts with +1 to all stats for free. A starting Superhero gets +2 to all stats for free. Starting cosmic level uberheros get +4 to all stats for free. Take a disadvantage to reduce a particular characteristic. GM can place maximum ceilings on characteristics, no more than +6 or -2, or double cost after +4 or whatever.

This is sort of done now. Just a way to reduce the math game that is such a part of HERO now, that scares away new players to the game.

Greywind

Mar 19th, '09, 12:44 PM

Looks a lot like Fuzion...

The Main Man

Mar 19th, '09, 01:01 PM

I am thinking that a simple subtraction of 1 CP to all Skill Levels would mostly fix the CHAR vs. Skill Levels conundrum.

Granted this is a hard and fast idea.

PhilFleischmann

Mar 19th, '09, 02:47 PM

Currently there is no difference in game mechanics from STR 10 and STR 11,
Actually, there is: +1 STUN and +14 kg of lifting.

or INT 14 and INT 15.
There, you're right. Though I've given my suggestions, many, many pages ago, as to how to make individual points of INT matter.

Plus, there is a difference in both of these (and all Chars) when they are effected by Adjustment Powers.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 20th, '09, 01:44 AM

If Figured's are eliminated, and ECs remain, one could even reasonably take a "Good Health" EC with CON, REC, STUN and END in it.
Would there then be any reason why one wouldn't do that?

OTOH I can see reasons to allow Characteristics in Multipowers, because that sort of thing is seen in the source material. Ultraboy can switch between superstrength and other powers, and Evolutionary Boy (one of the Heroes of Lallor, also Legion universe) can switch between a very strong and tough proto-human form and a very intelligent evolved human form.

However, there should be some disadvantages to that. or I foresee a lot of characters with +60 INT in their Multipowers. INT is rarely used in combat, so these characters would switch to INT out of combat and handle all intellect tasks and PER rolls like a breeze.

I can also see how having oodles of REC in a multipower could come in handy: Switch to that in segment 12 or when taking a Recovery action. If you've taken BODY damage, you can also have the REC switched on between action so you can get the BODY back in no time.

An easy solution could be to have a +½ advantage "Characteristics as Powers". This should be applied before you can apply limitations or other advantages to Characteristics or placing them in frameworks. Or make it a +0 advantage, which also makes Characteristics cost END.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Mar 20th, '09, 04:21 AM

Would there then be any reason why one wouldn't do that?

Probably not. But then, the argument for why virtually every Super has a CON and DEX over NCM, even when these abilities are in no way related to their abilities, is that Supers are just always healthy and fast. That being the case, all Supers have the SFX "Healthy and Fit" and "Swift and Agile", so why shouldn't all Supers have EC's with those SFX? Have you ever seen a fire powers Super without a Fire EC?

Under present rules, is there ever any reason, assessed from the same mechanical viewpoint, to ever:

- buy STR, CON or BOD No Figured?
- have 6 attacks in a Swiss Army Multipower as Flexible, rather than Fixed, slots?
- have several attacks in an EC rather than a Multipower?

How often do you see a classic Energy Projector who doesn't toss his Defense Power and Movement Power, at a minimum, into an EC? There, the adjustment power down side is a reason not to, but not much of one.

I also see a lot of concerns with the present system/suggestions with 6e dismissed with, essentially, "you can do that already - just because it's hugely inefficient isn't a reason to change it in 6e."

OTOH I can see reasons to allow Characteristics in Multipowers, because that sort of thing is seen in the source material. Ultraboy can switch between superstrength and other powers, and Evolutionary Boy (one of the Heroes of Lallor, also Legion universe) can switch between a very strong and tough proto-human form and a very intelligent evolved human form.

However, there should be some disadvantages to that. or I foresee a lot of characters with +60 INT in their Multipowers. INT is rarely used in combat, so these characters would switch to INT out of combat and handle all intellect tasks and PER rolls like a breeze.

I can also see how having oodles of REC in a multipower could come in handy: Switch to that in segment 12 or when taking a Recovery action. If you've taken BODY damage, you can also have the REC switched on between action so you can get the BODY back in no time.

At some point, we have to rely on players showing, and GM's enforcing, a bit of reasonableness and playing to concept. Why doesn't everyone have Regeneration (WAY more effective than REC for that lost BOD, Desolid and Invisibility (for stealth) and a huge defense power (to turtle up if not attacking) in their multipower now?

An easy solution could be to have a +½ advantage "Characteristics as Powers". This should be applied before you can apply limitations or other advantages to Characteristics or placing them in frameworks. Or make it a +0 advantage, which also makes Characteristics cost END.

Complex questions tend to have simple, easy wrong solutions. Why should STR, 1/2 END be a +3/4 advantage, or DEX, IIF Mystic Ring cost more than just buying the DEX?

Crypt

Mar 20th, '09, 05:11 AM

Will the way of computing Casual STR be changed ?

The current version is, IMVHO, awful. (unless there is an obscure reason behind it.)
A STR6 (57 kg) character has a Casual STR3 (38 kg)
while a STR 20 (400 kg) has a Casual STR10 (100 kg)

Proportionally the STR 6 character has a stronger Casual STR than the STR 20 one.

That makes no sense, IMVHO. (And what about the Casual Str of a STR 1 character ? )

Because of the log scale of STR it would be (a lot) more logical to simply apply a modifier.
For instance Casual STR = STR-10 (meaning that Casual lifting = 1/4 Max lifting)
Because One Hand STR is STR -5, Casual One Hand STR would be STR-15.
Isn't it nicer ? :straight:

IndianaJoe3

Mar 20th, '09, 06:43 AM

Because of the log scale of STR it would be (a lot) more logical to simply apply a modifier.
For instance Casual STR = STR-10 (meaning that Casual lifting = 1/4 Max lifting)
Because One Hand STR is STR -5, Casual One Hand STR would be STR-15.
Isn't it nicer ? :straight:

That doesn't work at high levels. It would give a 60 STR brick a Casual STR of 50, which makes getting out of Grabs and Entangles really easy.

Casual STR isn't used for lifting or carrying things - it's used for damaging things or pushing them out of the way. Your idea would let characters use almost their full STR damage as Casual STR.

Edsel

Mar 20th, '09, 06:53 AM

I guess I ought to post one last time what my preferences are with characteristics. At least my top three in the order of preference.

I want COM to stay as a characteristic. If it is relegated to a talent or perk it robs some of the granularity from the system and that granularity is one of the things I like best about Hero. I use COM and COM rolls extensively in my game.
STR probably ought to be boosted to a 2 point cost because I want to keep the figured characteristics as they are.
SPD is a hallmark of the system. I definately want to leave the current SPD rules unmolested.

Crypt

Mar 20th, '09, 07:22 AM

That doesn't work at high levels. It would give a 60 STR brick a Casual STR of 50, which makes getting out of Grabs and Entangles really easy.

I don't understand why High STR should be penalized.
Applying a -x means applying the same % penalty to everyone, whatever the STR. (you may have a STR 1 or a STR 200, the % stay the same.)

But using half STR means = the weaker you are the closer your Casual STR is to your normal STR.

If the player's STR is high, can't you make your Grabs and Entangles high too ? (isn't Hero supposed to be generic ?)

It seems that Hero is not supposed to work at Char lower than 10.

..... actually i like HERO. But there are still several things i really dislike.

Casual STR isn't used for lifting or carrying things - it's used for damaging things or pushing them out of the way. Your idea would let characters use almost their full STR damage as Casual STR.

Page 34: "Character uses Casual STR to barge through crowds, smash though minor obstacles, carry things and so on [...] "

Your idea would let characters use almost their full STR damage as Casual STR.

- Casual STR is not allowed to be used for making attacks. (as Casual STR use is a Zero phase action.)
- And -2d6 of effect makes a big difference in this system.

- and -10 = 1/4 lift.
That's not what i would called "almost their full STR."

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 20th, '09, 07:59 AM

Between 4e and 5e, Haymaker was changed from doing (STRx1.5)/5 to doing (STR+20)/5. So it would sense to change casual STR from (STRx0.5) to (STR-20).

- Klaus

Crypt

Mar 20th, '09, 09:43 AM

or at least a compromise like:
the less of STR/2 OR STR-10.

This way a STR 4 character would have a Casual STR -6 (instead of STR 2) and a high STR 100 would remains a Casual STR 50.

nexus

Mar 20th, '09, 09:55 AM

or at least a compromise like:
the less of STR/2 OR STR-10.

This way a STR 4 character would have a Casual STR -6 (instead of STR 2) and a high STR 100 would remains a Casual STR 50.

Maybe it could be another Heroic/Superheroic toggle. The Str-X method does seem to yield more down to Earth results than the divider especially at the low end.

Netzilla

Mar 20th, '09, 11:05 AM

I don't understand why High STR should be penalized.
Applying a -x means applying the same % penalty to everyone, whatever the STR. (you may have a STR 1 or a STR 200, the % stay the same.)

I don't see how the high STR character is being penalized in a meaningful way. The only thing they lose more than 50% of is their lift. In most other things, they lose exactly 50% of their ability (damage, KB bracing, etc) and in the aspect of the STR Roll, they lose much less than 50% effectiveness. So, the overall utility of STR is reduced pretty close to 50%.

To look at it from the other end, a STR 10 normal, with a -10 Casual STR, now does 0 damage and has no chance of break out of even a 0 DEF, 1 BODY entangle or a 3 STR grab and his STR roll drops by a much greater margin than a high STR character (62.5% success - 37.5 = 25% less; compare to a 30 STR character going from 95.4 to 83.8 = 11.6% less).

But using half STR means = the weaker you are the closer your Casual STR is to your normal STR.

If the player's STR is high, can't you make your Grabs and Entangles high too ? (isn't Hero supposed to be generic ?)60 AP STR is 12d6 damage.
60 AP Entangle is 6 DEF, 6 Body

-10 casual STR does 10d6 damage, thus averaging 4 damage to the Entangle (reducing it to 2 Body). This is a 0-phase action, thus you can then take an action to apply your full 12d6 and do 6 damage to the entangle, more than doubling its remaining Body, thus causing the breakout to take no time. (see this faq entry (http://www.herogames.com/rulesFAQ.htm?ruleset=&section=&keywords=casual+strength+entangle&dateString=))

-50% casual STR does 6d6 damage, thus averaging 0 damage to the Entangle.

Casual STR is not allowed to be used for making attacks. (as Casual STR use is a Zero phase action.)But it can be used to break out of entangles, through walls (including Force Walls as I recall)) and break Holds.

- And -2d6 of effect makes a big difference in this system.
-and -10 = 1/4 lift.
That's not what i would called "almost their full STR."The main issue is the Damage (and -2d6 is not as big a deal as you think for the things that Casual STR can be used for; especially since you can attack at full STR immediately afterward), with the STR Roll and KB resistance coming next. I'd put lift capacity below those three in order of important uses of Casual STR in combat. If you're not in combat, thus time is less of a factor, why not use your full STR in the first place?

Greywind

Mar 20th, '09, 02:57 PM

Between 4e and 5e, Haymaker was changed from doing (STRx1.5)/5 to doing (STR+20)/5. So it would sense to change casual STR from (STRx0.5) to (STR-20).

- KlausFrom combat maneuver to mechanic? That doesn't make sense or give a good guideline.

Crypt

Mar 21st, '09, 02:36 AM

To look at it from the other end, a STR 10 normal, with a -10 Casual STR, now does 0 damage and has no chance of break out of even a 0 DEF, 1 BODY entangle or a 3 STR grabwell, so i would probably do :
the less of STR/2 OR STR-5. (instead of -10 or -20)

so:
if STR<10 then CasualSTR = STR-5 (==> so lifting cap is halved)
else CasualSTR = STR / 2 (==> so lifting cap is squared root after being divided by 25)

Hugh Neilson

Mar 21st, '09, 02:57 AM

I don't see casual STR as a huge component of the game, so I'm not really married to any specific solution. That said, halving does have a very odd result in respect of lifting/shoving objects aside.

However, to a large extent, "carrying" is already addressed by the Long Term END rules. If you have 100 STR, carrying a 90 STR lift capacity at a cost of 9 END per phase seems considerably less than "casual".

I would say the lesser of two evils is to continue with Casual STR at STR/2. An optional "lift/carry/shove" rule setting this at a fixed fraction of max STR usage would also be reasonable.

Of much greater merit, in my opinion, is extending the "haymaker change" from 4e to 5e. Prior to 5e, only STR could be Haymaker'ed. In 5e, any attack could be Haymaker'ed. In 6e, I think "Casual Use" should be a maneuver which can be applied to any power - a Casual EB to break an entangle just like Casual STR, a Casual Force Wall to deflect a missile, a Casual use of any power at reduced effectiveness and no time cost.

Crypt

Mar 21st, '09, 03:01 AM

In 6e, I think "Casual Use" should be a maneuver which can be applied to any power - a Casual EB to break an entangle just like Casual STR, a Casual Force Wall to deflect a missile, a Casual use of any power at reduced effectiveness and no time cost.

A very nice idea :)

Netzilla

Mar 21st, '09, 03:10 AM

well, so i would probably do :
the less of STR/2 OR STR-5. (instead of -10 or -20)

so:
if STR<10 then CasualSTR = STR-5 (==> so lifting cap is halved)
else CasualSTR = STR / 2 (==> so lifting cap is squared root)

And what about the problems this causes with Entangles, walls/Force Walls, grabs, STR Rolls and so forth? The 'pick the lesser' idea doesn't resolve those.

As I pointed out in my previous post:

This rule basically invalidates equal AP Entangles all together.
The same with most equal AP Force Walls (unless you're willing to stick with 1" x 1" size and virtually ignore ED) .
It also makes grabs of even -5 STR less than an annoyance. A 55 STR character effectively has no chance to even slow down a 60 STR. character.

All of these are due to damage not being significantly reduced and are far more common uses of Casual STR than lifting in my experience.

The best compromise between your suggestion and the rules as written that I can think of[1] is not to halve the STR score itself, but rather to halve STR's effects. So, you roll 1/2 the damage dice, have 1/2 the lift, cut your STR Roll in half (a larger penalty than is suffered now) and so forth. I think it's easier to just halve your STR score directly and not worry too much about the lift penalty.

Besides, in real life, I don't think I know anyone who can casually lift 1/2 their maximum lift. For me, in college, I could squat about 400 pounds. There's no way I could causally carry around 200.

[1] Keep in mind that I'm writing this at 6AM on a Saturday before I've even had breakfast.

AnotherSkip

Mar 21st, '09, 05:06 AM

Since each level of damage repersents x2 level of effect halving the effect of Str should involve -1d6, from 20 to 10 is technically Quartering. droppin from 100 to 50 = 2 to the 10th power drop in power.....:sneaky:

but yeah it should reamain for balance reasons.

ghost-angel

Mar 21st, '09, 06:56 PM

Characteristics should stay out of frameworks. Same as now.

Characteristics is a Standard Power - they may be freely placed in Frameworks now.

For whomever else is assuming Characteristics cannot be placed in Frameworks - you are incorrect and should adjust your arguments to take that into account.

The only rule regarding Characteristics and Frameworks is Characteristics must take the No Figured Limitation - which, if Figured are done away with in 6E becomes a moot point and removes that particular cost break.

nexus

Mar 21st, '09, 07:14 PM

Technically no Characteristic but Strength can be in an EC without GM's permission since it's the only one that Costs End

ghost-angel

Mar 21st, '09, 07:24 PM

Right - and the whole EC/Endurance issue.

The Main Man

Mar 21st, '09, 07:57 PM

Since I am on this whole "INT figuring into SPD" thing, here are some more of my thoughts on the "Mental" CHAR:

1. I'll concede to EGO being an alternative to resisting PRE attacks, but what if it could also substitute CON for Stunning purposes in a pinch?

2. What if EGO figured into STUN?

This and #1 would easily represent any character with a high pain threshold.

In addition, this would mean that we now have 2 "Mental" Primary CHAR being used for Figured CHAR, something that would certainly stir the pot by providing more options.

3. What if Mental Powers worked more similarly to Transform in that if you did enough damage to <i> Knock Out </i> a target then you may as well be able to manipulate their mind?

4. PRE could add to Mental Powers in the same way that STR adds to HTH attacks.

I would argue that it should be raised to 2 CP per point of course.

Vulcan

Mar 22nd, '09, 11:52 AM

Characteristics is a Standard Power - they may be freely placed in Frameworks now.

For whomever else is assuming Characteristics cannot be placed in Frameworks - you are incorrect and should adjust your arguments to take that into account.

The only rule regarding Characteristics and Frameworks is Characteristics must take the No Figured Limitation - which, if Figured are done away with in 6E becomes a moot point and removes that particular cost break.

I don't think I ever said it was against the rules. I said some GM's don't allow it and it can become very unbalancing. Not quite the same thing.

Of course, you might not have been referring to me... :o :D

RDU Neil

Mar 30th, '09, 12:05 PM

Vulcan

Mar 30th, '09, 12:20 PM

What is the consensus on these 300 plus pages? Losing figured Characteristics or not?

I'm for either keeping - and fixing - them, or (if they absoulutely cannot be fixed) loosing them and getting rid of Elemental Controls too. The two seem to be pretty intertwined in balancing various archetypes against each other.

ajackson

Mar 30th, '09, 01:50 PM

What is the consensus on these 300 plus pages?
Nonexistent.

Vulcan

Mar 30th, '09, 02:11 PM

Nonexistent.

Just don't, whatever you do, bring up the other big issue we've been debating on this thread. Frankly it's gone on long enough and we don't need another round of people (including me!) venting about COM oh$#it!

:D

StGrimblefig

Mar 30th, '09, 02:25 PM

Just don't, whatever you do, bring up the other big issue we've been debating on this thread. Frankly it's gone on long enough and we don't need another round of people (including me!) venting about COM oh$#it!

:D
We are the knights who say "COM!" You will do as we say, or we will say "COM!" to you again.

:eg:

Lucius

Mar 30th, '09, 02:33 PM

I'll let the math heads argue all the nuances, but after getting back to actually building characters again for the first time in a while...

Get rid of Figured Characteristics. Period. Adjust costs accordingly. Having built a martial artist and found that cranking up his CON from 25 to 34 actually SAVED a point, is ridiculous. That balance must be restored so that there are no more blatant cost reasons to build more than you need and/or in effect be penalized for building to concept. If I want a character to have 25 CON, 40 Stun, 60 END a 10 REC and an 8 ED, I shouldn't be encouraged to escalate that CON up to 34 because it was saving me points.

What is the consensus on these 300 plus pages? Losing figured Characteristics or not?

Has it occurred to you that there are at least two other possible solutions?

One, which I do not favor but has been around a long time, is is to raise the cost of STR and CON.

Another, which I very much DO favor, is to leave the cost of the base characteristics alone, and reduce the cost of all or most figured characteristics.

I think there may be a consensus that SOMETHING must be done, but I'm not sure I'd say there is a consensus on what.

I favor a cost scheme like

SPD: Unchanged
REC: 1:1 (same as for an END Reserve now)
STUN: 1:2 (halved)
END: 1:10 (same as for an END Reserve now)

Replace PD and ED with an "Everyman" power, DEF, that starts at 1 pt and can be bought up (or down, like Running)

Extend the Limitation currently on Hand to Hand to all Normal damage attacks, to create a semblance of equity with Killing Attacks and make it clear that 5 pts of STR does not actually entail 5 unlimited pts of damage.

Disconnect Leaping from STR

That's not a complete proposal - there are some things that still need adjusting on it - but it addresses several concerns simultaneously, including the one you raise.

Lucius Alexander

Raising palindromedaries

nexus

Mar 30th, '09, 03:03 PM

Nonexistent.

A random collection of gaming geeks on the internet haven't come to a group consensus?

Who'd have thought that would ever happen.

:D

The Main Man

Mar 30th, '09, 04:12 PM

We are the knights who say "COM!" You will do as we say, or we will say "COM!" to you again.

:eg:

Stop saying the word!

Chris Goodwin

Mar 30th, '09, 06:00 PM

Has it occurred to you that there are at least two other possible solutions?

One, which I do not favor but has been around a long time, is is to raise the cost of STR and CON.

If you raise the costs of the Primary so that you get exactly the benefits you pay for, you may as well break them up because you've essentially turned them into a package.

If you don't, all you've done is moved the sweet spot.

Reducing the costs of the Figured has the same problem.

Lucius

Mar 30th, '09, 06:25 PM

If you raise the costs of the Primary so that you get exactly the benefits you pay for, you may as well break them up because you've essentially turned them into a package.

If you don't, all you've done is moved the sweet spot.

Reducing the costs of the Figured has the same problem.

Not necessarily. The primary characteristics would still have benefits unique to them (such as lift and throw) that cannot otherwise be purchased.

Well, maybe with Telekinesis etc....

But there would still be a reason to buy STR, or CON, or anything else.

Lucius Alexander

House of the Palindromedary

The Main Man

Mar 30th, '09, 07:51 PM

I'm still pro-figured myself.

After all, as far as I can see, Bricks are not the only archetype that gets more expensive - they just get hosed more than the others.

But as has been suggested before, swapping STR out for BODY generally balances things as far as Figured CHAR go.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 31st, '09, 01:52 AM

I favor a cost scheme like

SPD: Unchanged
REC: 1:1 (same as for an END Reserve now)
STUN: 1:2 (halved)
END: 1:10 (same as for an END Reserve now)

Replace PD and ED with an "Everyman" power, DEF, that starts at 1 pt and can be bought up (or down, like Running)
I agree that either REC and STUN (and BODY) must go down in price or PD/ED must go up in pirice. As it is now, buffing up defenses tends to be a much better idea than buffing up STUN, BODY and REC.

My personal solution would be to increase PD and ED to 1½ (perhaps merged as DEF at 3), make FF still cost 1:1, and let Armor be Persistant FF at 2:1. Damage Resistance would thus remain ½:1.

However, if we make END as cheap as 1/10, we might as well get rid of it totally. I like the idea of making powers cost 0 END as a default, and only use END for pushing and long-term use. If this is implemented, END cost should not be reduced; in fact, perhaps it should be increased to 1.

Or perhaps STUN could then be used instead, since you can use powers at normal levels without burning any. The source material is full of examples of characters that knock themselves out through a herculean effort, and this would reflect that well.

- Klaus

ajackson

Mar 31st, '09, 09:45 AM

However, if we make END as cheap as 1/10, we might as well get rid of it totally. I like the idea of making powers cost 0 END as a default, and only use END for pushing and long-term use.
I've played in games that didn't use END at all; for pushing, you just took 2d6 stun. It worked tolerably well, and people still bought up Con to avoid stunning, though it was no longer particularly interesting to buy it to very high levels.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 31st, '09, 10:03 AM

SPD: Unchanged
REC: 1:1 (same as for an END Reserve now)
STUN: 1:2 (halved)
END: 1:10 (same as for an END Reserve now)

Replace PD and ED with an "Everyman" power, DEF, that starts at 1 pt and can be bought up (or down, like Running)

I agree DEX and SPD works as is.

So let's run with this, and see what we get if we don't trash PD and ED.

+10 STR gets +2 PD (2 points), +2 REC (2 points) and +5 STUN (2.5 points) = 6.5 points worth of Figured. It gets 4 points worth of Figured if we remove PD.

+10 CON gets +2 ED (2 points), +2 REC (2 points), +5 STUN (2.5 points) and +20 END (2 points), so 8.5 worth of Figured, 6.5 if we drop ED.

+10 BOD gets +10 STUN (5 points).

STR still gets too much if we keep PD, and maybe still gets too much even if we don't. It also has value even if we remove all figured characteristics. Looking back, here was my potential structure (which assumes STUN halved in cost, REC 1.5 points and END +3 for 1 point):

DEX/SPD could be unchanged. -1/2 works.

If BOD granted +2 STUN and we cost STUN at 2 STUN per CP, 10 BOD grants 10 points of Figured. BOD no Figured can be set at -1. That’s where it is now – half its cost goes to STUN.

STR should grant no more than 5 Figured per 15 STR (-1/2 limitation) and 3 would be better (-1/4 limitation). It could grant REC (recosted at 1 point per) at 1/5. But let’s take the extreme approach that STR provides no figured characteristics whatsoever – it still has value, after all.

CON grants a lot. Dump the prices of REC, STUN and END, and we likely still have a -3 or -4 limitation for CON - No Figured. But CON-No Figured serves only one purpose - protection from being Stunned/Dazed, so it shouldn't cost a huge amount on its own. How much "no figured" CON is worthwhile? If it equals your STUN, further purchases serve no purpose whatsoever. And if you can buy "cannot be stunned" from Automaton powers for 10 points (IIRC), 10 points should buy enough CON No Figured to pretty much guarantee you will never be Stunned.

Looking at the above, without CON, our 10's across the board base character has 2 SPD, 0 PD, 0 ED, 20 STUN, 0 REC and 0 END. I'd like 10 CON to grant 2 PD (2 points), 2 ED (2 points), 4 REC (6 points – recosted at 1.5 points per +1 REC) and 20 END. Make END cost 1 CP per 3 END and that's 6 2/3 points for a total of 16 2/3. At -5 for No Figured, +10 CON would cost 3.33 points. A -5 limitation. Heresy, you say? Well the fact is CON does little besides provide Figured stats.

I think that would work reasonably well.

END reserves can be addressed on their own - they're a different ability. At present, I can sell my 20 END for 10 points and buy a 50 point END reserve with a 5 Recovery. That seems like a big jump. With only 6 2/3 points, I can buy a 17 point reserve and 5 REC, or a 50 point reserve with 1 REC. That seems a bit too expensive.

The big advantage of an END reserve is the low cost END. The big drawback is the need to buy REC separately. As a result, the advantage or drawback depends a lot on your existing REC.

Maybe we just need to add some advantages and limitations to be applied to END to convert it into an END battery. That would allow you to place an advantage (only) on your END that it doesn't get wiped out if you're KO'd, a limitation for not using your recovery, a limitation for not recovering outside PS 12, etc.

Tech

Mar 31st, '09, 11:43 AM

Has it occurred to you that there are at least two other possible solutions?

One, which I do not favor but has been around a long time, is is to raise the cost of STR and CON.

Another, which I very much DO favor, is to leave the cost of the base characteristics alone, and reduce the cost of all or most figured characteristics.

I think there may be a consensus that SOMETHING must be done, but I'm not sure I'd say there is a consensus on what.

I favor a cost scheme like

SPD: Unchanged
REC: 1:1 (same as for an END Reserve now)
STUN: 1:2 (halved)
END: 1:10 (same as for an END Reserve now)

Replace PD and ED with an "Everyman" power, DEF, that starts at 1 pt and can be bought up (or down, like Running)

Extend the Limitation currently on Hand to Hand to all Normal damage attacks, to create a semblance of equity with Killing Attacks and make it clear that 5 pts of STR does not actually entail 5 unlimited pts of damage.

Disconnect Leaping from STR

That's not a complete proposal - there are some things that still need adjusting on it - but it addresses several concerns simultaneously, including the one you raise.

Lucius Alexander

Raising palindromedaries

Combining PD and ED into one stat denies what comic books show frequently - that some people are more durable in either the PD side or ED side. Combining them into one Stat may simply things but it doesn't make it any better.

PhilFleischmann

Mar 31st, '09, 02:09 PM

REC: 1:1 (same as for an END Reserve now)
Of course, REC in an END Reserve *isn't* like personal REC. In an END Reserve, it gets you back your END, but personal REC gets you back both END and STUN.

Lucius

Mar 31st, '09, 02:14 PM

Combining PD and ED into one stat denies what comic books show frequently - that some people are more durable in either the PD side or ED side. Combining them into one Stat may simply things but it doesn't make it any better.

Err...no, it doesn't deny that at all. Anymore than the structure of any given Characteristic or Power "denies" the dozen different manifestations of that given Characteristic or Power you can find in comic books.

Nothing's stopping you from buying extra DEF with a limitation.

And frankly, while I am 100% positive that it is true that comic books (or any other source materiel) often have characters that are more durable to attacks of one kind (what Hero calls "special effects") than to another, I'm skeptical of the claim that the source materiel really supports the simple, limited, binary distinction implied by "Energy" and "Physical."

Lucius Alexander

+10 DEF, only vs Palindromedaries

steamteck

Apr 1st, '09, 03:47 AM

Err...no, it doesn't deny that at all. Anymore than the structure of any given Characteristic or Power "denies" the dozen different manifestations of that given Characteristic or Power you can find in comic books.

Nothing's stopping you from buying extra DEF with a limitation.

And frankly, while I am 100% positive that it is true that comic books (or any other source materiel) often have characters that are more durable to attacks of one kind (what Hero calls "special effects") than to another, I'm skeptical of the claim that the source materiel really supports the simple, limited, binary distinction implied by "Energy" and "Physical."

Lucius Alexander

+10 DEF, only vs Palindromedaries

I'm mindboggled you don't see that many characters don't have a difference between PD/ED. JLU Superman is an obvious example if you need one right off the bat. I think objects should have PD/ED to better represent things like rubber etc. Yes it can be more complex but your idea makes my options harder no many how many times you cry out "lomited " makes it the same.

Bah! If it changes and its not the straw that breaks the camel's or Palindromedary's back I'll instantly hoouse rule it back in. It would be nice to have objets stated out that way.:thumbdown:thumbdown

Why are you so set on eliminating things?

Lucius

Apr 1st, '09, 04:05 AM

Why are you so set on eliminating things?

I'd like to address the rest of your post later. For now:

As a general principle, in order to streamline and simplify the game.

The original genius of Hero was the idea "Hey, the rule book doesn't need to write up fireball and lightning bolt and stellar photonic blast and every other concievable specific power - we can have a rule for 'energy blast' and then rules for modifying it to make it exactly what you want!"

In this specific instance, because under the current regime STR and CON are obviously out of balance with the benefits that accrue from them, and ending two of those benefits is beneficial to the game system from that standpoint. Steve Long has said he wants to eliminate ALL figured characteristics, that is, disconnect all characteristics from on another. I think that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I'd like to demonstrate that the problems in Hero can be fixed without taking that radical step.

And finally, I am set on eliminating things only as long as it does not also eliminate options. If removing the Force Field power meant a character could not have a force field, I'd oppose it. But since you can still have a force field by building Armor (or DEF, or PD and ED) that costs END, I see Force Field as superfluous and would suggest it be eliminated.

Lucius Alexander

Conspicuous by its absence

steamteck

Apr 1st, '09, 04:16 AM

I'd like to address the rest of your post later. For now:

As a general principle, in order to streamline and simplify the game.

And finally, I am set on eliminating things only as long as it does not also eliminate options. If removing the Force Field power meant a character could not have a force field, I'd oppose it. But since you can still have a force field by building Armor (or DEF, or PD and ED) that costs END, I see Force Field as superfluous and would suggest it be eliminated.

Lucius Alexander

Conspicuous by its absence

I mainly disagree what is simplifying. Having to construct common powers like tunneling doesn't seem like simplifying. It may not eliminate options but it does make them harder. Eliminating PD/Ed turns what should be a normal thing into a specifically made exception. The force field change I could live with ( mainly because I tweak things anyway) but eliminating TK would result in the newbie thinking he couldn't buy TK seems to me.

In general I guess we seriously disagree about what is lost when theses things change. I'm constantly asking my non HERO savvy friends these days which thing they would find less confusing. The defense power is pretty much the only winner and ONLY then if force field etc are explained prominently RIGHT THEN AND THERE. TK as limited STR was the biggest loser.

steamteck

Apr 1st, '09, 04:27 AM

Steve Long has said he wants to eliminate ALL figured characteristics, that is, disconnect all characteristics from on another. I think that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I'd like to demonstrate that the problems in Hero can be fixed without taking that radical step.
Lucius Alexander

Conspicuous by its absence

I have to agree with you there. Honestly, If we could keep characteristics from radical changes( eliminating figures or COM, PD/Ed is included), keep the disadvantage system pretty much as it is, keep the skill system intact, keep the current dice conventions and simplify without becoming confusing or losing the cool options I have now, I'd be good.

That's pretty much where I am. If a proposal I see makes it more difficult to recreate one of the characters I or my players have than the current system. It needs a serious justification to past the test IMO. If something would make it easier without causing problems elsewhere we're golden

Unfortunately apparently HERO is already pretty good because I see what more of the former than latter.

Anything that makes it harder to put my NPCs on their traditional 3x5 cards is not an easy go.

steamteck

Apr 1st, '09, 04:37 AM

I've played in games that didn't use END at all; for pushing, you just took 2d6 stun. It worked tolerably well, and people still bought up Con to avoid stunning, though it was no longer particularly interesting to buy it to very high levels.

Since 1st edition our group has only used EN for pushing. Then later on for long term stuff. Sure speeds up things.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 1st, '09, 08:28 AM

Combining PD and ED into one stat denies what comic books show frequently - that some people are more durable in either the PD side or ED side. Combining them into one Stat may simply things but it doesn't make it any better.
Comic books also frequently show people that stun easily, but rarely take lasting damage, or people that are impervious to bullets, but can still be cut. How many of these differences have to be hardwired into the rules as defense stats, and how many should be managed with limitations?

I, for one, think it would much more sense to distinguish between Body Defense and Stun Defense (BD and SD) than between PD and ED. Try to imagine that Hero up to now had BS and SD. If somebody suggested that these two should be merged in favor of a physical/energy distinction, do you honestly think you would favor that change?

A BD/SD distinction makes more sense that PD/ED because it is tied to the mechanics (Body and Stun affect different hit-point pools) rather than simply SFX.

Also, in many non-super games, energy damage will be much rarer than physical damage. In the Wild West, for instance, how often would you be subjected to energy damage? The occasional fire, sure, but fists, bullets, knives, arrows, and dynamite blasts are all physical damage. It is really reasonable that ED should cost as much as PD here? If we just had DEF, or BD/SD, you could vary the value of "physical damage only" and "energy damage only" according to the campaign. Or you could distinguish between "blunt damage only" and "edged/pointed damage only", which would make more sense in many campaigns.

- Klaus

Beast

Apr 1st, '09, 08:51 AM

there already is a body defense and stun defense
they overlap with resistant and non-resistant defenses

Comic books also frequently show people that stun easily, but rarely take lasting damage, or people that are impervious to bullets, but can still be cut. How many of these differences have to be hardwired into the rules as defense stats, and how many should be managed with limitations?

I, for one, think it would much more sense to distinguish between Body Defense and Stun Defense (BD and SD) than between PD and ED. Try to imagine that Hero up to now had BS and SD. If somebody suggested that these two should be merged in favor of a physical/energy distinction, do you honestly think you would favor that change?

A BD/SD distinction makes more sense that PD/ED because it is tied to the mechanics (Body and Stun affect different hit-point pools) rather than simply SFX.

Also, in many non-super games, energy damage will be much rarer than physical damage. In the Wild West, for instance, how often would you be subjected to energy damage? The occasional fire, sure, but fists, bullets, knives, arrows, and dynamite blasts are all physical damage. It is really reasonable that ED should cost as much as PD here? If we just had DEF, or BD/SD, you could vary the value of "physical damage only" and "energy damage only" according to the campaign. Or you could distinguish between "blunt damage only" and "edged/pointed damage only", which would make more sense in many campaigns.

- Klaus

BobGreenwade

Apr 1st, '09, 08:58 AM

Combining PD and ED into one stat denies what comic books show frequently - that some people are more durable in either the PD side or ED side. Combining them into one Stat may simply things but it doesn't make it any better.

Comic books also frequently show people that stun easily, but rarely take lasting damage, or people that are impervious to bullets, but can still be cut. How many of these differences have to be hardwired into the rules as defense stats, and how many should be managed with limitations?Tech's mistake was relying on just comics for the inspiration. Hero should be able (within reason, of course) to simulate the reality of not only any genre, but any medium -- comics, movies, television, written word, what have you.

More than superheroes are different between physical and energy, though; force fields in sci-fi are often able to stop energy beams, but aren't so effective against bullets, or vice versa. I've also seen a pretty fair bit of magic work the same way -- stop magical fire but not arrows, or vice versa.

If Physical and Energy are merged, though, I can certainly see your division between Stun Defense and Body Defense. Even if they're not, I could go along with that being in the Advanced book, along with a way to include both differentiations simultaneously.

Tech

Apr 1st, '09, 02:03 PM

Tech's mistake was relying on just comics for the inspiration. Hero should be able (within reason, of course) to simulate the reality of not only any genre, but any medium -- comics, movies, television, written word, what have you.

More than superheroes are different between physical and energy, though; force fields in sci-fi are often able to stop energy beams, but aren't so effective against bullets, or vice versa. I've also seen a pretty fair bit of magic work the same way -- stop magical fire but not arrows, or vice versa.

If Physical and Energy are merged, though, I can certainly see your division between Stun Defense and Body Defense. Even if they're not, I could go along with that being in the Advanced book, along with a way to include both differentiations simultaneously.

A mistake perhaps to rely only on comics but it doesn't change what I said. If merged, it just causes more effort to add a line or two (maybe more) for extra energy or physical when it has to be added to a single stat, when we already have them as two distinct statistics. Assuming one stat, it's working backwards to effectively have a PD and ED again. Why change it then? It's just more work that a GM has to go through whether creating supervillains, aliens, cowboys, intergalactic ships, etc.

steamteck

Apr 1st, '09, 04:10 PM

A mistake perhaps to rely only on comics but it doesn't change what I said. If merged, it just causes more effort to add a line or two (maybe more) for extra energy or physical when it has to be added to a single stat, when we already have them as two distinct statistics. Assuming one stat, it's working backwards to effectively have a PD and ED again. Why change it then? It's just more work that a GM has to go through whether creating supervillains, aliens, cowboys, intergalactic ships, etc.

He was saying that your case is even stronger using more sources. I agree completely. In fact in my campaigns almost no character has an equal PD and ED.

Lucius

Apr 1st, '09, 04:37 PM

I'm mindboggled you don't see that many characters don't have a difference between PD/ED. JLU Superman is an obvious example if you need one right off the bat. I think objects should have PD/ED to better represent things like rubber etc.

I agree that some objects should have higher defense to some attacks - rubber may be one very good example. If PD and ED IS retained then for the sake of consistency I think it should apply to objects, vehicles, bases, and everything else too.

To address the Superman reference: Even setting aside my own impressions from reading comics (which I admittedly haven't done much of in over 20 years) I still remember a couple of other superhero games I played before I discovered Champions. I don't remember any making this exact same binary distinction of two classes of damage. I seem to remember that Superworld had about five distinct kinds of damage, each requiring seperate defenses. One class was "Kinetic" which included most of what Hero calls "Physical" - but also included temperature based attacks like heat and cold.

It is quite possible to read the exact same source materiel you have and come to different conclusions, obviously. I think that's a strong argument for not hardwiring those conclusions into the system.

Lucius Alexander

Softwiring a palindromedary

Lucius

Apr 1st, '09, 04:46 PM

He was saying that your case is even stronger using more sources. I agree completely. In fact in my campaigns almost no character has an equal PD and ED.

Then do you really think ED should cost the same as PD in Wild West Hero?

Lucius Alexander

Palindromedary Enterprises would like to take this opportunity to thank Basil for his valuable contributions to the field of Palindromedary Studies

ajackson

Apr 1st, '09, 04:56 PM

The counter to 'PD/ED' is that it's not always obvious what category an attack fits in, nor are comic books particularly consistent on the issue. Is acid PD or ED? Is there really more of a correlation between, say, resistance to lightning and resistance to cold, or resistance to bullets and resistance to cold? Defense (only vs X) is certainly consistent enough, though it's prone to being overpriced.

JamesG

Apr 1st, '09, 05:01 PM

Apologies in advance if I’m repeating something already said on this thread.

I think the proposal to make DEX (and other Primary Characteristics) more expensive by divorcing them from Figured Characteristics is a good one. But I don’t think it goes far enough when it comes to DEX. Even at 3 CPs for one point, DEX is still too efficient at generating CV when compared to Combat Skill Levels.

3 points of DEX costs 9 CPs and generates +1 OCV and +1 DCV. An All Combat CSL cost 8 points and generates +1 OCV or +1 DCV. (See below for counters to the “but CSLs do more than just generate OCV and DCV” argument)*.

If a character wants to be good at all forms of combat, buying up DEX is still going to be a better option than buying All Combat CSLs. This leads to DEX-creep, especially at the superheroic level, with even Bricks having 18+ DEX. This hinders cross genre gaming, as heroic level agile characters end up having the same DEX as ponderous superheroic characters.

My idea for eliminating this issue is to halve the effect of DEX on CV. By doing this, only characters whose conception calls for agility will buy up DEX, and non-agile but still good at combat characters will gravitate to CSLs.

There are two ways this could be done:

Option A) After calculating OCV and DCV as DEX/3 as normal, halve the result, rounding up for DCV and down for OCV. So each 3 points of DEX is +1 OCV or +1 DCV. Example, DEX 2-4 is OCV 0, DCV 1; DEX 5-7 is OCV 1, DCV 1; DEX 8-10 is OCV 1, DCV 2; DEX 11-13 is OCV 2, DCV 2; DEX 14-16 is OCV 2, DCV 3; and so on.

Option B) DEX only contributes to DCV, not OCV. DCV is DEX/3 as per the current rules. OCV starts at a base value (2 or 3 probably works best) and is only further increased by CSLs.

To be honest, I’m not sure which of these options I prefer. But either one should serve the goal of making CSLs the primary means of generating CV, instead of DEX being the primary CV generator.

Some other parts of the game system need tweaking, with either option.

Since CVs will be lower in general, the DCV of a hex should probably be lowered to zero. This has the side benefit of eliminating the silly situation where it is easier to hit the 0 DCV unconscious character lying in a hex than it is to hit the hex itself.

Combat modifiers may have to be slightly adjusted. Particularly the ½ DCV and ½ OCV modifiers may need to become ½ CV or –x CV, whichever results in a lower CV.

There may be other things needing a minor tweak, but that is all I can think of at the moment.

* I purposely simplified my argument by ignoring the “other things” All Combat CSLs can do instead of increasing OCV or DCV; such as increase damage, bounce attacks, increase ECV, etc. But I also ignored the “other things” DEX does, such as increased initiative and higher rolls for combat-useful skills like Breakfall and Fast Draw.

Since initiative is so important and DEX’s “other things” are granted at the same time as CV while the CSL’s “other things” are granted INSTEAD of CV, one could argue that DEX is still superior to All Combat CSLs even if one of my two options are used. Perhaps All Combat CSLs should get a small extra benefit, such as adding to combat skills like Breakfall, Tactics, Fast Draw, Analyze Style, etc in addition to their primary use. In other words these CSLs could increase (OCV or DCV or ECV or Damage or Bouncing) AND add to “combat” skills. Lower level CSLs don’t need such a boost.

Also, I’ve seen it touted that CSLs have a benefit over DEX because DEX can be drained but CSLs can’t. But this is not a benefit. The high CSL/low DEX character still has some DEX, and will lose CV to a DEX Drain at the same rate as a high DEX/low CSL character until reaching zero DEX. And once at zero DEX the character has less than a 50/50 shot of taking any physical action at all.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 2nd, '09, 12:09 AM

I still remember a couple of other superhero games I played before I discovered Champions. I don't remember any making this exact same binary distinction of two classes of damage. I seem to remember that Superworld had about five distinct kinds of damage, each requiring seperate defenses. One class was "Kinetic" which included most of what Hero calls "Physical" - but also included temperature based attacks like heat and cold.

It is quite possible to read the exact same source materiel you have and come to different conclusions, obviously. I think that's a strong argument for not hardwiring those conclusions into the system.
Absolutely!

Another game example is Golden Heroes (now Squadron UK), which distinguishes between "Hits to Kill" and "Hits to Concussion" and has armor protect differently between the two - not unlike my BD/SD suggestion.

HârnMaster distinguishes between blunt/edge/point/fire - three physical defense types to one energy, fitting its low-magic fantasy world.

I think the important point here is whether you distinguish by SFX, which can be very subjective (is acid energy or physical?), or by mechanics (Body and Stun), which is totally objective within the game.

- Klaus

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 2nd, '09, 12:14 AM

There are two ways this could be done:

Option A) After calculating OCV and DCV as DEX/3 as normal, halve the result, rounding up for DCV and down for OCV. So each 3 points of DEX is +1 OCV or +1 DCV. Example, DEX 2-4 is OCV 0, DCV 1; DEX 5-7 is OCV 1, DCV 1; DEX 8-10 is OCV 1, DCV 2; DEX 11-13 is OCV 2, DCV 2; DEX 14-16 is OCV 2, DCV 3; and so on.

Option B) DEX only contributes to DCV, not OCV. DCV is DEX/3 as per the current rules. OCV starts at a base value (2 or 3 probably works best) and is only further increased by CSLs.
There are other options. Among those discussed are splitting DEX into two or three separate characteristics. Another is reducing the cost of CSLs (and other skill levels) to bring them more in line with DEX cost. A combination of the two might work best.

- Klaus

JamesG

Apr 2nd, '09, 05:43 AM

There are other options. Among those discussed are splitting DEX into two or three separate characteristics.

By this you mean something like having a characteristic called Dexterity which represents hand-eye-coordination and Agility with represents whole body coordination? Skills such as Lockpicking would be Dexterity based skills, while those like Acrobatics would be Agility based skills. And OCV would be DEX/3 and DCV would be Agility/3.

As long as both Dex and Agility are 3 CPs each, that could work towards making All Combat CSLs competitive, as my options do.

But I think this idea introduces additional complications.

It effectively makes DEX twice as expensive, from a Skills perspective. For instance, if I want to make a thief-type, who is good at Lockpicking (Dex based) and Stealth (Agility based) I need to buy up two characteristics at 3 CPs per instead of one characteristic at 3 CPs per.
Which characteristic grants initiative?
What about skills that blur the line between the two? Fast Draw comes to mind.

Unless you think DEX skills are underpriced overall, complication number one really kills this idea. I don’t think they are underpriced, especially once the cost of DEX becomes 3 CPs per point instead of the current effective cost of 2 CPs per point (due to figured Speed).

Another is reducing the cost of CSLs (and other skill levels) to bring them more in line with DEX cost.

Years ago I tried to tackle the CSLs vs. Dex issue by attempting to boost CSLs by granting them extra abilities. I never could come up with a workable system, because I think CSLs are already appropriately priced for what they do. Then I thought about simply increasing the cost of DEX, but that made agility skill based characters (like a DnD-style thief) overly expensive. That’s when it hit me, the problem isn’t the cost of CSLs, or the cost of DEX per se, but it’s the effect DEX has on CV.

There may well be better options than the two I proposed. But I am convinced the best option will reduce the effect of DEX on OCV/DCV without greatly increasing the cost of DEX from a skills perspective.

Netzilla

Apr 2nd, '09, 06:12 AM

Years ago I tried to tackle the CSLs vs. Dex issue by attempting to boost CSLs by granting them extra abilities. I never could come up with a workable system, because I think CSLs are already appropriately priced for what they do. Then I thought about simply increasing the cost of DEX, but that made agility skill based characters (like a DnD-style thief) overly expensive. That’s when it hit me, the problem isn’t the cost of CSLs, or the cost of DEX per se, but it’s the effect DEX has on CV.

There may well be better options than the two I proposed. But I am convinced the best option will reduce the effect of DEX on OCV/DCV without greatly increasing the cost of DEX from a skills perspective.

IMO, the easiest way to accomplish this is to increase the divisor for computing CV (say DEX/4, DEX/5 or DEX/6) or simply divorcing CV from DEX entirely.

steamteck

Apr 2nd, '09, 06:40 AM

Then do you really think ED should cost the same as PD in Wild West Hero?

Lucius Alexander

Palindromedary Enterprises would like to take this opportunity to thank Basil for his valuable contributions to the field of Palindromedary Studies

I have absolutely no clue how that comment got that response. None at all It makes no sense give the string of things mentioning science fiction and fantasy as additional HERO settings. I don't want Supers HERO ,Space Opera HERO etc to become more difficult to model to cater to "wild West HERO but its a non issue. If ED isn't valuable in a particular campaign no one will buy it.

Should it cost the same in "Star Wars HERO" probably the opposite of "Wild West HERO. If you want to vary power costs by campaign we completely part ways ( which IS a logical assumption given your comment )

Tech

Apr 2nd, '09, 07:15 AM

He was saying that your case is even stronger using more sources. I agree completely. In fact in my campaigns almost no character has an equal PD and ED.

Thank you, Steamteck for giving me a better understanding. :)

bwdemon

Apr 2nd, '09, 07:15 AM

IMO, the easiest way to accomplish this is...or simply divorcing CV from DEX entirely.

This is what I'm absolutely in favor of. It sounds like figured characteristics are likely on their way out, so treating CV as one of them might be a very good way to avoid problems and allow for an agile base character that is not automatically a combat god.

Tech

Apr 2nd, '09, 09:53 AM

This is what I'm absolutely in favor of. It sounds like figured characteristics are likely on their way out, so treating CV as one of them might be a very good way to avoid problems and allow for an agile base character that is not automatically a combat god.

Unless Steve specifically said something to that effect, there's nothing that says figured characteristics are on their way out.

ajackson

Apr 2nd, '09, 10:13 AM

Unless Steve specifically said something to that effect, there's nothing that says figured characteristics are on their way out.
You mean, something like, oh:

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I am strongly in favor of doing this and intend to implement this change unless I am persuaded otherwise by a particularly convincing argument.

StGrimblefig

Apr 2nd, '09, 10:23 AM

2. Which characteristic grants initiative?
There has been some discussion here that initiative (aka SPD) should be based as much on INT (for quickly perceiving and processing that action is necessary) as on DEX (for speed of movement).

JamesG

Apr 2nd, '09, 10:38 AM

There has been some discussion here that initiative (aka SPD) should be based as much on INT (for quickly perceiving and processing that action is necessary) as on DEX (for speed of movement).

When I say inititive in my posts, I do not mean the SPD characteristic. I mean "who goes first"; characters who have a phase in a given segment act in descending DEX order. So having a higher DEX grants the character inititive in terms of who goes first.

Sorry, I probably should have spelled that out originally.

JamesG

Apr 2nd, '09, 12:02 PM

IMO, the easiest way to accomplish this is to increase the divisor for computing CV (say DEX/4, DEX/5 or DEX/6)…

The DEX/6 method is essentially my Option A), except my option grants a character +1 CV for every 3 points of DEX instead of +2 CV for every 6 points of DEX. So my option increases granularity by creating more breakpoints than DEX/6 would, at the cost of a bit more complexity. I don’t think you’d want the divisor to be any lower than 6, or DEX would still be more efficient than All Combat CSLs at generating CV.

Another option might be the have the divisor be different for OCV and DCV. For instance, DCV is DEX/4 and OCV is DEX/8. Skill breakpoints would be numbers ending in 3 or 8, DCV breakpoints would be 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, etc and the OCV breakpoints would be 4, 12, 20, 28 etc. I’m not saying 4 and 8 are the correct divisors; I just pulled them out of the air to use as examples. But I do think the average of the correct divisors is around 6.

…or simply divorcing CV from DEX entirely.
And

This is what I'm absolutely in favor of. It sounds like figured characteristics are likely on their way out, so treating CV as one of them might be a very good way to avoid problems and allow for an agile base character that is not automatically a combat god.

I have to say this idea does hold a lot of appeal as well. I think you’d need to drop the cost of DEX to 2 CPs per point if CV was divorced entirely from it. And the cost of Lightning Reflexes might need to drop a little bit as well.

Steve mentioned this idea in his opening post, and one of his main concerns with it seemed to be that it would introduce a new characteristic, CV (or two characteristics, OCV and DCV). And proper value(s) would need to be established for these characteristic(s). But why not just say every character starts out with a base value in OCV and DCV like 2 or 3, and that only CSLs and/or Combat Modifiers can raise it. We’d probably need a special rule for how Adjustment Powers impact CV. The easiest might be to say Adjustment Powers can be bought vs. OCV or DCV and that it takes fixed number of character points to adjust the CV value. I’m thinking somewhere in the 5-8 range would be right for that fixed number. And if a character wanted to adjust OCV and DCV simultaneously, they’d take the +1/2 Variable Effect Advantage on the power.

You’d think for consistency’s sake, ECV should be divorced from EGO if we divorced CV from DEX. But I don’t think that is a great idea. ECV being based on EGO seems to work well without causing the same issues that basing CV on DEX does. So I would suggest ECV be based on EGO even if CV is no longer based on DEX.

The Main Man

Apr 2nd, '09, 12:09 PM

The Main Man

Apr 2nd, '09, 12:10 PM

You mean, something like, oh:
Don't forget that Mr. Long has not even read these threads yet, so don't give up hope, assuming that you support Figured retention.

JamesG

Apr 2nd, '09, 12:12 PM

ECV being based on EGO seems to work well without causing the same issues that basing CV on DEX does.

Slight amendment. The cost of CSLs for ECV should be reduced. Per 5ER, a 5 point CSL is needed for Mental Combat. Since it costs 6 CPs for 3 points of EGO which grants +1 OECV and +1 DECV, why spend 5 points for a CSL that grants +1 OECV or +1 DECV. Mental Combat CSLs should be 3 point CSLs.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 2nd, '09, 12:14 PM

By this you mean something like having a characteristic called Dexterity which represents hand-eye-coordination and Agility with represents whole body coordination? Skills such as Lockpicking would be Dexterity based skills, while those like Acrobatics would be Agility based skills. And OCV would be DEX/3 and DCV would be Agility/3.
Yep, something like that.

As long as both Dex and Agility are 3 CPs each, that could work towards making All Combat CSLs competitive, as my options do.

But I think this idea introduces additional complications.

It effectively makes DEX twice as expensive, from a Skills perspective. For instance, if I want to make a thief-type, who is good at Lockpicking (Dex based) and Stealth (Agility based) I need to buy up two characteristics at 3 CPs per instead of one characteristic at 3 CPs per.
Which characteristic grants initiative?
What about skills that blur the line between the two? Fast Draw comes to mind.

Unless you think DEX skills are underpriced overall, complication number one really kills this idea. I don’t think they are underpriced, especially once the cost of DEX becomes 3 CPs per point instead of the current effective cost of 2 CPs per point (due to figured Speed).[/QUOTE]
Well, look at it this way: Currently the are two characteristics covering mental skills (INT and PRE), but only one characteristic covering physical skills (DEX). While there are fewer DEX skills than INT skills, many of them are quite important. I think it is a good idea to split physical skills between two characteristics. I have also at times suggested splitting PER off from INT as a seperate characteristic governing many current INT skills. The increased cost can be balanced by decreasing the cost of 5-point skill levels to 3 points.

Initiative (as in who acts first) could be logically tied to INT, PER. SPD, DEX, or AGI. Which one it should go to can depend on what will make the most balanced characteristic costs.

I would probably put Fast Draw with DEX rather than AGI, since it mainly hand/arm movement. I saw a fast-drawing gunman on Myhbusters the other day, and though his draw was really fast, physically he was rather fat and not particularly graceful.

- Klaus

The Main Man

Apr 2nd, '09, 12:15 PM

Slight amendment. The cost of CSLs for ECV should be reduced. Per 5ER, a 5 point CSL is needed for Mental Combat. Since it costs 6 CPs for 3 points of EGO which grants +1 OECV and +1 DECV, why spend 5 points for a CSL that grants +1 OECV or +1 DECV. Mental Combat CSLs should be 3 point CSLs.

I might argue that 4 CP would suffice - which fits in with my theory that most Skill Levels (Combat or not) would be better balanced versus CHAR if they were a mere 1 CP cheaper.

ajackson

Apr 2nd, '09, 12:18 PM

Don't forget that Mr. Long has not even read these threads yet, so don't give up hope, assuming that you support Figured retention.
I don't, but it all depends on what 'particularly convincing argument' means. As I haven't seen anyone on this thread change their mind, I don't think there have been any 'particularly convincing arguments' on either side, but YMMV.

ajackson

Apr 2nd, '09, 12:19 PM

I might argue that 4 CP would suffice - which fits in with my theory that most Skill Levels (Combat or not) would be better balanced versus CHAR if they were a mere 1 CP cheaper.
I actually favor leaving the costs of 2 and 3 point levels alone, and changing 5 point levels to 4 point levels, 8 point levels to 5 point levels.

The Main Man

Apr 2nd, '09, 12:35 PM

Lucius

Apr 2nd, '09, 03:12 PM

I have absolutely no clue how that comment got that response. None at all It makes no sense give the string of things mentioning science fiction and fantasy as additional HERO settings. I don't want Supers HERO ,Space Opera HERO etc to become more difficult to model to cater to "wild West HERO but its a non issue. If ED isn't valuable in a particular campaign no one will buy it.

Should it cost the same in "Star Wars HERO" probably the opposite of "Wild West HERO. If you want to vary power costs by campaign we completely part ways ( which IS a logical assumption given your comment )

Then I'm afraid you'll part ways with the Fifth Edition already. From page 299 of FREd Jr.:

"For example, suppose a character wants to build an Energy Blast that only works in an intense magnetic field. In a Science Fiction campaign, intense magnetic fields exist just about everywhere (meaning the Limitation is only worth about -1/4). On the other hand, a WWII "Golden Age" superhero would almost never encounter an intense magnetic field (so the Limitation's more like a -2)"

I want to vary Power costs by campaign to pretty much exactly the extent that the system already does.

Lucius Alexander

If you're Lucius Alexander, encountering a palindromedary is a Very Common Situation....

Lucius

Apr 2nd, '09, 03:30 PM

I don't, but it all depends on what 'particularly convincing argument' means. As I haven't seen anyone on this thread change their mind, I don't think there have been any 'particularly convincing arguments' on either side, but YMMV.

Well, I've changed my mind about COM at least three or four times, due largely to interaction in this thread. It probably made my posts confusing to read sometimes.

And you may be about to see me change my mind about END.

The fact is, I LIKE the way the ENDurance rules work now. I like having a mechanical way to represent the idea that a character might get just plain tired. I like energy being a numerically accounted resource to manage, to conserve or to spend wisely or to gamble with recklessly.

But there are other facts beside my preferences to take into account, and logic is inexorable.

Among the facts: END starts equal to STUN when recovering from unconsciousness. STUN can be used as END when END runs out. Both use the same REC characteristic. The two are obviously closely linked anyway - does it make sense to combine them into a single characteristic?

I've been giving some thought to how to make that work, and may post if I think I have something worth sharing.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary still thinks END should be the last characteristic listed.

steamteck

Apr 2nd, '09, 04:38 PM

Then I'm afraid you'll part ways with the Fifth Edition already. From page 299 of FREd Jr.:

"For example, suppose a character wants to build an Energy Blast that only works in an intense magnetic field. In a Science Fiction campaign, intense magnetic fields exist just about everywhere (meaning the Limitation is only worth about -1/4). On the other hand, a WWII "Golden Age" superhero would almost never encounter an intense magnetic field (so the Limitation's more like a -2)"

I want to vary Power costs by campaign to pretty much exactly the extent that the system already does.

Lucius Alexander

If you're Lucius Alexander, encountering a palindromedary is a Very Common Situation....

Stop that! you know what I meant. ( I least I hope you can see the difference) That is not vaguely the same thing.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 2nd, '09, 05:38 PM

Chris Goodwin

Apr 2nd, '09, 08:43 PM

Doc Democracy

Apr 3rd, '09, 12:25 AM

Stop that! you know what I meant. ( I least I hope you can see the difference) That is not vaguely the same thing.

Hmm. I wasn't on the side of differentiating the costs of ED and PD etc but I have been tempted by changing the system to be STUN defence and BODY defence as a split and having one resistance that everything is weighed against. You could then purchase (cheaper) resistance to STUN or BODY by purchasing limited varieties (Energy or Physical or Magic) whose cost would vary by the kind of campaign you are playing in.

That is a change in my head over the past week.

One of my beefs about the increase in variety of attack has been the necessary increase in the number of defences that characters have to purchase - too easy to miss one and have your Mr Invincible be Mr GlassJaw.

Yes. I think I would like the set-up described - it would be easy to simply purchase across the board toughness, or increase the likelihood of dying without necessarily being too difficult to knock out.

I think I can face both ways with the Palindromedary on this one....

Doc

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 3rd, '09, 12:35 AM

The fact is, I LIKE the way the ENDurance rules work now. I like having a mechanical way to represent the idea that a character might get just plain tired. I like energy being a numerically accounted resource to manage, to conserve or to spend wisely or to gamble with recklessly.
One think I like about how END works now is that it counters high SPD. High-SPD characters need to buy more END and REC or else buy all their abilities to 0 END. I had a GM that didn't allow 0 END on STR or attacks; it worked well.

However, the question is if this is enough to justify keeping END with all the bookkeeping required.

Among the facts: END starts equal to STUN when recovering from unconsciousness. STUN can be used as END when END runs out. Both use the same REC characteristic. The two are obviously closely linked anyway - does it make sense to combine them into a single characteristic?
I have been persuaded by arguments on the board that this might a bad idea if END is used as now. However, if "END" is only used to push or for long-term use (a suggestion I favor), I see no problem in using STUN instead.

Endurance Reserves could still exist as a variant of Charges (which btw always would be a limitation with this change; a nice simplification).

- Klaus

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 3rd, '09, 01:03 AM

To the DEX discussion, I think a 4 point cost for DEX is probably in the ballpark if we keep the link to SPD, or price DEX at 3 if the link to SPD goes.

It should be possible to purchase, and adjust, OCV and DCV directly.

The costs of all levels, combat and skill, is excessive compared to the costs of buying the characteristics up directly. The cost of levels should be reduced.
Okay, let's use DEX w/o SPD at cost 3 as the basis and work out what the various components should cost. I'm using the current breakpoints for CV and Skills first:

+15 DEX (45 points) would give you:
+5 OCV all attacks ~ 5 broad CSLs
+5 DCV ~ 5 DCV levels
+3 INT skills ~ 3 broad skill levels
+15 Initiative
+3 DEX Roll

The levels are the main part. 13 levels at 3 points each would be 39 points. That leaves 6 points for Initiative and DEX Roll - rather cheap, but I'm not against a little cost break for buying the whole package. Seems workable.

The current 2, 3, and 5 point levels would be 1, 2, and 3. You would probably need to swap three or four CSLs for 1 DC rather than two as now.

Let's say that we instead use breakpoints of DEX/2½, as I have suggested.

+15 DEX would then give you:
+6 OCV all attacks ~ 6 broad CSLs
+6 DCV ~ 6 DCV levels
+6 INT skills ~ 6 broad skill levels
+15 Initiative
+3 DEX Roll

Now we have 18 skill levels. Keeping the 1-2-3 skill level costs (which I like), this is now 54 points from these alone. This suggests a cost of 60 for +15 DEX, or a cost of 4 per point (or we could split DEX into two characteristics , each with a cost of 2).

Either of these two solutions would work, though I favor the last.

And Normal Characteristic Maxima is a huge part of the problem - if we lower the cost of components so characteristics aren't a huge bargain at normal prices, they become completely prohibitive if their cost doubles. Hard cap the characteristics in a NCM game.
In total agreement here. :)

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Apr 3rd, '09, 04:58 AM

Just a suggestion on terminology of Characteristic Maxima. I'd like to see Normal Characteristic Maxima renamed Heroic Characteristic Maxima, and Normal set at a lower level (15/6/3/8/40) and maybe even lower ones (Incompetent Characteristic Maxima) and higher ones (Legendary and Ultra).

I like this. This would also facilitate a hard cap approach to campaign guidelines. For example, PC's may have no more than one characteristic in the Ultra range, or two in the Legendary range. The rest are capped at the Heroic maximum. I could then build my extremely strong character (Ultra STR; everything else Heroic) or my extremely fast character (Legendary DEX and SPD; all else Heroic), but the guidelines would be clear.

Okay, let's use DEX w/o SPD at cost 3 as the basis and work out what the various components should cost. I'm using the current breakpoints for CV and Skills first:

+15 DEX (45 points) would give you:
+5 OCV all attacks ~ 5 broad CSLs
+5 DCV ~ 5 DCV levels
+3 INT skills ~ 3 broad skill levels
+15 Initiative
+3 DEX Roll

The levels are the main part. 13 levels at 3 points each would be 39 points. That leaves 6 points for Initiative and DEX Roll - rather cheap, but I'm not against a little cost break for buying the whole package. Seems workable.

The current 2, 3, and 5 point levels would be 1, 2, and 3. You would probably need to swap three or four CSLs for 1 DC rather than two as now.

Let's assume for the moment that OCV costs 3 points, DCV costs 3 points and +1 with all DEX rolls (which includes skills and base rolls is 3 points). We then get the 39 points set out above.

EDIT: MATH IS FOR TWO LEVELS - SEE KLAUS' POST

I could buy a Multipower of +2 OCV (6 points), +2 DCV (6 points), +1 DC (5 points) or +2 DEX Skill Rolls (6 points) This would cost 6 for the pool, plus 4 for the Flexible slots is 10 points. That's a little less potent than an Overall level is now. The Overall level would need more slots for other skills and ECV.

If I take out the Skill slot, I get 9 points, again a bit more expensive than the current "all combat" 8 point level, and it lacks ECV. Call a combat skill level 10 points, then. The Overall needs to be about 12 points.

So, if my skill level is limited - it's a Combat level, Only with Ranged Combat, that would be a 9 point multipower (doesn't need ECV any more) that's probably a -1, so a cost of 4.5 points - almost exactly the 5 point level we have now. Limit it further to "only with Multipower" and -2 seems in the game, so we get 3 points - just like now.

+X OCV, only with one attack is probably 1 point each, though. That seems like a -2. And +1 OCV, only with one maneuver would also be 1 point. Isn't that what it costs when we build a martial maneuver? Suddenly, the costs seem to be getting reasonably comparable.

This covers everything but +15 Lightning Reflexes, which should cost 6 points. +5 Initiative Order for 2 points does not seem unreasonably priced to me. Going first is nice, but it's not crucial. Few genres see the characters commonly laid low by the first strike.

Let's say that we instead use breakpoints of DEX/2½, as I have suggested.

+15 DEX would then give you:
+6 OCV all attacks ~ 6 broad CSLs
+6 DCV ~ 6 DCV levels
+6 INT skills ~ 6 broad skill levels
+15 Initiative
+3 DEX Roll

Now we have 18 skill levels. Keeping the 1-2-3 skill level costs (which I like), this is now 54 points from these alone. This suggests a cost of 60 for +15 DEX, or a cost of 4 per point (or we could split DEX into two characteristics , each with a cost of 2).

Either of these two solutions would work, though I favor the last.

I'm unsurprised that making DEX grant abilities faster makes it more valuable. After having done the math above, I'm reluctant to change the formuli at all - it seems like the current values can work quite nicely to set appropriate points with DEX costing 4 points if we keep SPD as a figured characteristic, or 3 points if SPD is removed from DEX.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 3rd, '09, 07:00 AM

Let's assume for the moment that OCV costs 3 points, DCV costs 3 points and +1 with all DEX rolls (which includes skills and base rolls) is 3 points. We then get the 39 points set out above.

I could buy a Multipower of +2 OCV (6 points), +2 DCV (6 points), +1 DC (5 points) or +2 DEX Skill Rolls (6 points) This would cost 6 for the pool, plus 4 for the Flexible slots is 10 points. That's a little less potent than an Overall level is now. The Overall level would need more slots for other skills and ECV.

If I take out the Skill slot, I get 9 points, again a bit more expensive than the current "all combat" 8 point level, and it lacks ECV. Call a combat skill level 10 points, then. The Overall needs to be about 12 points.
Your math is for two levels, so that would be 5 points for an all-combat level.

The Overall level also needs slots for INT skills, PRE skills and Background skills as well as all Characteristic Rolls. With ECV, we will probably end up around 16 points for two levels, or 8 points per level.

So, if my skill level is limited - it's a Combat level, Only with Ranged Combat, that would be a 9 point multipower (doesn't need ECV any more) that's probably a -1, so a cost of 4.5 points - almost exactly the 5 point level we have now. Limit it further to "only with Multipower" and -2 seems in the game, so we get 3 points - just like now.
Since characters tend to focus on either ranged attack or hth attacks, I would put "Only with Ranged or HTH" at -½, or 3 points for a broad CSL - same as for +1 OCV or +1 DCV. "Three related skills/attacks" or "Only with Multipower" might be -1 or -1½. Either way, that's 2 points for a narrow group of attacks or three related skills.

That leaves us with skill/combat level costs of 1-2-3-5-8 - the current cost scheme shifted one step down.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Apr 3rd, '09, 08:43 AM

Your math is for two levels, so that would be 5 points for an all-combat level.

Good thing one of us is awake! :o

Actually, that makes a lot more sense, as my sense has always been that skill levels are currently overpriced, not underpriced.

The Overall level also needs slots for INT skills, PRE skills and Background skills as well as all Characteristic Rolls. With ECV, we will probably end up around 16 points for two levels, or 8 points per level.

Since characters tend to focus on either ranged attack or hth attacks, I would put "Only with Ranged or HTH" at -½, or 3 points for a broad CSL - same as for +1 OCV or +1 DCV. "Three related skills/attacks" or "Only with Multipower" might be -1 or -1½. Either way, that's 2 points for a narrow group of attacks or three related skills.

That leaves us with skill/combat level costs of 1-2-3-5-8 - the current cost scheme shifted one step down.

This seems like a reasonable result - and one which is consistent with the pricing of elements in martial maneuvers (although perhaps the cost of an extra DC needs to be revisited as it should require two levels).

Of course, this also suggests I should be able to buy +1 DC with any attack for 2 points (2 1 point levels), which is problematic. Given that, it seems appropriate to restrict 1 and 2 point levels to only adding to OCV or DCV, and require at least the 3 point Broad levels in order to increase damage classes. The damage classes granted by levels can't more than double the original attack, but that's not very restrictive if we can double the attack's power for 1 point per added DC.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 3rd, '09, 01:45 PM

Of course, this also suggests I should be able to buy +1 DC with any attack for 2 points (2 1 point levels), which is problematic. Given that, it seems appropriate to restrict 1 and 2 point levels to only adding to OCV or DCV, and require at least the 3 point Broad levels in order to increase damage classes. The damage classes granted by levels can't more than double the original attack, but that's not very restrictive if we can double the attack's power for 1 point per added DC.
Perhaps better change how many CSLs you need to get +1 DC.

Assuming that attacks stay at 5 points per DC and cost END, it should cost more than 7½ points (1DC, 0 END) to get +1 DC with skill levels, which after all have other functionalities. If we allow swapping 2-point levels for DC, we would thus need at least 4 levels to get +1 DC. If we only allow 3-point levels or broader to be swapped, we need 3 levels to get +1 DC.

(Note: swapping levels for DC is now way too cheap - you can get +1DC, 0 END for 6 points that way. MA DCs are also very cheap at 4 points.)

If OTOH attacks become 0 END as a default, as have been suggested, but remain at 5 points per DC, we would only need 3 or 2 levels to get 1 DC, depending on we allow exchanging 2-point levels or start at 3-point levels.

- Klaus

ajackson

Apr 3rd, '09, 02:04 PM

Hugh Neilson

Apr 3rd, '09, 03:21 PM

I wouldn't call "ranged only" a -1 limitation; given typical character construction, I would call 'one attack' about a -1 limitation, 'three attacks' about a -1/2, 'group of related attacks' about a -1/4. Alternately, level costs of 2 (one attack, OCV only), 3 (3 attacks), 4 (related group), 5 (anything).

If it costs 5 points for +1 OCV with any attack, we have then established that +1 OCV costs 5 points, resulting in a need to revisit the cost of DEX. If OCV and DCV cost 5 each, then that +15 DEX grants:

+5 OCV 25 points
+5 DCV 25 points
+3 DEX skills 9 points (n/c from previous analysis)
+15 Lightning Reflexes 6 points (n/c from previous analysis)

65 points means DEX needs to cost at least 4 points, at least 5 if it grants SPD.

One "all combat" level becomes a multipower of +1 OCV, +1 DCV, +1 OECV, +1 ODCV, +1/2 DC, 0 END, so 5 points for pool + 5 for slots = 10 points and they get limited from there.

So how do we limit them? Ranged Physical Combat Only, HTH Physical Combat Only or Mental Combat Only could be 5 points each.

Further restrict those to a small group of abilities and make them 3 points each.

This puts 3 and 5 point combat skill levels unchanged from the current rules, which seems fine. We can ditch 2 point OCV levels in favour of +1 OCV with one attack only (-2 limitation).

That means Martial Arts costs need to go up, though. +2 OCV and +2d6 damage with a single maneuver is clearly worth more than 3 - 5 points.

Part of the balancing problem here is that +1 OCV or +1 DCV would, absent limits, work with any attack, where +1 DC would be purchased for only one attack.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 4th, '09, 12:54 AM

One "all combat" level becomes a multipower of +1 OCV, +1 DCV, +1 OECV, +1 ODCV, +1/2 DC, 0 END, so 5 points for pool + 5 for slots = 10 points and they get limited from there.

So how do we limit them? Ranged Physical Combat Only, HTH Physical Combat Only or Mental Combat Only could be 5 points each.
Since when has Mental Comat been derived from DEX?

That means Martial Arts costs need to go up, though. +2 OCV and +2d6 damage with a single maneuver is clearly worth more than 3 - 5 points.
I'm in favor of redesigning Martial Arts maneuvers as a few 0-point maneuvers and then use CSLs to add OCV, DCV and/or DC to these and/or the standard maneuvers. It is simpler than the current system and much more flexible.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Apr 4th, '09, 05:07 AM

Since when has Mental Comat been derived from DEX?

It's not, but ECV is provided with "all combat" levels, which is my starting point for valuing combat levels which provide less than "all combat".

ajackson

Apr 4th, '09, 10:54 AM

If it costs 5 points for +1 OCV with any attack
Actually, I was thinking 5 points for an 'all combat' level. An OCV level would be 4 points.

ghost-angel

Apr 4th, '09, 11:21 AM

Actually, I was thinking 5 points for an 'all combat' level. An OCV level would be 4 points.

Only if you're using the Optional CSLs from Ultimate Skill.
Otherwise there is no 4 Point Combat Skill Level.

The Main Man

Apr 4th, '09, 12:37 PM

Since when has Mental Comat been derived from DEX?

I'm in favor of redesigning Martial Arts maneuvers as a few 0-point maneuvers and then use CSLs to add OCV, DCV and/or DC to these and/or the standard maneuvers. It is simpler than the current system and much more flexible.

- Klaus

Ditto.

"Martial Arts" can become Complementary Background Skills (Science perhaps?).

ajackson

Apr 4th, '09, 11:49 PM

Only if you're using the Optional CSLs from Ultimate Skill. Otherwise there is no 4 Point Combat Skill Level.
For clarity: what is currently an 8 point level would be a 5 point level. What is currently a 5 point level would be a 4 point level.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 5th, '09, 02:19 AM

For clarity: what is currently an 8 point level would be a 5 point level. What is currently a 5 point level would be a 4 point level.
I think the current 5-point levels should be 3 points. The progression would be:
1 point: +1 on a single skill or attack; CSL can't be used for DCV or exchanged for DC
2 points: +1 on three related skills or attacks; CSL can be used for DCV or exchanged for DC at a 4:1 exchange rate
3 points: +1 on a broad group of skills or attacks; CSL can be used for DCV or exchanged for DC as above
5 points: +1 all combat; CSL can be used for DCV or exchanged for DC as above
8 points: Overall level

I set the CSL:DC exchange rate at 4:1 to make it slightly cheaper than buying 1d6N, 0 END (7½ points). If Powers and STR are made 0-END as a default (a change I support), the exchange rate would be 3:1.

- Klaus

Lucius

Apr 5th, '09, 10:17 AM

Okay, this is pretty crude and probably full of holes, but this is what I came up with:

END STUN REC proposal

First, assume that END and STUN are combined. If the concept of
"Figured" is retained, perhaps base it on CON. For the moment, I'll call
the new statistic Vitality (VIT)

Introduce another "toggle" in the game, a decision like whether or not
to use Knockback. The heroic default would be "Endurance rules in
effect" and the superheroic default would be "Endurance rules not in
effect."

Endurance not in effect:

No energy cost to actions or powers, by default.

Automatic recovery and extended action:

At the end of every turn up to the fourth consecutive turn, characters
that have lost VIT may make a CON roll and will recover 2 pts of VIT for
every point by which the roll was made. The only levels that apply to
this roll are specialized endurance "levels" because it is part of the
Bookkeeping phase and ordinary levels can only be assigned during one of
the character's regular action phases.

At the judge's option, if a combat or other action sequence exceeds 4
turns, at the end of each turn thereafter each active character must
make a CON roll to avoid losing 1d6 VIT. A character spending at least
one phase in a turn taking a recovery or resting (see below) does not
lose VIT in this way. Again, only specialized levels apply to this roll.

Pushing:

Pushing STR, Movement, or a Power, costs VIT
Push by* * * * * costs
5 Active Pts* * * 1d6
10 Pts* * * * * * * * 2d6* ***
15 Pts* * * * * * * * 3d6
20 Pts* * * * * * * * 4d6

While this loss may render a character unconscious, it should not be
compared to CON for purposes of determining if a character is stunned.

Held Phase Recovery:

A character who has held a phase until the next phase comes around, thus
losing an action, has had a chance to catch their breath and may roll a
recovery as described above under automatic recovery except that if the
phase was being held for the specific purpose of recovering, any levels
that could apply (overall levels, levels with CON rolls) could be
applied to the roll that phase. The roll may not be made if the
character took any damage while holding the phase, or aborted to a
defensive maneuver such as dodge.

Resting:

Choosing to rest is like holding a phase, except that the character is 0
DCV, and on a successful roll regains VIT points equal to the
character's CON score. The character also my not move, or use any but
the most passive skills or powers (such as Concealment, Stealth,
Perception, etc) or exert more than 10 Active Points of any Power unless
that Power has the Effortless Advantage (see below.) A character may not
hold a phase and then declare "resting" right before their next phase.
The intention to Rest must be declared at the beginning of the phase, and
the 0 DCV applies from that point.

New Advantage: Effortless (+1/4)

An Effortless Power never has no energy cost associated with it, and
may be activated or maintained even while Resting or Recovering.
For a +1/2 Advantage the Power may be Pushed but otherwise never drains VIT.

Endurance Rules in Effect:

STR, Movement, and Powers have an energy cost unless they have the
Advantage Effortless. Cost is 1 point per 5 Active Points used. A character
may use up to their CON in energy points each phase without penalty; That is,
a character with a CON of 20 could use up to 100 Active Points each phase
without getting tired. Points in excess of that are lost from VIT.

There are no Automatic Recoveries, and the Extended Action penalty applies
at the end of the first phase.

Pushing:

Pushing STR, Movement, or a Power, costs more VIT
when the Endurance Rule is in effect.
Also, an EGO roll may be called for to Push at all.

Push by* * * * * costs
5 Active Pts* * * 1d6
10 Pts* * * * * * * * 2d6* ***
15 Pts* * * * * * * * 4d6
20 Pts* * * * * * * * 8d6

Recovery and Resting rules do not change.

New Limitation: Tiring (-1/2)

This Limitation applies if the Endurance Rules are not in effect
by default. Using a Tiring Power means the character gives up any
Automatic Recovery that phase, and the Endurance Rules are in
effect for the use of that Power only. At a -1 Limitation, the character
does not even get to use the Power for “Free” up to the level determined
by CON: every use costs points directly off of VIT.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary wonders if this is the End of END?

IndianaJoe3

Apr 5th, '09, 02:55 PM

Time to post my last thoughts on Characteristics.

Point costs for all Primary Characteristics are unchanged. Figured Characteristics change as follows:

REC is (STR/5)+(CON/5), and costs 1 CP for 1 point of REC.
END is 2*CON, and costs 1 CP for 10 points of END.
STUN is BODY+CON, and costs 1 CP for 1 point of STUN.

The default running is now 24m, and the default swimming is 8m. However, this is per turn, not per phase. See, “Movement Powers” for more details.

STR no longer adds to Leaping. Characters start with 2m leaping.

COM defaults to being, “universal” - a character with a high COM is considered to be attractive to everyone. COM that applies only to members of a particular species may be worth a Limitation, depending on how common that species is. Gamemasters who want a more realistic treatment may decide that COM only applies with in one's species. Negative COM no longer has any effect on PRE attacks. Finally, COM Rolls may often be made as Complementary Rolls to Interaction Skills. However, a failed roll may give a penalty as the target realizes you're trying to manipulate them.

The Main Man

Apr 5th, '09, 09:32 PM

My Final $.02 on Characteristics:

1) Please do not decouple Figured Characteristics.

As others have pointed out, doing the calculations are small pickings versus Power Construction.

Charts should be able to do the job.

As laid out in the beginning, ALL character types end up costing more; Bricks just get hosed more than the others.

2) Combat Value (whether Physical or Mental) should be consolidated with Skill Bonuses at a compromised value of CHAR/4.

This "CHAR Bonus" could be displayed without the Skill Base much like D&D already does.

3) STR should be decoupled from Leaping, PD, REC, and STUN.

4) CON could be combined with BODY to make Health (HLT) which functions as both.

HLT/5 = Base PD and ED

HLT/2.5 = REC

HLT x2 = END

HLT x2 = STUN

There should be more usage for CON Rolls.

5) BODY (assuming that it does not combine with CON) should replace STR in the Figured CHAR.

BODY/5 = Base PD

(CON/5) + (BODY/5) = Base REC

CON + BODY = Base STUN
or
BODYx2 = Base STUN
or
(CON/2) + (EGO/2) + BODY = Base STUN (see below)

6) INT should figure into SPD at (INT/10) + (DEX/10) but it thusly should cost 2CP per 1 point.

7) EGO should be able to double for CON against Stunning much like how it can double for PRE against PRE Attacks.

Similarly, it could figure into STUN at (CON/2) + (EGO/2) + BODY = Base STUN

This interestingly places two different "Mental" CHAR into the Figured CHAR.

This would mean, IOW, that Bricks would no longer have a monopoly on Figured CHAR and it would elevate EGO's value.

This all is equivalent to "mind over matter" as it also gives alternate routes to acquire Figured CHAR besides through Physical CHAR - IOW, Bricks would no longer be the only archetype that gets a cost break because a PC with sufficient mental CHAR could have just as suitable Figured CHAR as a Brick in the long run, which solves much of the "Bricks get a big cost break" problem that seems to have brought it all up in the first place.

8) COM should gain more mechanical utility (the expanded Social Interaction idea could make good use of it)

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 6th, '09, 04:03 AM

Time to post my last thoughts on Characteristics.
What's with all these "final thoughts"? Has Steve announced that the threads will close soon?

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Apr 6th, '09, 05:16 AM

What's with all these "final thoughts"? Has Steve announced that the threads will close soon?

Steve has indicated he will close the forum threads when he begins work on 6e and starts to read them. There has been no exact timing announced.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 6th, '09, 05:24 AM

My Final $.02 on Characteristics:

1) Please do not decouple Figured Characteristics.

I agree on this. The formuli need to be adjusted, and costs modified, so that the benefits provided by characteristics price out independently at a cost similar to the characteristic. With this accomplished, there is no benefit removing figured characteristics. They could then easily be removed by repricing the characteristics as an optional rule.

2) Combat Value (whether Physical or Mental) should be consolidated with Skill Bonuses at a compromised value of CHAR/4.

Consistent with #1, above, CV (or OCV and DCV) should have an independent cost from the characteristic they are derived from. I see no reason that the skill bonus and the CV bonus should be consolidated.

Skill levels need to be priced in a manner that meets the criteria that characteristics are neither bargain priced nor overpriced compared to their component parts.

3) STR should be decoupled from Leaping, PD, REC, and STUN.

I've posted my suggested modification to the Figureds before and won't reiterate it here. I suspect Steve's eyes are already sore from all the reading.

4) CON could be combined with BODY to make Health (HLT) which functions as both.

There should be more usage for CON Rolls.

There is, to me, no compelling reason to consolidate these. CON and BOD do different things and should stay separate. More use for CON rolls would be nice.

5) BODY (assuming that it does not combine with CON) should replace STR in the Figured CHAR.

I've posted my suggested formuli. I suspect, if Steve is persuaded to retain figured's, he will have his own formuli in mind.

6) INT should figure into SPD at (INT/10) + (DEX/10) but it thusly should cost 2CP per 1 point.

I agree this is an idea worth at least considering.

7) EGO should be able to double for CON against Stunning much like how it can double for PRE against PRE Attacks.

I disagree. And PRE should no longer defend against PRE attacks. Each should have a single defense. We could use an average (Ego and PRE for PRE attacks; CON and Ego for stunning), but I don't see this as sufficiently valuable to merit the added steps.

8) COM should gain more mechanical utility (the expanded Social Interaction idea could make good use of it)

COM should have more mechanics and remain as a characteristic.

Netzilla

Apr 6th, '09, 06:22 AM

What's with all these "final thoughts"? Has Steve announced that the threads will close soon?

From Steve's Friday update on the front page (http://www.herogames.com) of the Hero Games Website:

Fourth and most importantly, last Wednesday, almost seven years to the day that we released the 5E core rulebook, I at long last began work on the Sixth Edition! I’m currently assembling my “Master Fifth Edition Document,” from which I’ll create 6E through the judicious use of scalpel, machete, spackle, blowtorch, gila monster spit, and hacksaw. Once I have it ready, I’m going to start reading the posts on the 6E forum — and the first thing I’m going to do is lock all the threads. So if you want to post your comments, you’d better do it soon! ;)

James Gillen

Apr 6th, '09, 07:43 AM

Awww. :D

ajackson

Apr 6th, '09, 08:39 AM

I think the current 5-point levels should be 3 points.
My experience is that players are willing to buy 2 and 3 point levels, and that they're often tolerably efficient. As such, I'm inclined to leave them alone and only modify 5 and 8 point levels.

The Main Man

Apr 6th, '09, 11:06 AM

Steve has indicated he will close the forum threads when he begins work on 6e and starts to read them. There has been no exact timing announced.

I had no idea when he was going to do so myself, and so IndianaJoe influenced me to get my collective thoughts out there.Now I kinda feel silly.

The Main Man

Apr 6th, '09, 11:11 AM

At the risk of political incorrectness, will anyone else feel kinda like the Germans after WWI when Mr. Long closes these threads?

Hugh Neilson

Apr 6th, '09, 11:57 AM

I’m not sure I want to own a book made with gila monster spit…

must be part of the colouration process.

James Gillen

Apr 6th, '09, 01:54 PM

My "Final Thoughts" on 6th Edition Discussion are that the ideas people have are getting so far removed from core HERO that I might as well start over and do design notes for a completely new game. So I started a thread on a completely different forum (http://nogadi.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1063) to do just that. :D

JG

ajackson

Apr 7th, '09, 08:28 AM

So, final thoughts: I'm basically opposed to figured Cha. I also have a philosophical fondness for all primary attributes being the same cost. Thus, my final version:
Strength: x1. Doesn't provide figs, doesn't provide jumping.
Dexterity: x1. Doesn't provide figs, doesn't provide CV.
Constitution: x1. Doesn't provide figs, but gives END (see below).
Body: x1. Doesn't provide figs.
Intelligence: x1
Ego: x1. Doesn't provide ECV.
Presence: x1. Presence defense is based on Ego.
Com: nonexistent as such.
PD, ED: x1, base 2, if they still exist (separate thread)
REC: x2 if END still exists, otherwise x1. Base value 4.
END: not buyable, always equal to 2x Con.
Stun: x1, base value of 20.

Querysphinx

Apr 8th, '09, 08:17 PM

If I could change just ONE thing about the game in general and stats in particular it would be doing away with PD and ED which are artificial distinctions that defend against special effects, and replacing them with Body Def and Stun Def which defend against game mechanics. It just makes sooooo much more sense.

Vale

Apr 10th, '09, 02:54 PM

Just a thought on characteristics. Changing the cost or the function of a stat is not only fine but needed as a game develops. The problem I see is a desire to scrap a stat such as com. Hero has a very rich legacy with it's stat profile, one that has outlived other systems such as Superworld. Comeliness or PD and ED are not the problem,it is moving them forward as character and play tools that I see is the real need. Any stat can help or hinder but to provide options for their use is what makes a system more complete. Strength,for instance, could be used as a CV if you think about it instead of a dex only CV you could have MCV for melee and a RCV for range using str and dex. I know this a rough example but I hope provides some help.

Thanks for the time Vale.

The Main Man

Apr 10th, '09, 07:12 PM

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 12th, '09, 01:27 AM

Benchmarks for human maximum strength

In Hero System, a STR 20 normal can by Pushing to STR 25 lift 800 kg off the ground and stagger a few steps with it. How does this compare to the real world?

Unfortunately, I could find no world records for staggering a few steps with massive weights. However, the world record for clean-and-jerk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_and_jerk) (where you lift a barbell overhead in three steps) is 263.5 kg, and the world record in benchpress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progression_of_the_bench_press_world_record) is 488 kg. What we're looking for is probably somewhere in between these two, around 350-400 kg. So Hero is too generous at by at least a factor of two at human max. However, the human norm of 100 kg is probably not too far off.

A solution is to replace the x2 lift per +5 STR with x10 lift per +25 STR. This actually gives very nice numbers (with only very slight rounding):

STR Lift
10 100 kg
15 160 kg
20 250 kg
25 400 kg
30 630 kg
35 1000 kg

Every +1 STR corresponds closely to +10% lift (1.1^25 = 10.83).

This does mean that superheroes need somewhat more STR to be able to lift very heavy weights. 100 tons, which now requires STR 60 to lift, would require STR 85. If this is seen as a problem, we could allow buying extra STR, just for lifting, at e.g. 1 point per +5.

[b}Addendum:[/b] If we say that you should use STR-5 to figure what you can lift over your head, we've also matched the clean-and-jerk record pretty closely.

- Klaus

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 12th, '09, 03:55 AM

Hugh Neilson

Apr 12th, '09, 04:56 AM

In a recent post (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1814646&postcount=2408) in General Rules Issues I played with the idea of dividing Primary Characteristics by 2½ and all costs by 2½, knowing well that this would probably be too far-reaching a change.

However, I have thought more about the first part (dividing Primary Characteristics by 2½), and I think it could be a very good idea, since it allows using the Characteristics' values directly for skills and combat, rather than using a derived value of the Characteristic divided by some number. I have abandoned the idea of having the same cost for all Primary Characteristics, and dividing their numerical values by 2½ allows greater variation in costs (since the costs will be multiplied by about 2½).

I'm having flashbacks to Mayfair's DC Heros game, where normals had stats of 2 and each +1 doubled the stat. I remember thinking "Oh. Like Hero, only with way less variation." This is the same, but only half as much. I'd rather see some nod to making each point have a potential effect, and keeping a wider band. Even Old Grandad D&D doesn't have +1 for every point of the characteristic.

Anyway, here's what I've come up with:

PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICS
All have base 4, normal human max 8
Besides listed benefits, all provide a Characteristic Roll with base = CHA

STR cost: 4
Lifting ability
HTH/Thrown damage = ½d6 x STR
KB Resistance (when bracing) = STR meters

CON cost: 3
Stun Defense = CON (CON is subtracted from STUN damage)
Counts towards Toughness (see Resistances below)

MOVE cost: 3
Initiative = Move
Running/turn = Move x 5m
Swimming/turn = Move x 2m
Broadjump = Move x 2m (running) or Move x 1m (standing)

Why do track stars and olympic swimmers have a combat advantage (initiative)? Why do we link Leaping, Running and Swimming to Move, but not link other movement powers to Move?

Normals have a 4, so 20m per turn (vs the current 24 M) running, 8 m Swimming (no change from the current) or an 8 meter broad jump/4 meter standing broad jump. So the typical human can now leap about 25'. Or does he leap half that if he has a 2 SPD, but only 1/4 that if he has a 4 SPD? His legs get weaker as his reactions get faster?

DEX cost: 5
OCV = DEX
Manual Skill base = DEX
Manual Skills would be Combat Driving, Combat Piloting, Fast Draw, Lockpicking, Sleight of Hand, Teamwork, and Weaponsmith

AGI cost: 5
DCV = AGI
Athletic Skill base = AGI
Athletic Skills would be Acrobatics, Breakfall, Climbing, Contortionist, Riding, and Stealth

OK, so we now have DEX which combines fine motor skills and hand/eye co-ordination, and AGI which governs gross motor skills.

INT cost: 3
Intellect Skill base = INT
Intellect Skills would be Bugging, Computer Programming, Crimonology, Cryptography, Deduction, Electronics, Forensic Medicine, Inventor, Mechanics, Paramedics, Systems Operation, and Tactics

PER cost: 3
Perception Skill base = PER
Perception Skills would be Analyze, Concealment, Lipreading, Mimicry, Shadowing, Tracking, and Ventriloquist

And we split off INT. Here, I see some questions on the skill split. Planting a bug seems like INT, but finding one seems like PER. Concealment, Mimicry, Shadowing and Tracking seem similar. Is Deduction based on the intellect, or subconscious perception? Is Forensics knowing what to make of what you notice, or noticing relevant things you can then interpret? Same with crimonology, mechanics, paramedics, sys ops and tactics, as well as Analyze. I don't see how Ventriloquism fits either, but since it doesn't do anything actually possible in the real world, it will be tough to categorize in any case. Maybe Ventriloquism should be a Talent (Images, Hearing, very limited). Resisting it clearly should be a PER function.

PRE cost: 4
PRE Attack damage = ½d6 x PRE
Counts towards Courage (see Resistances below)
Interaction Skill base = PRE
Interaction Skills are as now, except Animal Handler is now a Concentration Skill

WILL cost: 4
Counts towards Toughness, Courage and Integrity (see Resistances below)
Concentration Skill base = WILL (see note 2)
Concentration Skills would be Animal Handler, Cramming, Demolitions, Forgery, Gambling, Security Sustems, Survival, and Resistance (now a Talent)

So we ditch Ego to add Will?? Demolitions, Gambling, Sec Sys and Survival all seem functions of intellect, and gambling of PRE, as much as will. Forgery seems to involve PER and DEX (fine motor skills).

EGO cost: 4 (optional; only for campaigns with mental powers)
ECV = EGO
Mental Defense = EGO
Counts towards Integrity (see Resistances below)

You seem to base the split of ego on the premise that mental CV and resistance is only valuable if we have mental powers, which is true. However, splitting it off solves the problem (if there is a problem) only for games with no mental powers. The cost is still the same regardless of whether YOUR character has mental powers (if not, mental OCV is of no benefit), and regardless of whether we are playing PsiWorld, where lacking mental powers borders on freakishness, or a Sci Fi game where a single, rarely seen, never PC race is mildly telepathic. The frequency of mental powers also impacts the value of Ego.

Just like the frequency of muscle powered weaponry influences the value of STR, the frequency of physical vs mental combat will change the value of DEX and AGI and the prevelance of combat vs noncombat skews the value of combat stats and skills vs noncombat stats and skills.

RESISTANCES
All Resistances are the sum of two Primary Characteristics and rise and fall with changes in these.
If they can be bought up seperately, the cost would be 1 for Toughness and ½ for Courage and Integrity.

Toughness WILL+CON
Threshold for being Stunned (STUN damage)

Courage WILL+PRE
Threshold for being affected by PRE Attacks

Integrity WILL+EGO (optional; only for campaigns with mental powers)
Threshold for being affected by mental powers

VARIABLE CHARACTERISTICS
BODY, STUN, END
No changes necessary in range, though perhaps in cost (see other discussions)

COMBAT CHARACTERISTICS
Both have base 2, normal human max 4

SPD cost: 10
Number of action per turn

DEF cost: 3
Subtracted from (non-Killing) BODY damage
Note: Objects and barriers (including Force Wall) have DEF (usually Resistant; 4 points per rDEF). Armor and Force Field are usually a combination of rDEF and SD (Stun Defense; costs 2 points).

It seems like this doesn't simplify, so I'm not seeing the substantial benefit I think is needed to justify change of this magnitude.

And I STILL can't buy my CV separately.

The costs appear based on the premise that the current skill level costs should remain the same. Lower them, and the costs of many of the characteristics would fall, but that's a broad overall decision. If we're keeping the cost of skill levels the same and bumping the cost of characteristics to better equalize, then characters need more points. Either approach is workable - my main concern is making characteristics carry a cost commensurate with the cost of purchasing their component parts independently.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 12th, '09, 08:02 AM

I'm having flashbacks to Mayfair's DC Heros game, where normals had stats of 2 and each +1 doubled the stat. I remember thinking "Oh. Like Hero, only with way less variation." This is the same, but only half as much. I'd rather see some nod to making each point have a potential effect, and keeping a wider band. Even Old Grandad D&D doesn't have +1 for every point of the characteristic.
True, but in D&D4, the odd-numbered characteristics have no function whatsoever except as half-way points to the next value that matters. So in the 10-18 range, there's really only 5 values of interest. The d20-based game Blue Rose took the consequence and used the D&D bonuses as characteristics; a good move, I think.

Why do track stars and olympic swimmers have a combat advantage (initiative)?
It seemed as good a place as any to put it. Is there any better reason why clockmakers (DEX) or dancers (AGI) should have this advantage?

Why do we link Leaping, Running and Swimming to Move, but not link other movement powers to Move?
Running, Swimming, and Leaping are the "everyman" movement abilities. The idea is also that you should pay END on the basis of Move used rather than on the number of inches moved. This makes Swimming and Leaping appropriately streneous.

Normals have a 4, so 20m per turn (vs the current 24 M) running, 8 m Swimming (no change from the current) or an 8 meter broad jump/4 meter standing broad jump.
Running is based on real-life benchmarks. 20m/turn, doubled for non-combat, becomes about 12 kph, which is what a normal person i decent shape runs. Human max (80m/turn non-combat) corresponds to running a mile in 4 minutes, which for a long time was the goal for track runners.

NCM non-combat swimming becomes 32m/turn, or 160m/minute. That's 400m in 2:30, somewhat faster than the world record of 3:40. Perhaps the ncm multiple should only be x1.5 for swimming, or Swimming should be Move x 1.5m, but I went for simple numbers. The world record in running broad jump is a bit over 8 meter, so that should be half what I wrote - Move x1m for running broad jump, Move x ½m for standing broad jump. I'll edit that.

Or does he leap half that if he has a 2 SPD, but only 1/4 that if he has a 4 SPD? His legs get weaker as his reactions get faster?
No, the jumping distance is what you can jump in a single action.

And we split off INT. Here, I see some questions on the skill split. Planting a bug seems like INT, but finding one seems like PER. Concealment, Mimicry, Shadowing and Tracking seem similar. Is Deduction based on the intellect, or subconscious perception? Is Forensics knowing what to make of what you notice, or noticing relevant things you can then interpret? Same with crimonology, mechanics, paramedics, sys ops and tactics, as well as Analyze. I don't see how Ventriloquism fits either, but since it doesn't do anything actually possible in the real world, it will be tough to categorize in any case. Maybe Ventriloquism should be a Talent (Images, Hearing, very limited). Resisting it clearly should be a PER function.
I made some quick judgement calls. Mainly I tried to move as many INT skills as I could to PER and WILL, so INT wouldn't govern quite so many skills.

Anyway, your arguments can be seen as a support of the idea to disassociate skills from specific characteristics and use whichever characteristic fits with the situation. I could live with that.

So we ditch Ego to add Will??
Rather, we take elements of Will from both EGO and PRE and collect them in a single characteristic.

Demolitions, Gambling, Sec Sys and Survival all seem functions of intellect, and gambling of PRE, as much as will. Forgery seems to involve PER and DEX (fine motor skills).
Demolitions doesn't involve all that much mental analysis. Disarming bombs is more about keeping calm under pressure than being good at math. Gambling involves keeping a straight face, not getting caught up in a mood, and concentration on details like which cards have gone. The other skills here also require focus, willpower, and attention to details rather than complex analysis. At any rate, this skill group arises from a pre-5e idea of letting EGO govern General Skills, which instead got lumped in with Intellect skills.

You seem to base the split of ego on the premise that mental CV and resistance is only valuable if we have mental powers, which is true. However, splitting it off solves the problem (if there is a problem) only for games with no mental powers. The cost is still the same regardless of whether YOUR character has mental powers (if not, mental OCV is of no benefit), and regardless of whether we are playing PsiWorld, where lacking mental powers borders on freakishness, or a Sci Fi game where a single, rarely seen, never PC race is mildly telepathic. The frequency of mental powers also impacts the value of Ego.
Mental DCV, Mental Defense, and resistance to mental effects will all be of value in campaigns where mental powers are common, even if you don't have any mental powers yourself. Only mental OCV, which is a small part of the characteristic, will be less useful. In "a Sci Fi game where a single, rarely seen, never PC race is mildly telepathic", you probably wouldn't use EGO, but rather base mental abilities on one of the standard characteristics - INT, WILL or PRE, depending on the sfx of the telepathy.

Just like the frequency of muscle powered weaponry influences the value of STR, the frequency of physical vs mental combat will change the value of DEX and AGI and the prevelance of combat vs noncombat skews the value of combat stats and skills vs noncombat stats and skills.
So are you arguing that the costs of these characteristics should depend on the campaign parameters? If not, what's the problem (as you make it above) with EGO being a bit less useful for characters without mental powers?

It seems like this doesn't simplify, so I'm not seeing the substantial benefit I think is needed to justify change of this magnitude.
Well, I was being un-pedagogical in presenting a simplification (changing the range of Primary Characteristics) with a complication (splitting several Characteristics off). Would it help if there just was STR, CON, DEX, INT, and PRE?

And I STILL can't buy my CV separately.
No, but by splitting OCV and DCV onto two stats, buying combat skill levels comes a lot closer to buying CV than it does now.

The costs appear based on the premise that the current skill level costs should remain the same. Lower them, and the costs of many of the characteristics would fall, but that's a broad overall decision. If we're keeping the cost of skill levels the same and bumping the cost of characteristics to better equalize, then characters need more points. Either approach is workable - my main concern is making characteristics carry a cost commensurate with the cost of purchasing their component parts independently.
Actually, I based the costs on broad skill levels costing 3 points rather than 5. This should be obvious since INT costs 3 points and (aside from a INT Roll) doesn't give anything other than +1 on Intellect skills.

The basic breakdown of costs are:
STR: +½d6 damage = 2½ points; extra lift = ½ point, extra KB resistance = 1 point. Total 4 points.
CON: +1 SD = 2 points; +1 Toughness = 1 point. Total 3 points.
MOVE: +1 Initiative (~ +2½ Initiative now) = 1 point; +5m/turn Running = 1½ point; extra swim and jump = ½ point. Total 3 points.
INT: +1 Intellect Skills: 3 points. Total 3 points.
PER: +1 Perception Skills: 3 points. Total 3 points.
PRE: +½d6 PRE Attack = 1 point; +1 Courage = ½ point; +1 Interaction Skills = 3 points. Total 4½ points, rounded down to 4.
WILL: +1 Concentration Skills: 3 points; +1 Toughness = 1 point; +1 Courage = ½ point; (+1 Integrity = ½ points). Total: 4½ (5) points, rounded down to 4.
EGO: +1 ECV = 3 points; +1 MD = 1 point; +1 Integrity = ½ points. Total 4½ points, rounded down to 4.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Apr 12th, '09, 08:45 AM

True, but in D&D4, the odd-numbered characteristics have no function whatsoever except as half-way points to the next value that matters. So in the 10-18 range, there's really only 5 values of interest. The d20-based game Blue Rose took the consequence and used the D&D bonuses as characteristics; a good move, I think.

I like the use of odd numbered characteristics as feat prerequisites. Each point of STR changes lift and encumbrance (important in those gear-centric games). Each point of DEX impacts initiative. Each point of CON changes resistance to being stunned. A point of EGO makes mental powers less likely to succeed, and provides PRE defense (as does PRE, but I'd eliminate that).

The separate use of each BOD, PD, ED, REC, SPD, END and STUN is obvious.

Most characteristics do currently have minor effects for each point. More could be added (I like "if you skill or EGO miss your roll by 1, roll a d6. If it's less than the CHAR points over the rounding breakpoint, the attempt succeeds just barely).

It seemed as good a place as any to put it. Is there any better reason why clockmakers (DEX) or dancers (AGI) should have this advantage?

I'm not asserting the present system is superior, but that yours is not a marked improvement. Absent a marked improvement, I prefer "no change" to "change for the sake of change". But I'm old and don't want to learn new systems unless it comes with a solid beneft. D&D 2 to D&D 3 vastly improved characteristics - exceptional numbers were no longer required to get bonuses. The "Dead Zone" of about 7 - 14 was narrowed considerably, and fighters didn't need 18 STR to feel powerful.

Running, Swimming, and Leaping are the "everyman" movement abilities. The idea is also that you should pay END on the basis of Move used rather than on the number of inches moved. This makes Swimming and Leaping appropriately streneous.

I don't find swimming strenuous when compared to running and leaping. YMMV.

Running is based on real-life benchmarks. 20m/turn, doubled for non-combat, becomes about 12 kph, which is what a normal person i decent shape runs. Human max (80m/turn non-combat) corresponds to running a mile in 4 minutes, which for a long time was the goal for track runners.

NCM non-combat swimming becomes 32m/turn, or 160m/minute. That's 400m in 2:30, somewhat faster than the world record of 3:40. Perhaps the ncm multiple should only be x1.5 for swimming, or Swimming should be Move x 1.5m, but I went for simple numbers. The world record in running broad jump is a bit over 8 meter, so that should be half what I wrote - Move x1m for running broad jump, Move x ½m for standing broad jump. I'll edit that.

The higher your SPD, the better value you get from bonus leaping or, I assume, teleportation. Frog Man becomes the speedster archetype of choice. Gliding will need revision or faster SPD = faster altitude loss with no gain in velocity.

I made some quick judgement calls. Mainly I tried to move as many INT skills as I could to PER and WILL, so INT wouldn't govern quite so many skills.

This vast array of new characteristics also makes a character with a broad base of skills much more expensive, come to think of it. Another archetype down.

Anyway, your arguments can be seen as a support of the idea to disassociate skills from specific characteristics and use whichever characteristic fits with the situation. I could live with that.

This is probably workable, especially if the skills themselves indicate the types of characteristics associated with various types of skill use.

Demolitions doesn't involve all that much mental analysis. Disarming bombs is more about keeping calm under pressure than being good at math. Gambling involves keeping a straight face, not getting caught up in a mood, and concentration on details like which cards have gone. The other skills here also require focus, willpower, and attention to details rather than complex analysis.

If I know nothing about explosives, or have to work through the manual in my head, I will not be as good at demolitions as someone with that knowledge. if I'm so lacking in knowledge I don't even know it's a bomb, I can stay very calm.

Mental DCV, Mental Defense, and resistance to mental effects will all be of value in campaigns where mental powers are common, even if you don't have any mental powers yourself. Only mental OCV, which is a small part of the characteristic, will be less useful. In "a Sci Fi game where a single, rarely seen, never PC race is mildly telepathic", you probably wouldn't use EGO, but rather base mental abilities on one of the standard characteristics - INT, WILL or PRE, depending on the sfx of the telepathy.

So now I need optional rules basing mental powers on something other than EGO to implement the "simplification" of removing EGO. What about a limitation for Ego that it "does not impact mental powers", and you simply apply that limitation universally in games with no mental powers.

So are you arguing that the costs of these characteristics should depend on the campaign parameters? If not, what's the problem (as you make it above) with EGO being a bit less useful for characters without mental powers?

I am arguing that the complexity of adjusting characteristic (and everything else) prices on a game by game basis is not worth it, so we live with the flat cost model.

No, but by splitting OCV and DCV onto two stats, buying combat skill levels comes a lot closer to buying CV than it does now.

Why come a lot closer when we can resolve the issue entirely?

Greywind

Apr 12th, '09, 08:48 AM

I'd rep that Hugh, but you've already a notch on my repstick...

Tasha

Apr 12th, '09, 01:08 PM

or exchanged for DC at a 4:1 exchange rate

- Klaus

BTW exchanging DC 4-1 has the issue of making it far easier/Cheaper to take 8 skill levels and just call Headshots. at 2-1 there is an incentive to use those skill levels to increase the damage of an attack, instead of making a called shot monster.

Tasha

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 12th, '09, 01:17 PM

I'm not asserting the present system is superior, but that yours is not a marked improvement. Absent a marked improvement, I prefer "no change" to "change for the sake of change". But I'm old and don't want to learn new systems unless it comes with a solid beneft.
I don't think I'm advocating "change for the sake of change", but I think it is important to consider possible changes on their own merits without too much regard for history. Oh, and I'm older than you. ;)

I don't find swimming strenuous when compared to running and leaping. YMMV.
"Mileage" is a very apt word in this connection. :)
I don't know about you, but personally I find swimming at a certain speed more strenuous than running/walking at the same speed. I can walk 5 km in an hour without being at all tired, but after swimming 5 km in an hour, I'm rather beat - and I'm a decent swimmer. I don't do much leaping now, but as a child, I enjoyed skipping along the road in leaps and bounds, and I found that more strenuous than merely running. But as you say, YMMV.

The higher your SPD, the better value you get from bonus leaping or, I assume, teleportation. Frog Man becomes the speedster archetype of choice.
Running leaps require a certain amount of running before you jump, and that should limit this for speedsters. Standing jumps are 1/10 the Running/turn at a certain value of MOVE, so you would need to be SPD 11 or 12 before you could leap faster than running. Also remember that superheroic jumps may take more than 1 segment, which means that it becomes a really bad idea for speedsters. I expect Superleaping would be bought as limited Flight: "Must touch ground at least once per Turn (per minute non-combat) or to change direction" (or some such).

Gliding will need revision or faster SPD = faster altitude loss with no gain in velocity.
I don't recall writing anything about Gliding. Why do you assume that faster characters would fall faster? That seems kind of silly,

This vast array of new characteristics also makes a character with a broad base of skills much more expensive, come to think of it.
Now, this is a real concern. Or perhaps not if we take a closer look. Let's see: I have increased the number of skill groups from 5 (Agility, Background, Combat, Intellect, Interaction) to 8 (with the addition of Manual, Perception, and Concentration). OTOH I have reduced the cost of broad skill groups from 5 to 3, so getting +1 in all skill groups will cost 8x3=24 instead of 5x5=25. Of course, such characters will probably buy Overall levels, which I've suggested cost 8 points.

If I know nothing about explosives, or have to work through the manual in my head, I will not be as good at demolitions as someone with that knowledge.
That's why Demolitions is a skill, and not an Everyman one. All skills represent knowledge and training, no matter which characteristic they are based on. If any skill based on knowledge automatically is a INT skill, all skills should be INT skills. Stealth is e.g. about knowing how to step silently, what surfaces to avoid, and how to stay in cover - clearly INT. Seduction is about knowing how to flatter or entice somebody into doing what you want - also clear INT. Etc., ad nauseam.

So now I need optional rules basing mental powers on something other than EGO to implement the "simplification" of removing EGO.
If Telepathy really is limited to "a single, rarely seen, never PC race", you don't need any rules for it.

I am arguing that the complexity of adjusting characteristic (and everything else) prices on a game by game basis is not worth it, so we live with the flat cost model.
Oh, I agree entirely. Which is why I'm not happy with solutions like:
What about a limitation for Ego that it "does not impact mental powers", and you simply apply that limitation universally in games with no mental powers.

Why come a lot closer when we can resolve the issue entirely?
I don't see it as an issue, but rather as a feature (though I know you don't agree). IMO, characteristics should give something you can't buy otherwise - why else have them?

- Klaus

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 12th, '09, 01:25 PM

BTW exchanging DC 4-1 has the issue of making it far easier/Cheaper to take 8 skill levels and just call Headshots. at 2-1 there is an incentive to use those skill levels to increase the damage of an attack, instead of making a called shot monster.
Very true. However, since my system has about twice the granularity as the current system, all penalties should also be about doubled.

The current 2-1 exchange rate is badly broken IMO. You can swap two 3-point levels (cost 6) for +1 DC, 0 END (cost 7½). You can even choose to use the levels for +2 OCV or DCV instead, whereas 1 DC at best can be spread for +1 OCV. This issue needs to be dealt with. If we retain the current CSL costs, the exchange should be 3-1. If we reduce costs so that you can swap 2-point levels for damage, it has to be 4-1, or else it is cheaper to buy damage as levels than as damage.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Apr 12th, '09, 01:50 PM

I don't recall writing anything about Gliding. Why do you assume that faster characters would fall faster? That seems kind of silly,

I agree it sounds silly. However, each use of gliding for forward movement, by the books, requires loss of 1" altitude. Will this be varied to losing 4 meters altitude for each turn in which you use Gliding? If so, how do I determine that altitude half way through the turn (when I don't know whether the character will move more, in which case he should not be finished losing altitude, or won't, in which case he should have lost whatever altitude he will lose already)? I might just need to know my range modifier before the end of the turn, and the prospect of dealing woth Schrodinger's Glider does not appeal to me.

If Telepathy really is limited to "a single, rarely seen, never PC race", you don't need any rules for it.

Unless I want to objectively assess the success or failure of a member of that race using telepathy against a PC. And that would be the extreme end just before "there are no mental powers". Gradually, the frequency will increase to the "anyone without mental powers is considered cruelly handicapped" other extreme, and Ego will cost the same, or be absent entirely, at every point in between.

I don't see it as an issue, but rather as a feature (though I know you don't agree). IMO, characteristics should give something you can't buy otherwise - why else have them?

Why have skill levels, then? I can buy characteristics, damage classes, etc. to replace them. Stealth is unnecessary - I can buy Invisibility limited by a modified RSR which uses the opponent's skill roll. I don't need interaction skills - I can just use appropriately limited mental powers. Why have Running, Leaping, Swimming, Gliding, or Teleportation? We can just use Flights - Only on a Flat Surface; requires regular touchdowns and can't change direction in air; Only on/in Water; Restricted altitude gains and must lose altitude to advance; Does not cross intervening space.

Of course, we can ditch force field and armour, as they are easily simulated with defenses and damage resistance, and TK will be replaced with STR, at range, Indirect (we'll no longer have Figured's or we'd need No figured).

Why, we can slim this baby right down if we remove anything that can be done another way! And then we can add all the talents and power constructs to put them back again with other abilities, appropriately limited!

Lucius

Apr 12th, '09, 08:06 PM

Figured Characteristics are a great idea but they suffer from a poor execution right at the start of the Hero System.

I have to admit, dropping the concept of Figured Characteristics would be an improvement on what we have now. But I think it would be better to reform them than to simply abolish them, so I'm going to make my case for preserving something that has always been part of Hero.

Usually I try to argue from facts and logic, but in this case I think it comes down to aesthetics. (one of the reasons I put off even making a case for so long...) So bear in mind the implied "in my opinion."

I like the fact that changing one thing on a character sheet causes other things to change. I like knowing that if INT goes up by a certain amount, all the INT based skills go up. I like knowing that if DEX is Drained, Combat Value falls with it. I like, in the process of character creation, knowing that points expended in one place can mean a sacrifice somewhere else.

That's because I see the character as an organism, a dynamic living system whose parts interact with one another like the organs in a living body. A character should feel like it's breathing, like blood flows in its veins - even if it's a robot or lich or alien, that remains metaphorically true. I want it to feel alive in my mind.

Dropping Figured Characteristics is taking a step towards turning a character into a plastic model made up of parts that have no logical relationship to each other. Even the parts of a machine interact with one another rather than sitting in isolation. This is like saying a character is like a statue or mannequin, not a living thing or even a machine.

I think it's easier to breathe life into a character once play begins if it was developed as a dynamic "living" system rather than simply glued together out of otherwise unconnected parts.

I do understand the problems with Figured Characteristics as they are now. I just don't think it would be that hard to take a good idea that was executed wrong the first time, and do it right this time, so that someone who wants to sell many or even ALL secondary characteristics down can do so without creating balance problems.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary acknowledges that Lucius gave it his best shot, and wonders if it did any good.

Doc Democracy

Apr 12th, '09, 11:19 PM

Figured Characteristics are a great idea but they suffer from a poor execution right at the start of the Hero System.

See. I am an advocate of ditching characteristics completely as a mechanic in the system. I think that on one side they stretch and disrupt the costs of powers (STR being the main culprit here) and on the other they stretch and disrupt the skill system (DEX being the main culprit).

However, I understand the visceral need for characteristics - they are something that 'belong' in RPGs. I understand the commercial need for characteristics - they provide accessibility to the system for newbies and casual players.

I think that there should be a default set of characteristics - the advanced book - if this is the way things seem to be going (on these forums anyway) should provide a section on how to build your own characteristics. Some suggestions on what characteristics are necessary in particular genre situations, how to adjust costs such as STR etc and possibly how to play without specific characteristics.

Doc

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 13th, '09, 12:21 AM

I agree it sounds silly. However, each use of gliding for forward movement, by the books, requires loss of 1" altitude. Will this be varied to losing 4 meters altitude for each turn in which you use Gliding? If so, how do I determine that altitude half way through the turn (when I don't know whether the character will move more, in which case he should not be finished losing altitude, or won't, in which case he should have lost whatever altitude he will lose already)? I might just need to know my range modifier before the end of the turn, and the prospect of dealing woth Schrodinger's Glider does not appeal to me.
The simplest would be to let gliders drop 4m at the end of every turn, but it could also be prorated to 1m every 3 segments.

Why have skill levels, then? I can buy characteristics, damage classes, etc. to replace them.
(1): You can't buy characteristics to get +1 with a single skill or maneuver.
(2): CSLs are flexible - they can be used for OCV, DCV or DC
In short, you get things with SLs you can't get exactly like that otherwise. I think Characteristics and SLs complement each other very well that way, and I would like to see that remain.

Stealth is unnecessary - I can buy Invisibility limited by a modified RSR which uses the opponent's skill roll. I don't need interaction skills - I can just use appropriately limited mental powers.
This touches on a central issue with Hero: If Powers are available, some skills become really bad options. Why buy Climbing when you can buy Clinging or Flight cheaper? It seems to me that such skills are for campaigns where Powers aren't available.

Why have Running, Leaping, Swimming, Gliding, or Teleportation? We can just use Flights - Only on a Flat Surface; requires regular touchdowns and can't change direction in air; Only on/in Water; Restricted altitude gains and must lose altitude to advance; Does not cross intervening space.
Actually, if the MOVE characteristic is implemented, I think something like that should be how you buy supermovement.

Of course, we can ditch force field and armour, as they are easily simulated with defenses and damage resistance, and TK will be replaced with STR, at range, Indirect (we'll no longer have Figured's or we'd need No figured).
These are actually very good ideas. :)

- Klaus