Characteristics Issues

[archermoo]

I wouldn't say its more complicated, but I would say its more likely to produce unintended consequences; when you have four independent attributes that all contribute to how tough you are against damage, having them completely unrelated means its more likely someone will stint on one without meaning to. As it is, someone who goes into the system just thinking he needs a good Body and Con will get some degree of the rest just from doing so, even if he doesn't consider his Stun, ED or REC.

I realize you hadn't said that it is more complicated, but Steamteck has several times, which is why I asked him the question.

And I guess at least part of my opinion is that I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that don't know or can't be bothered to pay atention to the rules. I don't really consider "But people shouldn't have to pay attention during chargen" to be a convincing reason to keep things the same. Any time I build a character, I pay attention to all of the bits, not just some of them. The fact that with this change people that don't pay attention to all of the bits might be at a disadvantage doesn't seem like a negative to me.

[steamteck]

And that's the fundamental divide, of course. For those of us on the other side, to not have these interrelated, at least to some degree, seems fundamentally off.


I agree I really feel after giving my all and listening quite attentively to their all. One side cannot even understand the other let alone be convinced. I certainly see evidence the no figured can't grasp what I'm saying as surely as I don't see the upside in what they're saying. We both strongly feel the other way is conceptually bad and harder. Fundamentally our priorities are different I suppose.

[Markdoc]

I'd also like to see PRE mechanics for intimidation (which we already have), but also PRE mechanics for inspiration ("Ya just can't let Cap down"). There would be plenty of characters that are much better at one than the other. This could mean ditching PRE for open ended perks such as "Inspirational" (the Capt America PRE attack), "Intimidating" (the current PRE attack), and "persuasive "(impacts interaction skills)

But PRE (and Presence attacks) already explicitly do these things and my players have been making PRE attacks to both lead by inspiration and to modify their social interaction skills for years now (in fact, I already posted more or less exactly this, in the social combat thread). What you suggest seems to me to merely take the existing situation and make it more complex (by breaking PRE down into several different items)

cheers, Mark

[Derek Hiemforth]

Now if I'm designing a basic brute guy. I can plug STR and CON do the figures and I've got the basic package. Without figured characteristics, I've got to now go and move pd/ed/ Stun and EN up to appropriate levels. its not that much but actually more than designing the oddball character now why change things so everybody has to do more just to accommodate people who want to vary from the norm. We just have a total disconnect of the appropriateness of the linkage of figures I suppose.

Let me flip it. I haven't really seen why the present way is so tough. I design powered armor guys etc with no figures all the time . Its not weird or hard nor do they ever seem "nerfed" in anyway. I can think of 4 of my player's characters built that way and it was no problem. Conversely for the PC bricks all they messed with was PD and ED after figureds. Easy as pie.:thumbup:I guess our experiences just totally differ. In my experience, for absolutely every character I've ever seen made, some calculation had to be made for every one of that character's Figured Characteristics (to determine the base value), and some decision had to be made about every one of that character's Figured Characteristics (whether to raise it, lower it, or leave it at the base).

If the formerly-Figured Characteristics are no longer tied to Primaries, you no longer have to make calculations to determine their base values. (You certainly could do the calculations, if you wanted to see what their base values would have been with the Figured method, but you wouldn't have to.) Yes, you have to decide what the values of each of the formerly-Figured Characteristics will be, but you had to do that before (even if your only decision was to not change them).

Any way you slice it, you always had to decide what the final values of your character's Figureds would be (even if you decided to leave the final value at the base value), and you always had to pay the cost associated with that final value (even if the cost was 0). All this change does is take the base values of the current Figureds (and their calculations), and make them "reasonable levels you might choose for these CHAs" instead of "default values that you must use as the starting point for these CHAs."

To be totally honest, I have a hard time even viewing the decoupling of Figureds as a major change to the system. All it affects is costs. It doesn't affect function in any way.

[Supreme Serpent]

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

If I were designing the game from square one, yeah I'd go with that. Revising an existing game, I'd leave it alone.


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

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

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

I think it has merit, but there are dangers that unusual drains can be even more devestating.


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

1) I don't think that breakpoints are evil.
2) Every point in a characteristic DOES matter...but some matter more than others. ;) 25 Dex means you go before the 24 or 23 dex guys, 21 Con is harder to Stun than an 18 or 20 Con, each point is also one more point of cushion before negative effects of drains/etc. and one less point of Xp you need to spend to get to the next breakpoint.


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

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

I think getting rid of figured characteristics will just result in exchanging one set of 'mathematical problems and muddles' with another set. I don't see significant net benefit in removing them.


Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

Don't think it's a big enough issue to need a system change. Maybe some notes about 'Merlin the Barbarian' in the gamesmastering section.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think that it should. The correlation between STR and Leaping is one of the few obvious remaining “Champions-isms” in the HERO System — it makes sense in a setting where characters often travel by leaping tall buildings. It makes no sense anywhere else and requires such jiggery-pokery as buying down the Leaping of elephants and giants. It makes more sense to start everyone with Leaping 2” and let them buy it up from there, with an optional “derive base Leaping from STR” rule for genres that need it.

I don't necessarily see the need for this change, but it's not a huge deal for me. I think the issue of elephants and giants comes more from the approach of 'just call it big/heavy, don't buy growth/DI'. If the giant got his extra STR from growth, the extra leap wouldn't be an issue.


Q: Should DEX be split into two or more Characteristics?

Think it's fine as is. If someone wants to be more specialized, there's levels.

The relative value of stats vs. levels when there's not imposed limits is a different issue.


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

Don't really see a need.


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

There's already mechanics for people that want to be extra observant without high int, or good with int skills without being observant. Don't see a need to introduce new mechanics to duplicate what can already be done.





Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think that it should, and I intend to do so unless someone comes up with a good counterargument that I find convincing. ;) COM doesn’t do anything at all in game terms, unlike all the other Characteristics. It can be fun, but it’s not worth cluttering up the character sheet. It makes more sense to eliminate it (and its annoying 1/2-point cost) and replace it with a Talent, Beautiful/Handsome, that’s defined as Interaction Skill bonuses in certain situations (and naturally there’d be a variant form called Ugly ;) ).

Put me in the camp of explain a bit more possible in-game uses for it instead of removing it, like as complementary roll for social skills. Also making it a Talent makes it harder for it to be adjusted. How does the Ugly Ray affect a talent?


Q: Should PD and ED be combined into one Characteristic called DEF? If not, should objects be given separate PD and ED ratings?

Steve’s Thoughts: Combining PD and ED into one would certainly reduce the number of Characteristics and perhaps speed play a little. However, I think the Physical/Energy split has been a key element of the HERO System from its earliest incarnations, and don’t really see that changing to DEF is worth abandoning that. In light of that, at this point I favor giving objects separate PD and ED as well. That creates a little more detail, but it will make it easier to better simulate/define objects.

Agree, I think PD/ED is a feature, not a bug.


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. While the SPD system can be a touch cumbersome at times, it’s one of the defining elements of the HERO System and I think it works just fine most of the time. Furthermore, removing it would require all sorts of other changes throughout the rules, and that’s not desireable.

For the core game, I think it's too integral to the overall system. Plus, it's cool. :) Leave it be.


Q: Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea is attractive in that it eliminates a big chunk of combat book-keeping — but I think it also removes a lot of ability to customize powers, magic systems, and the like. I think that gamers who don’t want to bother with END already just aren’t bothering with it, or build their characters so that it’s not an issue. A sidebar in the book about “eliminating END” is enough to deal with this issue, I’d say.

Agree. Leave it in, but include a discussion about gaming without it.


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

A: At first glance this may seem odd, but it’s not a wholly unattractive idea. If we use something like the Size Templates to define what each Size category gets (with Human-sized as a default, of course), we could then define Growth and Shrinking as adding/subtracting from that. It would also bring Vehicle and Base character sheets a little more in line with standard character sheets. If a character doesn’t want something from Size (like extra reach), he takes a Limitation on it. I’m not entirely sold on the idea, but I think it’s worth considering.

Not totally opposed, would have to see what it looks like. Of course, defining what each Size category gets is just creating a whole 'nother level of what are essentially Figured Characteristics...

[Derek Hiemforth]

I think getting rid of figured characteristics will just result in exchanging one set of 'mathematical problems and muddles' with another set. I don't see significant net benefit in removing them.Can you elaborate on this? What mathematical problems and muddles do you think would arise from not deriving the base values of PD, ED, SPD, etc. from various Primary CHAs?

[Paragon]

Sure, but you have to pick a cost that works for most games and give advice on how to adjust for the rarer ones. It's a little odd, though, to never be hit by NNDs, since there are martial maneuvers and poisons that do NND damage, and those are pretty cross-genre. Ego and AVLD are considerably rarer, I grant you.

I've seen plenty of character who never encounter poisons, and only a limited subset of martial manuevers are NNDs. Its not that hard, really, for a given character.

And I agree with your comment, but the question is _does_ a cost of 2 without figured work for most games? I'm not even sure its cost effective in Champions, which is probably the area you _most_ expect to hit those. How many times in a given session does a character expect to be hit by a non-PD/ED attack that is damage anyway? I've certainly gone for fairly long periods without ever collecting one as a player. And given many of those are compressed by Active Point limits, a lower Con may not hurt anyway, or no more than the compareable blast would be; after all, you're talking attacks that either have half the dice or less than a compareable straight blast inside the same active points.

[Chris Goodwin]

To be totally honest, I have a hard time even viewing the decoupling of Figureds as a major change to the system. All it affects is costs. It doesn't affect function in any way.

It's about as major a change to the system as making characters who are permanently large or small buy their abilities and appropriate Disadvantages rather than buy Growth or Shrinking Always On.

[Paragon]

I realize you hadn't said that it is more complicated, but Steamteck has several times, which is why I asked him the question.



I wasn't implying you were; I was making a related comment that might have some bearing.



And I guess at least part of my opinion is that I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that don't know or can't be bothered to pay atention to the rules.



And some people don't have much sympathy for those who find them complicated as-is, but its still an issue for others.

[Paragon]

I guess our experiences just totally differ. In my experience, for absolutely every character I've ever seen made, some calculation had to be made for every one of that character's Figured Characteristics (to determine the base value), and some decision had to be made about every one of that character's Figured Characteristics (whether to raise it, lower it, or leave it at the base).



IME that's true in Champions, but I've seen a fair bit of heroic characters who could set their Con, Body and Strength and pretty much just take what those gave in other places. Someone with an 18 STR, a 15 CON and a 12 Body is pretty much yielding as much of the figureds as he really _needs_ in many Heroic games. He may _want_ more, but that's a separate issue. In Champions he's almost certain to need more, at least in terms of Stun, PD/ED and possibly END.

[Derek Hiemforth]

for absolutely every character I've ever seen made, some calculation had to be made for every one of that character's Figured Characteristics (to determine the base value), and some decision had to be made about every one of that character's Figured Characteristics (whether to raise it, lower it, or leave it at the base).

IME that's true in Champions, but I've seen a fair bit of heroic characters who could set their Con, Body and Strength and pretty much just take what those gave in other places. Someone with an 18 STR, a 15 CON and a 12 Body is pretty much yielding as much of the figureds as he really _needs_ in many Heroic games. He may _want_ more, but that's a separate issue. In Champions he's almost certain to need more, at least in terms of Stun, PD/ED and possibly END.I think perhaps you misunderstood me, or misread what I wrote. I'm not saying all characters modify their Figureds in some way. I'm saying all characters (currently) calculate the value of their Figureds, and decide what final value they want for them. (Even if the final value is the same as the base value you calculated, you've still made the decision that that's the value you want.)

In your example of Heroic characters setting CON, BODY, and STR, it's all still true. They're still deciding on a final value for every Figured CHA. Deciding to keep the calculated base value is still a decision. :)

[Paragon]

I think perhaps you misunderstood me, or misread what I wrote. I'm not saying all characters modify their Figureds in some way. I'm saying all characters (currently) calculate the value of their Figureds, and decide what final value they want for them. (Even if the final value is the same as the base value you calculated, you've still made the decision that that's the value you want.)

In your example of Heroic characters setting CON, BODY, and STR, it's all still true. They're still deciding on a final value for every Figured CHA. Deciding to keep the calculated base value is still a decision. :)

I suppose in that sense its true, but I think that's deceptive; its perfectly possible to do the calculation and then not even think about it further. This is particularly trivial if using Hero Designer or Metacreator or the like. A decision that takes no discernible time isn't much of a decision.

[sbarron]

Without figured characteristics, I've got to now go and move pd/ed/ Stun and EN up to appropriate levels. its not that much but actually more than designing the oddball character now why change things so everybody has to do more just to accommodate people who want to vary from the norm.This isn't about people wanting to vary from the norm. It's about simplifying the game, and truly making the creation of every character A) possible, and B) balanced.

Right now, I can't build a character with a 60 STR, 2 PD, and 20 STUN, as I can only sell back 1 of my figured characteristics. Sure, there is the work-around of buying STR with no figureds, buy why even take that step? You can so easily make no figureds the norm. Let those that want to be tough buy up PD, ED, and STUN, and those that mearly want to be strong to buy up their STR.

Now you can call my character (or even me) an oddball if you want. But that's no different than saying that all fighters must have low INT, no wizards can have high STR, and any other of a thousand "character class" value judgements that only serve to encourage people to stick to the "norm."

Is HERO truly universal, or is it only universal when everyone agrees that to be strong also means that you're tough? Or that to be coordinated also means that you're fast? I think it should be universal without any qualifiers, which means figureds need to go.

[Tonio]

Now if I'm designing a basic brute guy. I can plug STR and CON do the figures and I've got the basic package. Without figured characteristics, I've got to now go and move pd/ed/ Stun and EN up to appropriate levels. its not that much but actually more than designing the oddball character now why change things so everybody has to do more just to accommodate people who want to vary from the norm. We just have a total disconnect of the appropriateness of the linkage of figures I suppose.

No more disconnected than EB, FF, and Flight being decoupled for the "basic energy projector guy". If you automatically get PD, ED, STUN, and END when you buy STR and CON, why not automatically get FF and Flight when you buy EB? Why do "basic brute guy[s]" get a build aid, when no other archtype does? Are players who build "basic brute guy[s]" assumed to be lazier, more absentminded?

Let me flip it. I haven't really seen why the present way is so tough. I design powered armor guys etc with no figures all the time . Its not weird or hard nor do they ever seem "nerfed" in anyway. I can think of 4 of my player's characters built that way and it was no problem. Conversely for the PC bricks all they messed with was PD and ED after figureds. Easy as pie.:thumbup:

Are you assuming the use of Character Creation software (e.g. Hero Designer)? If not, calculating the Figureds isn't really any help, besides letting you know what an appropriate value is (maybe not even that, maybe only an appropriate starting value). And that could stay that way! A Sidebar could say "for basic brute guys, PD should be STR/5 or higher, ED should be CON/5 or higher, etc.". Of course, it should also mention "for basic energy projector guys, FF should be ...", I guess.

The present way isn't "tough". It's maybe slightly tougher, without Character Creation software, than not having any Figureds. The basic complaint doesn't seem to be "character creation with Figureds is too tough", but rather "it's wrong, it assumes a certain SFX, it removes flexibility, etc.".

[Opal]

Characteristics have frankly been pretty solid since 2nd Ed (which instituted the sell-back-only-one-figured-char rule).

Yes, figured stats represent a cost break for characters who buy very high stats. You can't exactly put a lot of limitations on stats, nor put them in power frameworks efficiently, so that cost break is already priced into the market, as it were. It's a functional part of the system. Getting rid of it would re-quire re-balancing the system. For instance, by getting rid of power frameworks and limitations and throwing more points at every character.

I've noticed there's something of a trend towards that, I find it disturbing. Limitations, Frameworks, Figured Stats, and Disadvantages all net you points one way or another. That gives even players who aren't much into coming up with a background or thinking about thier character's personality or accepting vulnerabilities or downsides for thier character a reason to think about those things and create better-rounded, more balanced, more interesting characters - and, incidentally, rewards those who like such things in the first place.

While a system that built such 'roundness' in - the way fuzion did, for instance, by compartmentalizing points spent on Stats, Powers & Skills - or the way Steve is considering making Disads something players just take a certain amount of, without explicitly getting points for them - is certainly possible, it gives up some of the flexibility that Hero has now, and results in less varied characters.


The only thing I've heard that sounds like it might be a good idea with regards to stats is the concept of a SIZE stat. Logically, a characteristic should be something that all characters generally posses, and that varies fairly smoothly among the population. Size would seem to qualify. No one lacks size, and size varies somewhat dramatically even among normal people, IRL.

How such a stat would work is a good question, though. Being large vs small is more of a trade-off. Being large means you're harder to push around, but easier to hit at range and harder to carry out of danger, you carry more, but consume more food, all that sort of thing.

I think the ideal way to handle it would be to make it a figured stat based on STR and BOD - a very visible sign of how 'tough' your character may be in a basic sense. Deviating from that would be a positive - if only because it would cause enemies to mistake your abilities on first glance. So something like (STR+BOD)/2, giving it the same basic 10 starting, 20 max, as other stats might be good. Then the character could buy up or down his SIZ to match his concept. GMs could vary the base size of a species, if they wanted. Of course, as a figured stat, the base, and max could be pretty arbitrary, but I'd think it'd be cool to stick with the 5-pts doubles paradigm, and 10/max20, should work fine with that. Plus, Leaping could be based on STR - SIZ.

[SSgt Baloo]

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

Nah. One of the reasons I resisted going to the hero system was the perception that you had to pay for everything. This included the notion that characters didn't start with any characteristics. Besides, it simplifies book-keeping and gives the players a lift that they get "this much" for free.

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

It ain't broke. Don't fix it. Provide a bit more detail on how the negative characteristics work right at the front end, though, not buried in the back of the book (at least give a page reference fer crissakes! :D)

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

Once again, I don't think it's broke. A sidebar explaining how one might add such granularity (accompanied by clear examples of same) should be sufficient.

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

You have a point, but I think having figured characteristics helps justify the cost of the base characteristics. This is another case where a perceived "rebate" in points adds to the attractiveness of the game. Besides, I'm not in favor of increasing the starting points every time the game comes out in a new edition. ;)

Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

Again: it ain't broke. Don't "fix" it.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think that it should. The correlation between STR and Leaping is one of the few obvious remaining “Champions-isms” in the HERO System — it makes sense in a setting where characters often travel by leaping tall buildings. It makes no sense anywhere else and requires such jiggery-pokery as buying down the Leaping of elephants and giants. It makes more sense to start everyone with Leaping 2” and let them buy it up from there, with an optional “derive base Leaping from STR” rule for genres that need it.

Agreed.

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

No. Everyone understands that strong guys hit harder.

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

No. Definitely not.

Q: Should DEX be split into two or more Characteristics?

Splitting Dex into multiple characteristics should be reserved as an optional rule, with examples of how and when it might be appropriate to complic... er, implement it. :rolleyes:

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

No. As with Strength, the dextrous/agile types have more natural "talent" than the low-DEX guys who compensate with skills.

[/quote]Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

Perthaps you might call it "perception", "Perceptiveness", "Situational Awareness", "Acumen", or, my personal favorite, "Insight". (INsighT lets you keep INT on the character sheets, too! :cool:)

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

I think PER should definitely be factored from Insight. ;)

Q: Should the cost of EGO be reduced to 1 Character Point per point?

Since I've always equated EGO to "Mental Strength" (or "Strength of Will", if you prefer), I have no problem changing the cost to 1/1. I would like to suggest that rather than being the sole determinant in ECV, you might want to consider using INT (Insight :rolleyes: or mental dexterity), EGO (willpower) and PRE (self-image?) to determine ECV if you can do it without overcomplicating things.

Q: Should ECV be removed as something that’s factored from EGO?

See above.

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

I like COM and would like to see it stay. It does need a bit more utility than present to justify its continued existence, however. If it already has some utility besides "My character's gorgeous/handsome", I'd like to know what it is, and have some examples of the "standard" uses of COM, as well as some optional rules for different genres. There needs to be some correlation between points spent and benefits received for this characteristic.

Having said that, I'll miss it but won't fuss if COM doesn't make the cut.

Q: Should PD and ED be combined into one Characteristic called DEF? If not, should objects be given separate PD and ED ratings?

I think PD/ED is fine for characters. I also can see the need for non-resistant defense for inanimate objects, as well. Objects could have DEF, but should be allowed to have the total DEF divvied up into physical- and energy- resistant amounts. That way you could model something that's resistant to energy, but fragile to physical damage, or vice-versa. Wood can be tough, but should be more vulnerable to fire under most circumstances, and limitations on the DEF of a wooden object is only a partial solution. A one-meter-thick barrier of wood might be tough to break through with brute force but someone with a chainsaw could cut through it faster than trying to bash your way through it.

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

No. If there isn't a space for it where you list all your other defenses, there ought to be one, though.

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

No, but I'd like to see some alternatives to the "you go on this, that, and the other phase every time" system, perhaps introducing some sort of initiative roll to potentially give the character a "free" action on occasion, or at least jumbling up the order somewhat -- purely as an option. There are strong advantages to the present system, but its weakness is the predictability of combat order. Once combat begins nobody has much of a chance to get the jump on anybody with a higher DEX/SPD. Of course, mooks should be screwed whenever they meet the heroes anyway, so don't give them any more breaks than they have now.:eg:

Q: Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?

Make it an option for those who want to Keep It Simple.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

A: At first glance this may seem odd, but it’s not a wholly unattractive idea. If we use something like the Size Templates to define what each Size category gets (with Human-sized as a default, of course), we could then define Growth and Shrinking as adding/subtracting from that. It would also bring Vehicle and Base character sheets a little more in line with standard character sheets. If a character doesn’t want something from Size (like extra reach), he takes a Limitation on it. I’m not entirely sold on the idea, but I think it’s worth considering.

Sounds like a good idea. Done properly, it might help make larger characters/things impervious to attacks from significantly smaller things as has been suggested here and elsewhere. In certain genres it's mandatory for the Big, Nasty Thing® to be resistant to al but the most powerful attacks. Damage reduction does not adequately

[Marcus Impudite]

I like COM . Its nice to have a number to compare. The perk system for appearance is one thing I dislike about GURPS.

Agreed. I'm with Nexus, steamteck, Supreme Serpent, Baloo, and Enforcer on this one. Keep Comeliness as a stat, expand its usefulness a bit, and maybe mention the Perk method as an optional rule for GMs who prefer doing it like that.

[Chris Goodwin]

I like COM and would like to see it stay. It does need a bit more utility than present to justify its continued existence, however. If it already has some utility besides "My character's gorgeous/handsome", I'd like to know what it is, and have some examples of the "standard" uses of COM, as well as some optional rules for different genres. There needs to be some correlation between points spent and benefits received for this characteristic.

Having said that, I'll miss it but won't fuss if COM doesn't make the cut.

Agreed. I'm with Nexus, steamteck, Supreme Serpent, Baloo, and Enforcer on this one. Keep Comeliness as a stat, expand its usefulness a bit, and maybe mention the Perk method as an optional rule for GMs who prefer doing it like that.

Better ways of saying what I've been trying to. I'm with all of those guys.

[buzz]

This is about Characteristic rolls.

STR rolls seem fairly uncommon. When you're testing STR, you're usually rolling STR damage and comparing Normal Damage BODY. Ditto PRE; it's usually PRE attack damage, which just totals the face value of the PRE dice. Otherwise, you do 3d6 roll-under vs. 9+CHAR/5.

That's three different mechanics amongst the characteristics that get tested.

The STR thing has definitely thrown some newbies I've run for. I'll say "STR roll" and they'll be expecting a roll vs. 9+STR/5, and then I need to explain myself.

Now, it's not that this doesn't work; I'm just curious if there's any advantage to some uniformity.

One idea that popped into my head was using the STR damage thing for all characteristics, maybe even alongside the normal 9+CHAR/5. Then you could be rolling up pools for various characteristics, for various tasks, and then whittling away at them sort of like an Entangle.

E.g., if a PC needs to break the resolve of, say, a suspect in a murder case, the suspect's player rolls their EGO or PRE "damage", and the BODY generated (and maybe even DEF, if we extend the Entangle parallel) becomes the degree of successes or number of successful Interrogation rolls the PC's player needs to make.

Or, alternately, get rid of the way STR and PRE work now and just go all standard characteristic rolls.

Just a thought.

[Paragon]

Is HERO truly universal, or is it only universal when everyone agrees that to be strong also means that you're tough? Or that to be coordinated also means that you're fast? I think it should be universal without any qualifiers, which means figureds need to go.

Its not going to be truly universal as long as _any_ kind of construct is forbidden, so this appears to be a case where "Its my ox being gored". As an example I mentioned earlier, by the nature of the rules some mentalist concepts aren't possible, just because of the way mental powers are handled; if your concept of a telepath isn't an intrusive one you're just out of luck.

So I think the argument on this on the idea that it reduces the "universality" of the system is really just a case of this particular area where that's constrained bothering some people while other areas don't.

[archermoo]

I think perhaps you misunderstood me, or misread what I wrote. I'm not saying all characters modify their Figureds in some way. I'm saying all characters (currently) calculate the value of their Figureds, and decide what final value they want for them. (Even if the final value is the same as the base value you calculated, you've still made the decision that that's the value you want.)

In your example of Heroic characters setting CON, BODY, and STR, it's all still true. They're still deciding on a final value for every Figured CHA. Deciding to keep the calculated base value is still a decision. :)

I think what he is talking about (and I'll admit I'm just guessing) is that they can make the decision ahead of time. I.e. that during character creation they aren't thinking about all of the characteristics, but just the primaries, having determined ahead of time that if they buy their primaries up to certain levels the secondaries are generally at least acceptable, and so they just don't think about them at all.

Someone else pointed out (I think it was Chris Goodwin) that it would be easy enough to build templates that would allow people used to being forced to buy Characteristics in sets to continue doing so. Then as you said before, all that remains is the matter of cost.

[steamteck]

Are you assuming the use of Character Creation software (e.g. Hero Designer)? If not, calculating the Figureds isn't really any help, besides letting you know what an appropriate value is (maybe not even that, maybe only an appropriate starting value). And that could stay that way! A Sidebar could say "for basic brute guys, PD should be STR/5 or higher, ED should be CON/5 or higher, etc.". Of course, it should also mention "for basic energy projector guys, FF should be ...", I guess.

The present way isn't "tough". It's maybe slightly tougher, without Character Creation software, than not having any Figureds. The basic complaint doesn't seem to be "character creation with Figureds is too tough", but rather "it's wrong, it assumes a certain SFX, it removes flexibility, etc.".


Never use software, slows me down I can easily out pace my "hero designer " companions. Software loses just enough flexibility or you have to hunt for stuff that by hand is easier for me. I'm not a purest on concept here so I guess for me removing figures is "wrong' because removes a logical connect. I'd live with a sidebar but Its just one more thing like the comeliness issue I'd live with. Something is lost and nothing is gained but complexity IMO ( I know you disagree ).

I really really don't grasp why me and mine find we have the flexibility to do what you say you want and you don't . You must not if you say it increases flexibility to always decouple.
The closest I can even begin to understand our differences is maybe we're just both lazy in the opposite ways. Maybe I'm just thick or doing something wrong missing some glaring limitation but I really don't see the gain in flexibility except to those who aren't clever enough to think of this kind of concept in the first place.

Why do I find HERO so much more flexible and adaptable than so many others here? I just don't get the problem. But I got to admit I don't get most of the big deals here. HERO works great for me. Only some of the minor tweaks mentioned seem worthwhile to me.

[steamteck]

It's about as major a change to the system as making characters who are permanently large or small buy their abilities and appropriate Disadvantages rather than buy Growth or Shrinking Always On.

Perfect example.

[Chris Goodwin]

Someone else pointed out (I think it was Chris Goodwin) that it would be easy enough to build templates that would allow people used to being forced to buy Characteristics in sets to continue doing so. Then as you said before, all that remains is the matter of cost.

I wanted to keep them; it was this realization that broke my resolve. :D

[steamteck]

Its not going to be truly universal as long as _any_ kind of construct is forbidden, so this appears to be a case where "Its my ox being gored". As an example I mentioned earlier, by the nature of the rules some mentalist concepts aren't possible, just because of the way mental powers are handled; if your concept of a telepath isn't an intrusive one you're just out of luck.

So I think the argument on this on the idea that it reduces the "universality" of the system is really just a case of this particular area where that's constrained bothering some people while other areas don't.

I agree with your basic argument but I don't think you're out of luck with your theoretical telepath. i really really think the system is way more flexible than seems to be perceived here.

[Susano]

Never use software, slows me down I can easily out pace my "hero designer " companions. Software loses just enough flexibility or you have to hunt for stuff that by hand is easier for me. I'm not a purest on concept here so I guess for me removing figures is "wrong' because removes a logical connect. I'd live with a sidebar but Its just one more thing like the comeliness issue I'd live with. Something is lost and nothing is gained but complexity IMO ( I know you disagree ).


See, I love HD. It lets me make stuff quickly and is more accurate than my math skills. But even then, I never really had an issue with Figured Characteristics. And as I said before, I liked them as a way of giving me a benchmark for what my final creation would look like.

[archermoo]

Never use software, slows me down I can easily out pace my "hero designer " companions. Software loses just enough flexibility or you have to hunt for stuff that by hand is easier for me. I'm not a purest on concept here so I guess for me removing figures is "wrong' because removes a logical connect. I'd live with a sidebar but Its just one more thing like the comeliness issue I'd live with. Something is lost and nothing is gained but complexity IMO ( I know you disagree ).

I really really don't grasp why me and mine find we have the flexibility to do what you say you want and you don't . You must not if you say it increases flexibility to always decouple.
The closest I can even begin to understand our differences is maybe we're just both lazy in the opposite ways. Maybe I'm just thick or doing something wrong missing some glaring limitation but I really don't see the gain in flexibility except to those who aren't clever enough to think of this kind of concept in the first place.

Why do I find HERO so much more flexible and adaptable than so many others here? I just don't get the problem. But I got to admit I don't get most of the big deals here. HERO works great for me. Only some of the minor tweaks mentioned seem worthwhile to me.

So you create your characters by hand, but still think that it is easier to do the math for all of the Figureds by hand than to just buy them to the level you want?

As to flexibility, I'd say that being able to easily pick what level you want each of your characteristics to be at by just buying them to that value is much more flexible than having the base values of some set by the purchase of others.

[steamteck]

See, I love HD. It lets me make stuff quickly and is more accurate than my math skills. But even then, I never really had an issue with Figured Characteristics. And as I said before, I liked them as a way of giving me a benchmark for what my final creation would look like.

That's cool.I put all my NPCs on 3x5 cards so transferring stuff would slow me down anyway( yes 3x5 cards but I do use front and back). I was just saying my point wasn't because I had any sort of shortcut. obviously we completely agree on figured making it easier despite our different methods.

[Tonio]

Never use software, slows me down I can easily out pace my "hero designer " companions. Software loses just enough flexibility or you have to hunt for stuff that by hand is easier for me. I'm not a purest on concept here so I guess for me removing figures is "wrong' because removes a logical connect. I'd live with a sidebar but Its just one more thing like the comeliness issue I'd live with. Something is lost and nothing is gained but complexity IMO ( I know you disagree ).

How does software slow you down? How does it lose flexibility? Hero Designer is designed to stick to the rules, so if you're losing flexibility, you're not going by core rules. "Hunting for stuff" is limited to looking through an alphabetical list. Takes longer to write "Energy Blast" than it does to find it in the list, usually. All irrelevant, of course, hehe!

What is relevant, though, is your claim that removing Figureds increases complexity. I honestly do not understand this. Could you describe this complexity, please? We can disagree on opinions (e.g. which method we like better), but facts are facts. I do not see any added complexity; at worst, we're trading a mathematical expression involving one or more operations, often including division, for one only involving multiplication. Division is generally considered easier than multiplication, although depending on the level of comfort with math, possibly only negligibly easier. And that's if and only if you leave Figureds as they come out. If you buy them up, using Figured formulas adds complexity (now we're evaluating an expression, then substracting that result from the total value we want, then multiplying that by the cost, vs. multiplying total by cost). If you buy them down... well, same complexity as buying up, but you run into potential issues regarding how many Figureds you can buy down.

I honestly (not being snarky!) fail to see how adding a calculated baseline (rather than a default baseline) REDUCES complexity.

I really really don't grasp why me and mine find we have the flexibility to do what you say you want and you don't . You must not if you say it increases flexibility to always decouple.
The closest I can even begin to understand our differences is maybe we're just both lazy in the opposite ways. Maybe I'm just thick or doing something wrong missing some glaring limitation but I really don't see the gain in flexibility except to those who aren't clever enough to think of this kind of concept in the first place.

Well, it is a genuine possibility that your and yours' mindsets are naturally geared towards the sort of concepts/SFXs that Figureds promote/support. That doesn't help those of us who have different mindsets. Another possibility is that you (and yours) are accustomed enough to the current system that you navigate through the obstacles effortlessly. But that doesn't mean the obstacles aren't there.

The more you're given by default, the less room for customization there is, hence less flexibility. Consider the extreme case where your character is entirely built for you by default. You have 0 points to spend as you wish. You have, therefore, no flexibility. Now, you can fix that two ways: 1) allow people to modify the default by removing characteristics, powers, talents, skills, and perks, and using the points gained from that to buy new powers, talents, characteristics, skills, and perks, or 2) you can give players a blank slate, and have them buy what they want. The second system looks much less complex from where I'm standing. Figured Characteristics are a less extreme case of the first system: buy some characteristics from scratch, this pre-determines others for you, which you can buy down if you want your points spent elsewhere.

Why do I find HERO so much more flexible and adaptable than so many others here? I just don't get the problem. But I got to admit I don't get most of the big deals here. HERO works great for me. Only some of the minor tweaks mentioned seem worthwhile to me.

I think this is only a perception issue. I don't find HERO rigid or unadaptable. I find it HIGHLY flexible and adaptable! I just think it could be even more flexible and adaptable, and hence better, and be less complex, too! Just because you're the best chess player in the world doesn't mean you can't improve. ;)

[Opal]

Something has to be the default in any system. We could start characteristics at zero and not have figured characteristics. The default character would be a bacterium or something. Great for people who want to play zealot bacteria from beta-pherengi or lawn chairs who were once elder vampires or other things who's stats will have no basis in common experience or relation to eachother.

For people who want to play people - or things even remotely resembling people - though, the game defaulting to stats near some human norm with familiar interrellationships is a good thing. It makes the game more intuitive and familiar. It also acts as a sort of 'power steering' that helps new players remember to buy thier high-STR brick some PD...

Considering that one of the goals of 6e is to make the game more accessible to potential new players brought in by the MMO franchise, catering to purists who believe that it should be exactly as easy to build a PI from Detroit as a sentient binary load lifter from Planet IX, may not be the best move.

[Supreme Serpent]

Can you elaborate on this? What mathematical problems and muddles do you think would arise from not deriving the base values of PD, ED, SPD, etc. from various Primary CHAs?

Anything that affects cost that significantly is going to have major effects on how characters are built. What exactly would they be? Hard to tell in advance, and depends on how it's implemented.

Since they won't be getting 'free' soft defenses in the form of extra figured STUN and REC maybe more characters will dump the points into even higher attacks instead of characteristics in order to KO the enemy even faster. By changing the costs and benefits, you change the game. If you made the various attacks like EB, Entangle and such default to no range but keep the same cost, you'd see a lot less ranged specialists, or they'd have to pay a lot more to get the same effect. By changing Cha costs, Cha-based characters will likely run into issues. I'd like to see a lot of playtesting done before a change like that.

Maybe we'll give them more points to make up for it - fine, but will those extra points really find their way into characteristics? Or will it be more efficient to spend them in other ways? Just adding more points into the mix isn't a solution if you're trying to 'control' perceived abuses.

But not everyone's a powergamer - they should just build to concept! I agree - but doesn't that hold true even with figureds? If I'm building a character that doesn't feel right with higher than a 13 CON, I'm not buying a 30 even in today's world.

[Chris Goodwin]

Since they won't be getting 'free' soft defenses in the form of extra figured STUN and REC maybe more characters will dump the points into even higher attacks instead of characteristics in order to KO the enemy even faster.

And then they'll get KO'd even faster by the enemies who spent in a more balanced way.

(Edit: Yes, the first part of the paragraph. Edited to fix.)

Maybe we'll give them more points to make up for it - fine, but will those extra points really find their way into characteristics? Or will it be more efficient to spend them in other ways? Just adding more points into the mix isn't a solution if you're trying to 'control' perceived abuses.

But not everyone's a powergamer - they should just build to concept! I agree - but doesn't that hold true even with figureds? If I'm building a character that doesn't feel right with higher than a 13 CON, I'm not buying a 30 even in today's world.

Build to concept? Or build to what you want. If you want a character with 30 PD and 30 ED, buy your PD and ED up to 30. Whether you get the free Figured or not, 30 PD and 30 ED is still 30 PD and 30 ED.

[Supreme Serpent]

And then they'll get KO'd even faster by the enemies who spent in a more balanced way.

I'm assuming this is just in response to the first part of the paragraph.

...let's just say I disagree. Don't want to derail with infinite comparative builds.

[Killer Shrike]

Regarding Killer Shrike's proposed changes (or rather, new system!). I like it, for the most part. One problem that immediately stood out, though, was skills. Being good with two DEX skills is as expensive as being good with ALL DEX skills? That part might need some work.
Until you hit Maxima. But yeah, it needs flushing out; that was a big brain dump. Its likely that due to how big the Characteristics are in that model that they should cost 5 points per point....in fact, thinking about it, they definitely should.


In general, though, I like it!
Thanks!

[Toadmaster]

I think what he is talking about (and I'll admit I'm just guessing) is that they can make the decision ahead of time. I.e. that during character creation they aren't thinking about all of the characteristics, but just the primaries, having determined ahead of time that if they buy their primaries up to certain levels the secondaries are generally at least acceptable, and so they just don't think about them at all.

Someone else pointed out (I think it was Chris Goodwin) that it would be easy enough to build templates that would allow people used to being forced to buy Characteristics in sets to continue doing so. Then as you said before, all that remains is the matter of cost.

I don't see this as anything other than creating a new set of rules to do what the rules already do. Just change for the sake of change.

So you create templates to replace figureds? How is this any better than just buying up or down your figureds to fit your non-standard character? You are just creating an extra step for standard characters.

Something has to be the default in any system. We could start characteristics at zero and not have figured characteristics. The default character would be a bacterium or something. Great for people who want to play zealot bacteria from beta-pherengi or lawn chairs who were once elder vampires or other things who's stats will have no basis in common experience or relation to eachother.

For people who want to play people - or things even remotely resembling people - though, the game defaulting to stats near some human norm with familiar interrellationships is a good thing. It makes the game more intuitive and familiar. It also acts as a sort of 'power steering' that helps new players remember to buy thier high-STR brick some PD...

Considering that one of the goals of 6e is to make the game more accessible to potential new players brought in by the MMO franchise, catering to purists who believe that it should be exactly as easy to build a PI from Detroit as a sentient binary load lifter from Planet IX, may not be the best move.

Exactly, just as starting with base 10 stats provides a starting point, so do figured characteristics. I can understand those who want base 0 stats being in favor of disconnected primary / secondary stats, but it doesn't make sense to me that there are people saying yes to base 10 stats but no to base figured stats, they seem to go hand in hand. I don't buy the difficult math angle either, I'm no math wiz and I used to make HERO characters in high school during class without the books, all from memory on a sheet of binder paper (uphill through the snow). If an idiot like me can do that I don't see the problem when there are software programs, calculators and other cheats available.

The figured stats help a player know if the character is average, above average or below average. It's not all about the final numbers its about knowing what the baseline is. Are you building Bruce Lee or Mike Tyson, both have similar capabilities (they can mop the floor with me) but are built very differantly.



Big surprise but I'm not in favor of combining Con and Body either, these stats are different enough that it matters in character concept. They are similar but not the same. A high Con keeps you in the fight, a high body keeps you alive. There are numerous examples of high con average body characters, many martial artists fall into this category. These are the characters who can take a lot and keep fighting but they are not superhuman, a bullet can easily kill them. Combining these stats and then using Body vs Stun only to simulate what the game already does is just adding additional complexity and is a clunky fix for something that isn't broken.

I can say the same for many of the suggestions to combine stats. One of the features of HERO is the very open nature of the stats. You want a vapid blond bombshell, you buy up your COM, but if you want a bombshell that gets more than her 15 minutes you buy up her PRE as well.

Take your "hot" chick of the month, you are probably dealing with a high COM, but you take someone like Mae West and you have a ton of PRE. To look at her Mae West isn't really that attractive physically, she was in her 40''s and somewhat overweight, probably not more than a 12 COM but she has PRE in buckets and that has allowed her to be the definition of Bombshell for nearly 100 years. Combine high COM and PRE and you get someone like Raquel Welch, unquestioned beauty and some intangable quality (PRE) that has kept her in the vavavavooom limelight for 40 years. Nobody will remember Jessica Simpson when she is 60.


This is why I feel so strongly against big changes in HERO stats, HERO has always been about how you build it not just the end result. If how many dice you get to roll was all that mattered you could do away with 90% of the powers and lump everything into 5 or 6 generic powers.

[Chris Goodwin]

I don't see this as anything other thna creating a new set of rules to do what the rules already do.

Isn't that sort of the definition of creating a new edition of the rules? ;)

[Opal]

Build to concept? Or build to what you want. If you want a character with 30 PD and 30 ED, buy your PD and ED up to 30. Whether you get the free Figured or not, 30 PD and 30 ED is still 30 PD and 30 ED. To concept, I should hope. The mechanics and campaign guidelines should help you figure out what it takes to model your concept.

For instance, if your concept is 'toughest brick in the world,' and the campaign cap was a hard 30 PD/ED (no exceptions), you'd take that 30 PD/ED, and make it fully resistant and hardened if you could get away with it - then, to ensure your toughness was truely exceptional, maybe buy up your CON quite a bit, too. OTOH, if your concept included 'handgun bullets bounce off me with no effect,' you'd need a higher PD, in spite of the campaign guidelines, because of the mechanics. If your concept is 'stronger than an olympic weightlifter' you need only look up the world record and consult the STR chart. If you're not too concerned about what that STR implies, the current system at leasts boosts your STN and PD a bit, while a buy-from-zero system could leave you oddly vulnerable for a big strong guy, if you were just feeling out the system for the first time.

[Chris Goodwin]

To concept, I should hope. The mechanics and campaign guidelines should help you figure out what it takes to model your concept.

For instance, if your concept is 'toughest brick in the world,' and the campaign cap was a hard 30 PD/ED (no exceptions), you'd take that 30 PD/ED, and make it fully resistant and hardened if you could get away with it - then, to ensure your toughness was truely exceptional, maybe buy up your CON quite a bit, too. OTOH, if your concept included 'handgun bullets bounce off me with no effect,' you'd need a higher PD, in spite of the campaign guidelines, because of the mechanics. If your concept is 'stronger than an olympic weightlifter' you need only look up the world record and consult the STR chart. If you're not too concerned about what that STR implies, the current system at leasts boosts your STN and PD a bit, while a buy-from-zero system could leave you oddly vulnerable for a big strong guy, if you were just feeling out the system for the first time.

Hence the (optional!) packages I brought up earlier.

[Toadmaster]

Isn't that sort of the definition of creating a new edition of the rules? ;)


No that is the definition of creating a new game. A new edition is tuning up the existing rules, not swapping a turbocharged 4 cyl Honda engine into a '67 Camero SS.


Just for clarification, looking at the cost of various stats (I think they are fine but understand those who don't), considering a heroic and a superheroic strength chart (amount able to lift) ok, I could see that, not many fantasy characters can lift a tank. Looking at the relationships between stats, possibly even removing or adding a stat or two (again I think they are fine but we can talk). These are all within the realm of a new edition, these are tweaks, some pretty big one but within reason.

Scrapping the whole characteristics section and starting over is a new game.

[ajackson]

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?
Let's consider an even more radical concept: junk Ego, and replace it with Mental Defense. They usually do the same thing, and for those rare characters who are resistant to mental powers and not resistant to presence attacks, they can take limited defense. This will mean that PCs will probably have mental defense in the teens, but I'm not sure that MD needs to average any lower than PD or ED. This does make it necessary to do something about ECV, but I've never quite understood how ECV makes sense to start with.

I would also probably include Power Defense as a basic characteristic, probably replacing Con (since Power Defense is the generic defense vs poisons and diseases), though I might rename it to keep it distinct from physical defense (perhaps vitality defense? The acronym is a bit unfortunate. Alternation Defense? Stamina Defense?). Again, this will encourage people to have high Power Defense values, but I don't really see the problem there. Eliminating Con means a new Stun mechanism is needed, but that's not a big problem (something like Stun/2 makes you Stunned).

[Enforcer84]

Well, since you admit it is your word, and I never said anything about cheating, I can't really answer your question.

And yes, if you put a Limitation or Advantage on it, technically it is a Power rather than a Skill or a Characteristic. One effect would be that by putting "No Figured" on a Characteristic points purchased that way wouldn't count towards NCM.
Which is Oaky, cause I never used that anyway.

Sorry, I don't see figured characteristics as either Math intensive or Complex or hindering in any conceptual sense.

But...I've made my whining case a few times already. ;)

[Enforcer84]

I guess our experiences just totally differ. In my experience, for absolutely every character I've ever seen made, some calculation had to be made for every one of that character's Figured Characteristics (to determine the base value), and some decision had to be made about every one of that character's Figured Characteristics (whether to raise it, lower it, or leave it at the base).

If the formerly-Figured Characteristics are no longer tied to Primaries, you no longer have to make calculations to determine their base values. (You certainly could do the calculations, if you wanted to see what their base values would have been with the Figured method, but you wouldn't have to.) Yes, you have to decide what the values of each of the formerly-Figured Characteristics will be, but you had to do that before (even if your only decision was to not change them).

Any way you slice it, you always had to decide what the final values of your character's Figureds would be (even if you decided to leave the final value at the base value), and you always had to pay the cost associated with that final value (even if the cost was 0). All this change does is take the base values of the current Figureds (and their calculations), and make them "reasonable levels you might choose for these CHAs" instead of "default values that you must use as the starting point for these CHAs."

To be totally honest, I have a hard time even viewing the decoupling of Figureds as a major change to the system. All it affects is costs. It doesn't affect function in any way.
oh yes I agree Derek. I still don't feel the need to do it; I don't see how it makes the game better.
Though Archermoo's argument about character concepts might do the trick. I don't think he's wrong necessarily, but I don't think it screams to be changed.

yet...most of these changes seem like they'd really affect character building costs. And I already make 2000 pt characters so it's not like I'd be bothered, but some people might want to change the costs of everything...and that all feels so unneccesary.

my fuddy duddiness kicking in again.

[rjcurrie]

No that is the definition of creating a new game. A new edition is tuning up the existing rules, not swapping a turbocharged 4 cyl Honda engine into a '67 Camero SS.


Just for clarification, looking at the cost of various stats (I think they are fine but understand those who don't), considering a heroic and a superheroic strength chart (amount able to lift) ok, I could see that, not many fantasy characters can lift a tank. Looking at the relationships between stats, possibly even removing or adding a stat or two (again I think they are fine but we can talk). These are all within the realm of a new edition, these are tweaks, some pretty big one but within reason.

Scrapping the whole characteristics section and starting over is a new game.

The thing many people have to remember is that right now, 6th edition is in the brainstorming stage. When you are brainstorming, you discuss everything -- you throw all ideas out on the table and look at them. Perhaps someone's way out idea inspires someone else to come up with a more traditional HERO way of accomplishing the same thing or it inspires a good optional rule. The last time Hero went through this process was during the creation of 4th edition -- almost 20 years ago. And as Allen Varney, who was part of that process, mentioned in another thread on these boards, there were all kinds of ideas tossed around and certainly not all of them became part of the system. So, we really should not get too upset by some people's extreme ideas. Remember, Steve and Darren and the other DoJ owners bought Hero because they loved the system.

[archermoo]

I don't see this as anything other than creating a new set of rules to do what the rules already do. Just change for the sake of change.

So you create templates to replace figureds? How is this any better than just buying up or down your figureds to fit your non-standard character? You are just creating an extra step for standard characters.


Oh I wasn't even suggesting that the templates should be in the core rules. Just that the people who felt that it was important to be forced to buy Characteristics in blocks could do so for themselves if Figured Characteristics are gotten rid of.

For every character I create I already make a decision about each of my Characteristics, and then spend whatever points are required (if any). So the big change that removing Figureds does for me is make some character concepts easier to build, as I won't need to figure out exactly how many points of STR, CON, and BODY I need to buy with "No Figured" to get my Figureds to come out right. And then rejuggling everything if I buy something up later. I can just buy all my Characteristics to the level I want them to be and be done with it.

[Chris Goodwin]

Oh I wasn't even suggesting that the templates should be in the core rules. Just that the people who felt that it was important to be forced to buy Characteristics in blocks could do so for themselves if Figured Characteristics are gotten rid of.

I was, sorta, but it should be in the "Where Did It Go?" section, along with COM and (IMO) Telekinesis. :D

[archermoo]

Which is Oaky, cause I never used that anyway.

Sorry, I don't see figured characteristics as either Math intensive or Complex or hindering in any conceptual sense.

But...I've made my whining case a few times already. ;)

Understood.

And I agree that Figureds are not math intensive or complex. But they do hinder character concepts that involve buying Figureds at a lower rate to the Primaries than the current formulas dictate. There are workarounds, but to me they are kludgy. Buying all your Characteristics at the level you want them to be seems a much cleaner solution.

[Opal]

But they do hinder character concepts that involve buying Figureds at a lower rate to the Primaries than the current formulas dictate. There are workarounds, but to me they are kludgy. True, but such concepts are few and far between, while concepts in line with those ratios (like, well, people) are very common. Better to make it a little simpler and more intuitive to build extremely common concepts, at the price of being a little cludgy to do exotic ones, than to make the game unintuitive for /all/ character concepts.

The blank slate idea may seem apealing after you've mastered the system, but it's intimidating when you're new.

[archermoo]

True, but such concepts are few and far between, while concepts in line with those ratios (like, well, people) are very common. Better to make it a little simpler and more intuitive to build extremely common concepts, at the price of being a little cludgy to do exotic ones, than to make the game unintuitive for /all/ character concepts.

The blank slate idea may seem apealing after you've mastered the system, but it's intimidating when you're new.

I just don't see how it makes it any easier.

Current system: I buy each and every Characteristic to the level I want, some of them from a predetermined base, some from a sliding scale that moves as I alter other Characteristics. If that level is below the base for more than one of my Figureds, I need to figure out how many points of which Primaries I need to purchase with a "No Figureds" limitation to get them down to the level that I want.

No Figured system: I buy each and every Characteristic to the level I want, all from a fixed base.

The fact that it is probably less common to have a concept that wants to have 2 or more Figureds at a lower than base value in the current system doesn't somehow make it easier. You still need to make sure that all of the Characteristics are at the level you want even, even if you might not change the values much of any from their figured base.

[eternal_sage]

just for those keeping score, this is another reversion of retooling the CHAR costs and all would turn out, using Steve's examples. i'm also going to include superguy with his (previously) figured stats doubled as a base (since that is more likely to fit a supers game anyway, since if you flip through Champions, nearly every character has these bought up, many of them to at least twice their starting values)


NEW REVISED COSTS

STR 1x
DEX 1x
CON 1x
BODY 1x
INT 1x
EGO 1x
PRE 1x
COM 1x

PD 1x
ED 1x
MD 1x
SPD 10x
REC 1x
END 1/2x
STUN 1x

CV 3x
ECV 3x

high STR brick via champions (standard base "figureds")


Val Char Cost
60 STR 50
20 DEX 10
30 CON 20
25 BODY 15
10 INT 0
10 EGO 0
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0

30 PD 28
30 ED 28
5 SPD 30
25 REC 21
60 END 20
70 STUN 50

7 CV 12

Total Cost: 294
Norm Cost: 236

58 more points

high STR brick via champions (doubled base "figureds")


Val Char Cost
60 STR 50
20 DEX 10
30 CON 20
25 BODY 15
10 INT 0
10 EGO 0
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0

30 PD 26
30 ED 26
5 SPD 10
25 REC 17
60 END 10
70 STUN 30

7 CV 12

Total Cost: 236
Norm Cost: 236

the exact same!

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


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

15 PD 13
10 ED 8
6 SPD 40
10 REC 6
40 END 10
40 STUN 20

8 CV 15

Total Cost: 157
Norm Cost: 161

That’s a cost decrease of 4 points.

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


Val Char Cost
15 STR 5
15 DEX 5
18 CON 8
12 BODY 2
13 INT 3
13 EGO 3
20 PRE 10
14 COM 2

6 PD 4
6 ED 4
4 SPD 20
7 REC 3
36 END 8
39 STUN 19

5 CV 6

Total Cost: 102
Norm Cost: 91

so thats a increase of 9 points

and hey, what do you know? it all comes out pretty good! for Supers games, doubling the starting points in figured Chars would likely fix the whole mess, in all honesty. it certainly fixed the problem, as far as this example character is concerned, but it does add some more Heroic/Superheroic differences (which is a good thing, in my opinion).

[Opal]

I just don't see how it makes it any easier.You go through your primary characteristics, and decide how your character compares to the 'norm' in each, buying them up or down apropriately. They're all on the same 10 starting/ +5 doubles /20 normal max scale, so it's not a terribly difficult exercise. You calculate your figured characteristics. You now have an idea of what's 'normal' for a person with your primary characteristics and decide how much, if at all, your character should deviate from that.

It gives you a very solid feel for which ways you've made your character 'super' and which 'normal' or 'deficient.'

As you get to know the system, you start tweaking things - hitting break points, lining up SPD with campaign norms, and so forth - but that's another discussion.

[archermoo]

You go through your primary characteristics, and decide how your character compares to the 'norm' in each, buying them up or down apropriately. They're all on the same 10 starting/ +5 doubles /20 normal max scale, so it's not a terribly difficult exercise. You calculate your figured characteristics. You now have an idea of what's 'normal' for a person with your primary characteristics and decide how much, if at all, your character should deviate from that.

It gives you a very solid feel for which ways you've made your character 'super' and which 'normal' or 'deficient.'

As you get to know the system, you start tweaking things - hitting break points, lining up SPD with campaign norms, and so forth - but that's another discussion.

I've never used Figureds like that, and don't see any advanatage in doing so. If I want to know what is "normal" for the different Characteristics I either check the ranges listed in the book, or ask the Ref. For Primaries or Figureds.

[Opal]

It was clear from the way you described "Buying every stat up to exactly the level you want" that you've never used them that way. But it is a very helpful way of modeling a character relative to what's normal. And, it does make it very easy to decide what level you /do/ want in each stat. While it might not seem 'easy' to one who's already mastered the system, to a new player, it will help him understand what's up with all these crazy characteristics.


'Normal SPD' might be two, for instance, and normal maximum, 4. That doesn't tell you that a DEX 15 character should probably have a higher SPD, though. REC may range from 4-10, but that won't automatically ring a bell that your high STR brick should probably have some more REC - and you might even figure that with high defenses, you won't need to take many recoveries... and you'll end up with something of an asthmatic brick when that wasn't what your were going for. If you're new and not paying attention, OTOH, you might neglect to buy up PD, much, or at all, when you buy up your STR - and that could get messy, as well as frustrating. Of course, if you have looked at normal/maximums for the first few stats, you might not realize that you shouldn't have a PD of 20 for your martial artist or a SPD of 10 for your brick - or that an END and STN of 25 really isn't all that great. The figureds are all on a different scale from the Primaries, and the fact that thier figured drives that home rather effectively, by drawing relations between the figured and primary stats.

[archermoo]

It was clear from the way you described "Buying every stat up to exactly the level you want" that you've never used them that way. But it is a very helpful way of modeling a character relative to what's normal. And, it does make it very easy to decide what level you /do/ want in each stat. While it might not seem 'easy' to one who's already mastered the system, to a new player, it will help him understand what's up with all these crazy characteristics.

And, shockingly enough, I disagree. ;) The rulebook and/or the Ref is a much better source for what is normal for each of the Characteristics, Primary or Figured. Particularly the Ref, as what is normal in one campaign won't necessarily be normal in another.

I make my decisions about what I want my Characteristics to be based on what I think would be useful for the character in question, flavoured by the campaign that he is going to be in.

[Toadmaster]

The thing many people have to remember is that right now, 6th edition is in the brainstorming stage. When you are brainstorming, you discuss everything -- you throw all ideas out on the table and look at them. Perhaps someone's way out idea inspires someone else to come up with a more traditional HERO way of accomplishing the same thing or it inspires a good optional rule. The last time Hero went through this process was during the creation of 4th edition -- almost 20 years ago. And as Allen Varney, who was part of that process, mentioned in another thread on these boards, there were all kinds of ideas tossed around and certainly not all of them became part of the system. So, we really should not get too upset by some people's extreme ideas. Remember, Steve and Darren and the other DoJ owners bought Hero because they loved the system.

Talk away that is fine, but I am just pointing out many of these ideas are far beyond the realm of a new edition. Also keep in mind Characteristics are a key part of HERO, you want to tinker with a power fine, you want to get rid of all the powers and lump them into 4 or 5 powers were talking a new game.

For me Characteristics are the key thing about HERO that I enjoy, you can tinker in other areas all you like, for me massive change here is not an option, for others its martial arts or desolid or skills. You might notice I am far more chilled out in the other parts of the 6th forums, because I am not as attatched to the other rules. This is my touch it I play GURPS part of the rules. If I had been invited to the 4th ed brain storm I would have been screaming about the changes to AF, grenades, shotguns and vehicles, which I think set the game backwards.

Bringing up what they did to 4th does not help, HERO peaked at 3rd ed for heroic games, 4th made some good changes but brought about several new problems, a big one being the perception you must build everything with powers and all the rules had to work like powers. This is where GURPS betters HERO, in HERO everything has to fit within the frame work of existing powers, in GURPS they create a new rule if that is the best way to handle it. A lightning bolt and a gun do not have to work exactly the same way. However GURPS tends to be too rigid, it does not have that free form aspect that HERO does.

[ajackson]

CV 3x
ECV 3x
Huh? CV should be at least 6, and to make levels a rational buy, should actually probably be 10 (or just buy OCV and DCV at 5 each). Tweak the cost of levels and CV can be less, but a level of CV is usually comparable in value to a die of damage and a similar amount of defenses, so 10 points for CV doesn't seem out of line.

[Toadmaster]

And, shockingly enough, I disagree. ;) The rulebook and/or the Ref is a much better source for what is normal for each of the Characteristics, Primary or Figured. Particularly the Ref, as what is normal in one campaign won't necessarily be normal in another.

I make my decisions about what I want my Characteristics to be based on what I think would be useful for the character in question, flavoured by the campaign that he is going to be in.

And amazingly enough I agree with Opal so there. :p:D

Opal pretty much could have plucked that right out my brain, except he said it better.

So far the only thing I've seen to justify gutting the current stats is you don't have to do a little math. I just don't see that as a reason to rewrite the whole game, whats next get rid of advantages and limitations because fractions are hard?

Basically this whole argument is bud lite, end result vs development process. Seems like everybody who is for seperating into primary and secondary characteristics picks the numbers they want for game effect while those who want to keep the staus quo are looking at what feels right, not what is best.

Perhaps this is not a fair characterization but that is what it looks like.

[ajackson]

So far the only thing I've seen to justify gutting the current stats is you don't have to do a little math. I just don't see that as a reason to rewrite the whole game, whats next get rid of advantages and limitations because fractions are hard?
Yes. Hero has a reputation for being filled with nasty math. Most of the math isn't complicated, but it's messy and there's a lot of it. If Hero is to attract new players, it has to be streamlined.

[Opal]

I think it's the long division by fractions that really gets people, not the fairly simple figured stats.

[rmccarty4]

Disclaimer: any of my responses here should be read simply as one balding middle-aged guy's opinion.
Q: Should all characters start with 0 in all Characteristics?
Steve’s Thoughts: ...It would eliminate issues about... creating many types of non-human characters... (but) it tends to go along with the “dramatic simulation” aspect of the system. I don’t mind being a little humanocentric in this regard, either. ;)
Heroic humans ought to be the baseline for characters. Forcing non-human characters to start from a human base is humanocentric... and appropriate.

Q: Should we get rid of the concept of negative Characteristics?
Since Stun, Body, & Endurance go in to negative, and the existing Strength chart goes in to negatives, and Adjustment Powers can reduce the target stat in to negative values, I say don't get rid of negative Chars. I'd buy a blanket statement that "numbers lower than zero have the same functional meaning as zero (STR, STUN, BODY, & END excepted)". The negative value for other stats has bookkeeping value for how soon capability returns after an Adjustment Power effect.

Q: Should we get rid of the concept of Figured Characteristics, and just make all Characteristics straightforward purchases... and just use the standard starting values and costs (PD 2, ED 2, SPD 2, REC 4, END 20, STUN 20)(?)
OK, but:
Sub-Issue #1: If Figured Characteristics are removed, should the costs of any Characteristics be changed to compensate?
I think you have to look at them case-by-case, but my blanket recommendation is "no". It's simpler that way, too.
I learned from Steve Goodman that STR & CON were a bargain... but eliminating the "Figured" part of the Figured Characteristics undoes much of the bargain. IMO, STR is costed correctly at 1:1 once there's no benefit to PD, REC, STUN, or Leaping.
Q: Should HTH damage be removed as something that’s factored from STR?
Tell you what: you go get punched in the face a few times by Mike Tyson, and I'll go get punched in the face a few times by Oscar de la Hoya. After I get out of the hospital, I promise to visit your grave. :eg: Strength matters in hand-to-hand combat; STR should matter in HTH damage. Aaaaand, it makes game-sense too.

Assuming you don't unbundle other benefits of DEX (CV, DEX-based skills, moving first, etc), I expect reducing the cost to 2:1 to create even more DEX inflation, causing people to whine further about how cheap DEX is, & how HERO characters are all too DEX-terous. Leave it at 3:1. If you must unbundle DEX, please leave it as an optional/sidebar rule. If some people can ignore END, please let me ignore the distinction between agility & ability to hit someone in combat. IMO, unnecessarily complicated in Superheroic games, and in my Heroic games. YMMV.
...if I change (CON) I have to re-examine every character built in terms of offense and defense, and so do players.
Sorry, you're already through the looking glass on this once you eliminate the "Figured" part of Figured Characteristics. That's why case-by-case is in order. That said, avoiding being stunned and resisting CON-based Mental or other powers, avoiding disease/nauseau, and the like are all pretty wonderful. 2:1.

Q: Should PER be removed as something that’s factored from INT?
I kind of like the PER as a Characteristic or Skill approach -- and don't have a strong opinion about either approach -- as the INT base for PER rolls never really gelled for me. I accepted it as a game mechanic, not as SFX. It'd really fit for animals and animal-based characters' ability to see/hear/smell/taste things without either giving them unusual rolls for INT-based skills and INT rolls.:)
Q: Should the cost of EGO be reduced to 1 Character Point per point?... it’s hard to argue that EGO is somehow twice as valuable as STR, INT, or PRE.
Not for me, it's not. I guess it depends on your games, but EGO and EGO rolls play a big part in the heroic nature in the games I have run & played in. And EGO doesn't even have any Figured Characteristics based on it (quasi-exception: Mental Defense). OTOH, I believe the answer to...
Q: Should ECV be removed as something that’s factored from EGO?
... is no, for the same reason I wouldn't advocate splitting CV & DEX.
Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?
I'm with the Perk/Talent/Reputation people.

Q: Should PD and ED be combined into one Characteristic called DEF?
As long as I get to have DEF with a +1 Limitation, "only against Physical damage" or "only against Energy damage".:) No, you'd also need to adjust Force Field, Armor, Damage Reduction... too much hedake.

If not, should objects be given separate PD and ED ratings?
This is preferable to consolidation, and inasmuch as I'm used to characters with different PD & ED, I think I can handle objects w/ different PD & ED...

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?
NO, NO, 1000xNO! It's one of the singular genius creations of the system, and it just makes so much sense. Some people think HERO's point-based Character Generation is its great contribution to gaming; some think the HERO combat system is its great contribution to gaming. I wouldn't say the other side is wrong, but I'm in the "combat system" camp. GURPS doesn't have a Speed chart...:)

Q: Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?
NO, NO, 1000xNO! From waaaay back, we were told, if you want to simplify, don't use END, and don't use Limitations. Easy. That's a great policy, one that should be kept.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?
Really interesting idea. Ultimately, I don't see it fitting well with the other Characteristics, inasmuch as 20 would represent NCM, and 30 the limit between maximum human potential and superpowers. So that means that Shaquille O'Neal & Yao Ming would be, what, Size 25?
Characteristics can also be drained, which makes them open to Adjustment Powers, which is kind of weird. Also, small animals could end up with negative SIZ, but then, I'm OK with negative Characteristic values.:p
If you break away from the Characteristic 10-Heroic Avg/20-NCM/30-Human Maximum framework, then you could still work it as a numeric descriptor, with, say, an average human male Size of 10 and maybe 8 for females (or you could just skip that...), and every 5 points of SIZ representing something like a level of Growth/Shrinking.
I think I'd want this to work as a series of package deals tied to a numeric size, costing approximately the same amount for the values near average.

I have to say, it's one of the things I always dug about Cyberpunk character generation... I think they called it Build.

As for the Figured Characteristics, it won't break my heart to spend the extra points on defenses, SPD, or even END & STUN. Recovery... well, if Speeds are lower overall, that means more Post-Segment 12 Recoveries, so it may work out.
I do foresee more Bricks & other Tough Guys buying more Damage Reduction, as the effect of big STR & CON values is lots of REC, END, & STUN; Damage Reduction over smaller REC & STUN values works similarly to a brick's performance in a fight now.

[rmccarty4]

Yes. Hero has a reputation for being filled with nasty math. Most of the math isn't complicated, but it's messy and there's a lot of it. If Hero is to attract new players, it has to be streamlined.

IMO, it's not the Characteristics that make the math challenging, it's the Advantages, Adders, & Limitations. And that's a different thread.:D

[ajackson]

I think it's the long division by fractions that really gets people, not the fairly simple figured stats.
It's the sheer quantity of math. The figured stats are a relatively minor part, but they're not zero. I feel a strong temptation for:


Str: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2. Provides 1d6 damage, x2 lift, per level.
Dex: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2. Provides +1 to Dex skills.
OCV: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2.
DCV: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2.
Bod: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2. +1 to Bod checks, 5 Body pips per level.
Ego: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2. +1 to Ego checks per level.
Pre: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2. +1 to Pre skills, 1d6 Pre attack, per level.
Int: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2. +1 to Int skills per level.
PD,ED,Spd,Stun,End: unchanged.

[Susano]

It's the sheer quantity of math. The figured stats are a relatively minor part, but they're not zero. I feel a strong temptation for:


Str: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2. Provides 1d6 damage, x2 lift, per level.
Dex: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2. Provides +1 to Dex skills.
OCV: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2.
DCV: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2.
Bod: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2. +1 to Bod checks, 5 Body pips per level.
Ego: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2. +1 to Ego checks per level.
Pre: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2. +1 to Pre skills, 1d6 Pre attack, per level.
Int: 5 pts/level, human norm is 2. +1 to Int skills per level.
PD,ED,Spd,Stun,End: unchanged.


You've just recreated Fuzion. :ugly:

[Opal]

Fuzion /was/ simpler in just the sense he's looking for.

[ajackson]

You've just recreated Fuzion. :ugly:
Frankly, the core game system of Fuzion was good. The problems mostly came with stuff that was layered around the core -- for example, the power creation system was dysfunctional, the way Mekton and Hero concepts were mashed together was a nightmare (kills? Gah!), the skill system was overly clunky, ...

[McCoy]

Halfway through this thread. You people are posting faster than I can read. The faster I run, the quicker the finish line receeds in the distance!

[Yansuf]

To modify my earlier post, I think that having every point of characteristics give some benefit is a Very Good Idea, but may have problems in implementation.
For Strength, I have developed another system which I think is superior to the one I posted previously.
Str 10 ->2d6 damage
Str 11 ->2d6+1 damage
Str 12 ->2 1/2 d6 damage
Str 13 -> same damage as 12, but gets +1 PD and +1 Rec
Str 14 ->3d6-1 damage
Str 15 ->3d6 damage
Of course, this assumes that we keep Figured Characteristics.

[Toadmaster]

Halfway through this thread. You people are posting faster than I can read. The faster I run, the quicker the finish line receeds in the distance!

Thats what you get for slacking, you should have been in here with the rest of us on monday. :D


I pity the person who starts into this for the first time in say a month or so. :eek:

[Susano]

The Ultimate Brick has a nice chart like that.

[archermoo]

And amazingly enough I agree with Opal so there. :p:D

Opal pretty much could have plucked that right out my brain, except he said it better.

So far the only thing I've seen to justify gutting the current stats is you don't have to do a little math. I just don't see that as a reason to rewrite the whole game, whats next get rid of advantages and limitations because fractions are hard?

Basically this whole argument is bud lite, end result vs development process. Seems like everybody who is for seperating into primary and secondary characteristics picks the numbers they want for game effect while those who want to keep the staus quo are looking at what feels right, not what is best.

Perhaps this is not a fair characterization but that is what it looks like.

Actually as I have said exhaustively on many occasions my objection to Figured Characteristics has nothing to do with having to figure them out. I use HD, it does the math for me. My objection, since it seems to have been missed yet again, is that it doesn't add anything useful in my opinion, and makes some character concepts considerably more difficult to create.

I want to be the one that decides what my Characteristics are, not a game mechanic. Taking the figureds out does nothing negative systemically at all. You can still build the same characters. And if you really feel the need to buy some of your characteristics in blocks you can even still do that. It just means that all of the other character concepts that aren't built upon the assumptions made by figured characteristics are just as easy to build as the ones that are already easy.

The only thing that changes for builds that are already easy to make is the cost.

[McCoy]

Thats what you get for slacking, you should have been in here with the rest of us on monday. :D


I pity the person who starts into this for the first time in say a month or so. :eek:
I had a thing. I'm here now.

[archermoo]

Fuzion /was/ simpler in just the sense he's looking for.

And it was a dismal failure.

[McCoy]

Q: Should we get rid of the concept of negative Characteristics?
I'm going to say yes. Stop at zero.

The one exception to this would be that STUN and BODY could still go negative, since that has a specific, combat-related, negative effect on the character. I don’t think that having negatives for those two implies that *all* Characteristics should go into the negatives.
Agree. And btw, keep STUN, no matter what other characteristics may be eliminated, changed or added. You kids today have no idea how radical an idea this was in 1981, a game mechanic that allowed your character to defeat an opponent without killing them. Without STUN, BODY and SPD (and the speed chart), the resulting game is not Champions/Hero System.

[nexus]

I'm going to say yes. Stop at zero.


Agree. And btw, keep STUN, no matter what other characteristics may be eliminated, changed or added. You kids today have no idea how radical an idea this was in 1981, a game mechanic that allowed your character to defeat an opponent without killing them. Without STUN, BODY and SPD (and the speed chart), the resulting game is not Champions/Hero System.

I remember being impressed that I could have a bar brawl that didn't end with a pile of corpses. :)

[McCoy]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: Under the current (and all former) incarnations of the HERO System, the rules, which calculate Skill Rolls by dividing Characteristics by 5, tend to encourage people to buy Characteristics that end in 0, 3, 5, or 8 (with some differentiation for DEX due to CV calculations). Aside from bragging rights and offering some protection against negative Adjustment Powers, an INT of say, 14, is meaningless compared to 13 — it offers no additional game benefit. In fact, it’s not until 18 that any additional benefit is received (in the form of +1 to Skill Rolls). This has the effect of making a lot of characters look a little too much the same.

We could narrow the steps, say CHA/3 rather than 5.

Or an idea occured to me reading through the thread, we can make Characteristic rolls simply roll the CHA or less on 3d6.

A character has a 14 DEX, needs to make a DEX check to cross an icy patch of ground without falling. Current system calls for rolling a 12 or less, same as if the character had a 13 DEX or a 17 DEX. Under my suggestion has to roll 14-, better chance of sucess than if he had a 13 DEX.

Seems like this should work for Heroic level games, ones with NCM and where CHA's over 20 will be rare. Not so well on superheroic games.

[nexus]

We could narrow the steps, say CHA/3 rather than 5.


That was an idea I was rolling around. It's not too drastic and seems to give more breakpoints at least.


Or an idea occurred to me reading through the thread, we can make Characteristic rolls simply roll the CHA or less on 3d6.

A character has a 14 DEX, needs to make a DEX check to cross an icy patch of ground without falling. Current system calls for rolling a 12 or less, same as if the character had a 13 DEX or a 17 DEX. Under my suggestion has to roll 14-, better chance of success than if he had a 13 DEX.

Seems like this should work for Heroic level games, ones with NCM and where CHA's over 20 will be rare. Not so well on superheroic games.

And that's the stickler.

[McCoy]

Q: Should we get rid of the concept of Figured Characteristics, and just make all Characteristics straightforward purchases?
I vote no. but it's not a deal breaker for me.

Sub-Issue #1: If Figured Characteristics are removed, should the costs of any Characteristics be changed to compensate?
Yes, CON goes from one of the most useful characteristics to how to not get stunned.

Speaking of stunned, if we are keeping it (and I am very much in favor of keeping it), can we remane it? It's just so contra-intuitive that the stunned mechanic has nothing to do with characteristic STUN. The fact that, though never official, so many players refer to stunned as "CON-stunned" supports this. Kirby has been using "dazed" in his game, that seems to be working out well.

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

[McCoy]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think that it should. The correlation between STR and Leaping is one of the few obvious remaining “Champions-isms” in the HERO System — it makes sense in a setting where characters often travel by leaping tall buildings. It makes no sense anywhere else and requires such jiggery-pokery as buying down the Leaping of elephants and giants. It makes more sense to start everyone with Leaping 2” and let them buy it up from there, with an optional “derive base Leaping from STR” rule for genres that need it.
Hadn't thought about it, but the arguements for decoupling leaping from STR have been persuasive.

[McCoy]

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think that it should, and I intend to do so unless someone comes up with a good counterargument that I find convincing. ;) COM doesn’t do anything at all in game terms, unlike all the other Characteristics. It can be fun, but it’s not worth cluttering up the character sheet. It makes more sense to eliminate it (and its annoying 1/2-point cost) and replace it with a Talent, Beautiful/Handsome, that’s defined as Interaction Skill bonuses in certain situations (and naturally there’d be a variant form called Ugly ;) ).
I'm going to be in the minority here and say no. I like the idea the COM has no effect on game mechanics. It's a characteristic that sets the role players apart from the power gamers.

[McCoy]

Q: Should PD and ED be combined into one Characteristic called DEF? If not, should objects be given separate PD and ED ratings?

Steve’s Thoughts: Combining PD and ED into one would certainly reduce the number of Characteristics and perhaps speed play a little. However, I think the Physical/Energy split has been a key element of the HERO System from its earliest incarnations, and don’t really see that changing to DEF is worth abandoning that. In light of that, at this point I favor giving objects separate PD and ED as well. That creates a little more detail, but it will make it easier to better simulate/define objects.
Agree, keep them seperate, break them out for objects as needed.

This should probably be under Powers, but I wonder if we want to get rid of Armor and Force Field, which are actually special effects, and build all defenses by buying more PD & ED, with approperate advantages and limitations.

[rjcurrie]

Yes, CON goes from one of the most useful characteristics to how to not get stunned.

Speaking of stunned, if we are keeping it (and I am very much in favor of keeping it), can we remane it? It's just so contra-intuitive that the stunned mechanic has nothing to do with characteristic STUN. The fact that, though never official, so many players refer to stunned as "CON-stunned" supports this. Kirby has been using "dazed" in his game, that seems to be working out well.


CON Rolls are also used for various things in the game. But I could live with it being reduced to 1.

Stunned not having anything to do with STUN has never seemed counter-intuitive to me or any of the group I used to play Hero with, but I could certianly accept changing "Stunned" to "Dazed" because I hate the term "CON-stunned" with a passion. I'll also admit that I seem to be better than some at separating Game terms from the real world meaning.

[McCoy]

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t really think this is necessary, especially since it means adding one more Characteristic to HERO’s already long list, but it’s not beyond consideration.
How about not on a heroic level, but make Mental and Power defenses characteristics in superheroic games?

[McCoy]

Q: Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea is attractive in that it eliminates a big chunk of combat book-keeping — but I think it also removes a lot of ability to customize powers, magic systems, and the like. I think that gamers who don’t want to bother with END already just aren’t bothering with it, or build their characters so that it’s not an issue. A sidebar in the book about “eliminating END” is enough to deal with this issue, I’d say.
Nothing so satisfying as going up against a Big Bruiser, realizing your worst attack can't phase him, and getting him to expend enough END to knock himself out.

The GM can already choose to eliminate END from a game if they wish, keep it as official, with the no-END option.

[McCoy]

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

A: At first glance this may seem odd, but it’s not a wholly unattractive idea. If we use something like the Size Templates to define what each Size category gets (with Human-sized as a default, of course), we could then define Growth and Shrinking as adding/subtracting from that. It would also bring Vehicle and Base character sheets a little more in line with standard character sheets. If a character doesn’t want something from Size (like extra reach), he takes a Limitation on it. I’m not entirely sold on the idea, but I think it’s worth considering.
I like the idea.

[archermoo]

CON Rolls are also used for various things in the game. But I could live with it being reduced to 1.

Stunned not having anything to do with STUN has never seemed counter-intuitive to me or any of the group I used to play Hero with, but I could certianly accept changing "Stunned" to "Dazed" because I hate the term "CON-stunned" with a passion. I'll also admit that I seem to be better than some at separating Game terms from the real world meaning.

Actually being Stunned has a great deal to do with your Stun Characteristic. Put me in as one that has never had an issue with it, nor gamed with anyone who did. I don't really see any reason to change it, but I suppose I wouldn't be hearbroken if it were changed to Dazed. I'd probably still use Stunned though. :)

And the game implementation of Stunned seems perfectly in line with what the word means in the real world...

[Susano]

Put me down as someone else who hates "CON-Stunned."

[Supreme Serpent]

I'm going to toss out that IF the route is taken to start characters out at 0 in all CHA and just provide guidelines ("Start at STR 0, average human is STR 10"), then should do the same for Running and Swimming. If someone doesn't run as well, let them buy only 4" of running. If they never learned to swim, don't spend anything on Swimming. Easier than doing sell-backs.

[Chris Goodwin]

I would rather NOT see CV taken out of DEX, nor ECV out of EGO. If you take CV out of DEX, all you have left for DEX is DEX-based Skills and initiative. If you take ECV out of EGO, you don't have the Skills, and if you have no Mental Powers you don't use EGO for Initiative. At that point EGO is only used for defense against Presence attacks, and may as well disappear from the list; you could fold what's left of Ego into Presence, call it Spirit or Cool or something. Edit: Oh yeah, and willpower type rolls (especially related to Psych Limits) which could as easily be handled by a combined Cool stat.

(Slippery slope, was it?)

[The Monster]

Put me down as someone else who hates "CON-Stunned."


Love the mechanic, hate the phrase. CON-stunned is something that happens to me on Sunday morning of a convention, when accumulated lack of sleep, outpouring of energy, and too many unshowered gamers all come together in a great force that does, indeed, overwhelm my CON and leave me stunned all day (and most of the next). :p

[Toadmaster]

Actually as I have said exhaustively on many occasions my objection to Figured Characteristics has nothing to do with having to figure them out. I use HD, it does the math for me. My objection, since it seems to have been missed yet again, is that it doesn't add anything useful in my opinion, and makes some character concepts considerably more difficult to create.

I want to be the one that decides what my Characteristics are, not a game mechanic. Taking the figureds out does nothing negative systemically at all. You can still build the same characters. And if you really feel the need to buy some of your characteristics in blocks you can even still do that. It just means that all of the other character concepts that aren't built upon the assumptions made by figured characteristics are just as easy to build as the ones that are already easy.

The only thing that changes for builds that are already easy to make is the cost.

Sorry missed that, when I hear people say figureds add work I figure its the math, even if not diffcult it needs to be done. As far as the rest, if you do away with figureds why not go all the way and start everything at zero, no running, etc I mean everybody ends up buying some stuff up and selling other stuff back anyway. I mean who leaves everything at 10, so why bother with any kind of baseline, you can just pick the numbers you like.

Here is the thing and this isn't mine somebody else smarter than me said it. If we decouple the stats from everything why do we have stats