Characteristics Issues

[SSgt Baloo]

Keep "Stunned" as is, and change STUN to "Ouchie! points".


;)

Playground Hero!

:)

Isn't that PS238? :cool:

Of course, they're probably asking why you don't drop your argument as well, no? After all, they don't want to hear your position any more than you want to hear theirs. Its the "why don't they just shut up because I don't like their opinion" subtext (from both sides) that is really starting to rub me the wrong way.

I second that motion. I'd rep you but i'm all out today.

It is broken, otherwise we wouldn't have had so many discussions over the years about changing the cost of STR to 2 per point, then comparing it with the cost of CON.

People arguing over the finer points of a game isn't an indicator that its broken, just that there are differences of opinion. Since the split is (so I've been told) 50/50, that's too slim a margin (my opinion, YMMV) to base such a far-reaching change. Right now I'm a hero system loyalist, but eliminating figured characteristics (and COM, G-d bless it's poor, currently underutilized soul ;)) will change the game from one I know and love to one that's as unfamiliar to me as its competition. If you radically change the game, I might not leave, but I'll seriously shop the alternatives.

And it's not just about the point breaks. We need an entire rule to keep people from abusing Figured Characteristics by buying the Primaries up then buying down the Figured. That was an oversight in 1e, that was "fixed" in 2e by a rules patch. The rules shouldn't need a patch if they're good rules from the beginning.

(Edit: My point here isn't about people abusing them; my point is about needing a patch.)

I play the Sims2® and, with the Pets expansion pack I've had to install at least two patches. It doesn't seem broke to me. I'm not being snarky either. Such a minor "fix" isn't a major issue for me. Does the patch work? Okay, then. Let's play.

<*SNIP*>

In the abstract, and if starting with a clean sheet of paper, I'd agree that eliminating figured characteristics would probably be the best option. But over now five editions of rules we have seen the current system of figured characteristics, power frameworks, and martial skills, result in well balanced character concepts that can exist together in a campaign without any particular build being overly dominant or ineffective. Eliminating figured characteristics upsets this applecart. I haven’t seen an answer to this issue. It needs to be addressed before making any such drastic change to the rules as they stand at this time.

QFT. It's a point I think needs to be repeated. And I can't rep you, either.:doi:

(Honest guys I'm trying.)

Also, while math lovers don't mind fiddling with big numbers, most people don't want to bother with 1000 point characters and big numbers might be a turn-off for newbies who already have the misconception that Hero is for math geeks.

QFT. I'm something of a math geek, but I know plenty of otherwise intelligent, rational people who are irrationally intimidated by large numbers. I hate to see the points required to build the same character keep increasing every time a new edition comes out.

I guess, to sum it all up, I think if we're not careful with how and what we change, the Law of Unintended Consequences(TM) will bite us in the butt.

[incrdbil]

I absolutely agree with you on the figured characteristics and obviously think nothing is broken right now.:)
.Combining PD and ED is a bad idea to me . You lose so much flexibility, utility, favor and ability to model things well its just not worth to lose one characteristic.


What loss?

Defense, vs physical damage only. -1
or
Defense, vs energy Damage only, -1

There is no loss.

[archermoo]

What loss?

Defense, vs physical damage only. -1
or
Defense, vs energy Damage only, -1

There is no loss.

Just added complication.

[Derek Hiemforth]

I'm not even sure it's added complication. But it isn't a lot of simplification, either. As I see it, moving to a single DEF Characteristic would only be simplifying anything for characters who would have otherwise had equal PD and ED. For those characters only, this:

20 DEF

is simpler than this:

20 PD
20 ED

However, for any character whose resistances to physical and energy damage would not be equal, it's no simpler. Because you'd have this:

15 DEF
+10 DEF (Only vs. Energy -1)

instead of this:

15 PD
25 ED

That's no simpler at all. :)

[Chris Goodwin]

People arguing over the finer points of a game isn't an indicator that its broken, just that there are differences of opinion. Since the split is (so I've been told) 50/50, that's too slim a margin (my opinion, YMMV) to base such a far-reaching change. Right now I'm a hero system loyalist, but eliminating figured characteristics (and COM, G-d bless it's poor, currently underutilized soul ;)) will change the game from one I know and love to one that's as unfamiliar to me as its competition. If you radically change the game, I might not leave, but I'll seriously shop the alternatives.

I wasn't talking about the game being broken; arguing over the finer point the way we have been for so long is an indication that the finer point in question (Figured Characteristics) is broken. (I've been watching people arguing online over the cost of STR in relation to Figured Characteristics for 20 years!)

I play the Sims2® and, with the Pets expansion pack I've had to install at least two patches. It doesn't seem broke to me. I'm not being snarky either. Such a minor "fix" isn't a major issue for me. Does the patch work? Okay, then. Let's play.

A patch to a computer game is invisible. A patch to a broken rule in a FtF roleplaying game is a sore thumb. We were specifically talking, again, about Figured Characteristics. A thing I never knew is that in 1e, there was no restriction on selling back Figured Characteristics. With the predictable result that people would buy up their physical Primary Characteristics, and sell down the Figureds because, hey, free points. I assume this is why the "patch" rule that you can only buy down one Figured Characteristic was added in 2e. It's "worked" in the sense that the game can be played; it doesn't break the whole game. But we wouldn't be discussing this right now if the rule itself worked.

If a rule can be blatantly abused, it's a bad rule, and the fact that we can patch the rule so that people won't abuse it doesn't make it a better rule; it means we're playing a game with a patch. Better to eliminate both the patch rule and the need for the patch, and we're at a point where we can.

Given that one of the design goals for 6e is to clean it up, it would seem a natural desire to look at patched rules and see if we can eliminate them. Up until now it's been part of the system and we've lived with it; it's made it through fifth edition because Steve may not have been in a position to change it before, but he is now.

For further discussion: Kory Heath on elegance and game design (http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Kory/JoEGD/Discussion/heath14.html), and I'll add more links as I find them.

[Lucius]

Generally agree, but I wouldn't replace it with a Talent, I'd change the Reputation Perk to allow it to do this as well. It even fits as a Perk: It's something you can lose, for example, if your face gets scarred or you don't work to maintain it in various ways, if you choose to keep the idea that "Perks are things that can be lost". It then gives a bonus to skills, Presence attacks, only affects those it is appropriate for it to, and takes into account individual tastes (you might have a 14- if many of your target group find you attractive, or an 8- if you have an exotic look that appeals strongly to some people but not to others, for example).
I like this!
And for those who simply must have a “Fairest in the Land” (the magic mirror is never wrong, after all) a step up from <= 14 to “NRN” (No Roll Needed.)
If you go with the idea you mentioned of no negative Characteristics, would a 0 Size would mean you have no volume or mass? Presumably, a 10 would be your typical 2m 100kg human, give or take.

Hm….Maybe I could come to like this idea…
SPD, Speed chart, END - by the time we throw these out, we're not playing HERO anymore. And what's the point? At least turning THAC0 into AC kept the feel of the mechanic while making it work better.
First, I agree that ditching SPD and END means it’s not Hero anymore.
Second: “turning THAC0 into AC?” Wasn’t it the other way around? Or did it change back? Back when I was playing D&D, we never HEARD of “THAC0.” That tells you how long ago it was.
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.

EXACTLY! This is why I’ve been so resistant to Hero Designer. A program that warns me “you’re breaking a rule” – useful. A program that says “you’re breaking a rule, you can’t do that” – worse than useless!! If I want to change/break/ignore a rule, the machine should get out of the way and let me.
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!
REPPED!!! We’re on page 22 now – I’ll never catch up!
Lucius Alexander
Sending the palindromedary ahead with the message.

[archermoo]

EXACTLY! This is why I’ve been so resistant to Hero Designer. A program that warns me “you’re breaking a rule” – useful. A program that says “you’re breaking a rule, you can’t do that” – worse than useless!! If I want to change/break/ignore a rule, the machine should get out of the way and let me.


There are very few rules that HD doesn't just warn you that you are breaking, rather than actually stop you from breaking.

[TSandman]

First, I agree that ditching SPD and END means it’s not Hero anymore.
Second: “turning THAC0 into AC?” Wasn’t it the other way around? Or did it change back? Back when I was playing D&D, we never HEARD of “THAC0.” That tells you how long ago it was.


FWIW... THAC0 came with AD&D 2nd.. and greatly improved on things. Before that, you "Officially" had to look-up on a chart what your weapon had vs this and that Armor Class, because you could only have said specific armor class with a specific armor (chain, leather, plate...) THEN with 3rd and up, they eliminated THACo...


Now let me get back to my useless reminiscing of the Good Ol'Days ;)

[steamteck]

Just added complication.


exactly, for what gain? Simplify to complicate? Pretty much all my characters have different PD/ED.

[archermoo]

exactly, for what gain? Simplify to complicate? Pretty much all my characters have different PD/ED.

Yup. I don't know that ALL of my characters have different PD and ED, but certainly most of them do.

[Opal]

I have plenty of characters with the same PD/ED. Even so, I'd hate to see them combined into DEF.

[Toadmaster]

It seems pretty intuitive that a guy who throws fire blasts and can surround himself with a force field made of fire could burn people who touch him.... and he still has to buy that last one, too.

I would say this actually falls more in favor with keeping figureds. Obviously being powers its a little different, but I think it would be a good idea to have something that at least suggests related powers. It is very common that players, particularly new players make some assumptons and it would be nice to have a way of saying if you like this then perhaps you would like that (think Amazon.com suggestions). Obviously powers have far more potential links than stats do, and again we are talking baseline "human" stats, not baseline human torch so it would not be so easy to have "figured" powers.

But some sort of "figured" powers would be a nice addition, typically a damage shield will be 1/x the damage of the characters primary fire based attack. Again just a baseline and not required. This would actually help a lot of players design characters, since many are simply trying to build something similar to the comics, not everyone likes to create a completely unique superhero from scratch.

[Opal]

There are, indeed, some 'figured powers.' If you have a movement power, you can perform a move by/through and do normal damage that is /figured/ from your movement power. That's just one example.

The game doesn't just have things like this specifically to madden purists who want all powers to be 'atomic' - though I sure felt that way when I was still such a purist ;) - but because they just make sense. If you're moving fast and run into someone, it'll hurt.

[Lucius]

It would solve the issues addressed by the proposal without requiring (so much) point inflation. Of course you really can't make End any cheaper, but we may be getting rid of END anyway.
JG

Of course you can make END cheaper. It’s already cheaper in an END Reserve.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary says Hey! We made it to the END!

[Lucius]

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


No. I don't see the benefit.


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


I am positive we should keep the negative characteristics rules, and don't see what is gained by losing them. And eliminating negative STR only make sense if you're going to radically redefine STR.


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?


I pretty much agree with your reasoning. There are steps that can be taken to make the "off breakpoint points" worthwhile, but there's only so much I think you can do.


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


I wouldn't think so, but it DOES address certain balance issues in the game. I think it is a change I can live with.


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


Yes, definitely.

For one thing, I think the costs of many "secondary" characteristics should be changed in any case. As Hugh Neilson often points out, the fact that STUN, REC, and END are so seldom bought suggests that they are overpriced. If they're going to be bought up from some minimal number rather than being figured, then I think it makes even more sense to make them cheaper.

How cheap? Well, I think the current cost of END in an END Reserve (1 pt gains 10 pts of END) is a good floor. Given that THAT END doesn't even vanish if you go unconscious for example, I am not sure I see why it should be cheaper than "normal" END.

As for the Primary characteristics, if there are no figureds, CON is definitely overpriced. Perhaps, as someone suggested, it can be just folded into BOD. It definitely doesn't work as-is costing 2 pts per pt of CON, if it doesn't get you figureds.


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


Probably, but if the costs of characteristics are lowered, perhaps not so much.


Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?


That depends.

If STR continues to grant Normal damage at the same rate, and if you resolve the Killing/Normal imbalance by making Killing an Advantage, then STR is STILL undercosted even without the figured characteristics. If you resolve that problem by keeping the "Normal Limitation" that's already part of Hand to Hand Normal Attack (maybe making it a bigger limitation?) and extending it to Ranged Normal Attack (whatever you end up calling it) then the cost of STR looks just about perfect.


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


I think so. Maybe with an optional rule to let it influence Leaping, or a note that very strong characters may wish to buy enough Leaping to Leap Tall Buildings in a Single Bound.


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


If so, then maybe the cost of STR should go down. I think I could actually live with this either way. But you'd have to add back in a certain minimum Hand to Hand Normal Attack, just like there's a default amount of Running and Swimming.


Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?


Depends what else you change about it.


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


The benefit does not justify the complexity, in my opinion.


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


Okay, first you remove SPD, now you remove CV....you know, Mr. Long, if you remove all the utility of the characteristics, the question arises, should you be creating a game that has no characteristics to begin with?

I'm in favor of continuing to derive CV from DEX. I'd consider changing that to be a pretty radical step - but one I'm willing to think about.

(Some questions dropped because I'm still forming opinions on them.)


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


Depends what else you do with it. For example, I'm in favor of completely revamping how Mental Powers work. This one can't be considered in isolation.


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


Sometimes I've thought it should be based on INT instead. In which case rename it MCV (Mental Combat Value.)

I also think this is dependant on what you do with DEX and CV. If physical Combat Value remained DEX linked, then mental Combat Value should link to EGO or INT. A foolish inconsistancy is the hobgoblin of great minds.


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?


But it's pretty!
Okay, seriously, I think making it a Talent (or Perk) works well enough.


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


MOST of my characters actually have identical PD and ED unless there is some compelling concept reason for them to differ. I find that easier, and I'm surprised that I seem to be in a very small minority.

There is also a benefit to uniting them that seems to have been overlooked; if the distinction between them becomes a matter of either being a "limited DEF" then the limitation can be specific to the campaign. In most heroic games, physical attacks will be much, much more common, and DEF limited to energy attacks would have a higher than -1 limit, and DEF limited to physical attacks would have a lower than -1 limit. As it is, PD and ED always cost the same, but in some games, the PD is actually worth more.

That said, whichever way you go, I would like to see it done consistently - that is, if people have PD and ED, so should objects, walls, etc. And vice versa. Frankly, I think a lot of items, realistically, would have one or the other higher - at least as commonly and realistically as is the case for characters.



Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?


Sure. Just as soon as phase 13 comes around.

Seriously, without SPD, how will I recognize it as Hero?


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


Never. Let there be no end of END!

I do think it should be moved to the last position on the characteristics list, though....


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?


I'm intrigued. I gather you have some kind of system already in mind for this. I think it's a totally radical idea....but even this conservative old grognard is willing to entertain a radical new idea once in a while.


Lucius Alexander

I've been playing Hero a lot longer than I've had a palindromedary...now there's a scary thought....

[Kdansky]

I will now throw out numbers! Assume: No figureds whatsoever.

STR: 1
Reasoning: If it gives damage and lifting and things, it's still a very good deal (much better than anything else damage-wise), but that is mainly a problem of the damage things and can be compensated there. Add Str To HKA should go too, that solves a big problem.

CON: 0.5 or 1 (or fold into body)
BODY: 0.5 or 1 (personally vote for body =1 and fold con into it)
Reasons: I honestly cannot see people buy CON for 2 against being stunned if PD/ED costs 1 each. Even if it is only 1 point per pip, it's a bad deal. Compare to the unsuaul construct limited PD/ED "Only To Prevent Getting Stunned -2", which seems fairly priced at -2 (you still take the stun and the body). At 0.5 per CON I can definitely see people spending 5-10 points there, and I can see some not doing it.
Same goes for body. If it only gives you body (hit points), then you are better off buying a couple points of resistant defenses. With 15 rDef, you are pretty much body-immune to any attack up to10 DC, and that only costs you 7.5 points per Defense, so 15. That would only give you a lousy 7.5 points of body, which is less than a single hit will take off you. So it's "near invulnerability" vs "can take 0.7 shots extra" for the same price? Totally unbalanced.
Body at 0.5: For 5/5 Resistant you pay 5 points. You can also get 10 body for that, which will last you for 2 hits at +5 body each, or better for defense-bypassing attacks or very big ones. Seems like a decent deal to me, although still not very good.
Body at a very cheap 1:3: Now that's definitely a good deal. You buy 10/10 resistant defenses (10), I buy 30 body. That will last me about as long. And if you think it's abusable if one spends 30 points for 90 body: I can also have 30/30 resistant armor for 30 points, that's near-immunity to any KA up to 6d6 or EB up to 20d6 (yeah, these dice *can* get over 30, but it's unlikely to happen more often than once a year).

DEX: 2
Speed is removed, so that point has to go. OCV/DCV would still be included. Still a good deal, and I can see people still buying DEX at 3 too. Either works I think.

INT: 1
PRE: 1
No changes here. Good deal, but not underpriced

EGO: 2
I would like to see EGO go to 1 for defense reasons (it already is: "Only for defenses -1"), but that does not give bricks a good ego roll, which I think they should have. EGO is just very expensive, except for mentalists, where it's really cheap. Make it cost 1, and mentalists buy expensive combat levels for their ECV. Fairer that way.

PD/ED
I base my arguments around them costing 1.

REC: 2?
Now that's a baaaad deal. Really. I only get + REC in stun and END once every 12 segments, that's like twice or three times a battle. I often see people selling REC back (with high con and str you get an easy 6-8 points), and I never see them buying it, because it's expensive. I see REC at 1. Good value for your points.

STUN: 1
Compared to defenses, that's expensive. I have 10 PD, 10 ED and 10 STUN, you have 30 STUN. Three 10-point attacks will take you down, I can't even feel them. Two Attacks at 15 knock us both out. Only Attacks which hit between 20 and 29 are "better" for you, since you can take the first hit, and I can't. But then, we've spent 30 points on defenses + stun, whereas the attack was at around 40-50 points to be able to do that much damage.
I would like to see stun at 0.5, or even 1:3.

END: 0.5
Now that's even worse. Nobody buys End. NOBODY. End reserve on the other hand looks mighty tasty. I would try to go with 1:5, that looks fair and gives good numbers. I spend 10 points on end and get 50 END, which last me about 2 turns tops.


Important thought: How much is a point in hero? It's quite a lot. For 6 points, you get a 12d6 EB slot in your MP, or for 10 points you get +1 on all rolls you ever roll, or for 10 points, you get enough Damage Resistance to hold down most of a 4d6 KA. Yes, a point is a lot, and that explains why people don't want to waste it on 2 END or 0.5 REC.

[nexus]

Here's my idea for a way Com could be written up to give both sides of the issue what they want.


Comeliness: This characteristic measures the character's aesthetic appeal. It may represent beauty, impressiveness or anything else that appeals to the senses. Every 5 points of Com over 8 gives a +1 bonus on Interaction skills and +1d6 to Inspirational/Positive Pre attacks in situations where the GM feels it’s appropriate. Otherwise Com’s effects are primarily role playing. Hero System assumes Com is based on Human ideals but this will not be true for all campaigns. GMs wishing a more “realistic” simulation can ignore this characteristic and instead have the player purchase Skill Levels and Pre with appropriate Limitations. Comeliness costs 1 point per point of Characteristic.


The increased cost is due the complimentary roll being replaced by set. bonuses. It's off the top of my head and comes in at 104 words but I think it could provide a good starting point if nothing else.

[Susano]

Allow me to repeat -- I like!

[Gandalf5]

I apologize if this has already come up, but I like the idea of increasing granularity in characteristics by tying skill cost/advancement to characteristic levels. Treat a characteristic as the normal skill maxima level and increase cost to purchase skill level beyond that maximum, or offer decreased cost for skill levels below the charater's "potential". For example, a character with an INT 14 might pay 1pt/+1 to Computer Programming (starting at a base value of 11- instead of 9+INT/5) up to Computer Programming 14-, then charge 2pts/+1 for 15 and up. There are any number of variants on this theme, I'm just suggesting one possible one here.

[Lucius]

Optional Characteristics:

I think there should definitely be something at the end of the Characteristics section of the book mentioning that at the Game Operations Director's option, some Characteristics can be added for certain campaigns, or the costs of characteristics changed if they will be more or less meaningful in a given campaign. Then give examples of optional Characteristics:

COM - Comeliness

MD - Mental Defense

MAN - Mana Points

Lucius Alexander

I can't quite justify redefining the palindromedary as a characteristic....not everybody has one!

[rjcurrie]

EXACTLY! This is why I’ve been so resistant to Hero Designer. A program that warns me “you’re breaking a rule” – useful. A program that says “you’re breaking a rule, you can’t do that” – worse than useless!! If I want to change/break/ignore a rule, the machine should get out of the way and let me.

I'd just like to point out that a lot of the warnings and prohibitions in Hero Designer can be turned off in the Preferences and Campaign Rules. You can also turn off the "Modifier Intelligence" if you lilke so that you can apply any Modifier on any power whether it is book legal or not.

[rjcurrie]

Optional Characteristics:

I think there should definitely be something at the end of the Characteristics section of the book mentioning that at the Game Operations Director's option, some Characteristics can be added for certain campaigns, or the costs of characteristics changed if they will be more or less meaningful in a given campaign. Then give examples of optional Characteristics:

COM - Comeliness

MD - Mental Defense

MAN - Mana Points

Lucius Alexander

I can't quite justify redefining the palindromedary as a characteristic....not everybody has one!

Well, to me, it belongs in whatever chapter deals with the GM creating a campaign, but the basic idea isn't bad.

[Paragon]

2. They make sense.

If they made sense for all characters, we wouldn't be here. A giant blob monster doesn't have a high DEF but has a high STR. A forklift doesn't get a high DEF from having a high STR, it gets it because it's a hunk of metal. Strip off those metal plates and it wouldn't have a high DEF.




The problem is that we don't buy the premise. They don't have to make sense for absolutely every character, just the majority. Many of abilities have a set of traits associated with them that don't make sense for absolutely every use of that power or ability. Hero deals with that by providing Limitations for when they don't. What they do is to make sense for the majority of cases, and that's my argument here.

Hero isn't atomic, and isn't likely to be atomic after Steve deals with it; if it was really atomic, all we'd have in powers would be some very small number of powers and everything would be built up from there.

That's why I've argued this is a particular point where the majority of objections are based on this particular connection--the fact that characteristics are a set of traits, some of which don't always go with absolutely every build--is something that bothers a particular view, rather than any sort of really systemic objection, because as far as I can see, the people objecting seem to accept the same philosophy in other places. Why does Growth include Strength? Why do Entangles automatically assume both Defense and Body (heck, why do they automatically assume either)? Why is Stun and Body a default component of blast?

Because for the majority of uses, those make sense. To me at least, that's just as true of the majority of cases with figured attributes, and just like those, there's a procedure for modifying them if it doesn't.

Unless the proponents can explain how this case is fundamentally different without effectively saying "it doesn't make sense"--which is essentially a question of perception--this is just going to go 'round and 'round.

[Lucius]

Okay, I am going all the way back to March of 2003 for this. At that time, it had taken me years to come to this conclusion. But having come to it, it stuck, and five years later I can bring up these old posts and they still speak for me.
Yes, under the New Regime, if Characteristic Maximum is used at all, it is the same for everyone. The Giant and the Pixie both have Max STR of 20. Oddly enough, this is in spite of the fact that a 40 yr old man has a STR Max of 15. Age makes a difference, but not species.
Makes as much sense as global warming in CIV II (for those who don't know, in the computer game Civilization II, if your planet suffers global warming, it never changes the Glacier or Tundra terrains. No matter how much your globe warms, ice caps never melt and permafrost never thaws.)
***Deleted for space considerations***
I have seen the whole concept of Normal Characteristic Maxima generate so much controversy however, that I am of the opinion that it is an idea the game can do without. It simply does not do what it was designed to do, and merely adds needless complication to the game. It should be a guideline only, and up to each Game Operations Director to set limits on the characteristics of characters. Not "it costs double past this point," a mechanic used nowhere else in the game to restrict skills, powers, or anything else, but a hard limit - "no, you cannot play a 'normal Human' with a STR of 24!"
Lucius Alexander
The palindromedary observes that we have opened this brand of canned worms before....




I think that Fred's way of handling this is easily the best of any of the options I've seen. It is the same for all characters, and therefore both fair and balanced. If you want to be a giant, you have to pay for being strong. You want to play an agile elf, you have to pay for Dex. What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with it. Pay 26 pts for a DEX of 23, or 30 pts for a STR of 40, and you have your Elf or Giant. It's the same for all characters, and fair and balanced.

It's already up to every Games Operations Director to set limits for his game. And NCM is designed to reinforce genre conventions in Heroic games, buy limiting the number of character that have characteristics above the "heroic" range (more than 20). By charging double for anything above 20, it does that effectively.

Not really. What it does is create yet another artificial breakpoint in a game that already has too many of them, and results in every warrior taking a STR of 20.

It does not, in and of itself, prevent anyone from taking an unreasonable or unrealistic characteristic.

Say I am creating a pair of flower-selling monks in a heroic game with 75 base points and up to 75 disadvantages. Brother Rose has a Dex of 20 (costs 30) and spends 50 pts on SPD (10 pts ups it to 4, the "Max," and another 40 ups it to 6.) That costs 80 pts, and if he sells off 3" Running for -6 pts he still has a ground speed half again a normal Human's, and has all his points from Disads to pay for botany, flower arranging, and what the heck, he'll study some canon law too. His sidekick Brother Orchid has a STR of 40 costing 50 pts, and uses some disad points to buy his flowery skills, and still comes in as a "weaker than character" DNPC.

Now, is any sane G.O.D. going to permit this pair? No, they will probably change their names to Brother Ragweed and Brother Crabgrass and tell the player to toss them on the compost pile. But that is exactly what they would have had to do if there WERE no "Normal Characteristic Maxima," except that the outrageous characteristics would have been an 8 SPD and a 60 STR.

The message to G.O.D.'s is - You, and only you, can prevent florist friars. The Characteristic Maxima rule can't do it for you. And if it doesn't, what good is it?

If a GM wants giants to be able to buy up their STR more cheaply than any of the other characters, he has several ways available for him to do that (upping their NCM, providing a higher starting point, etc). But any method you use is going to make playing a giant more cost effective than other types of characters (which I think we agree is bad).

How about this method - abolish Characteristic Maxima? It does not make a giant more cost effective (unless you think STR is incorrectly costed in the game to begin with, and many people do, but that is a seperate issue.) Then even a Pixie can have Giant's STR. Except of course that if you want a STR 40 you probably don't want a Pixie, and if you DO want a Pixie with super strength you better have a darn good reason if I'm the one running the game.

Of course, he could then penalize giant characters in other ways, or find ways to provide points to other races, but what would be the point? He could just as easily let the double costs for stats above NCM do that for him.

I believe I've already made the point that "the double cost for stats above NCM" doesn't do a darn thing for him except needlessly complicate the game.

Age is a disadvantage. There has to be a penalty for taking it. Lowering your NCM is that penalty. You can play a 80 year old man without taking Age 80+, and buy the stats that you feel are apropriate without penalty. Again, I see nothing wrong with it.
Hm. you see nothing wrong with this, and consider it a "penalty" if I want to play an aged mage with INT, EGO, and PRE at superhuman levels, heavy on EGO dependent mental powers (ECV 10 VS normal ECV 3) and without any STR dependent weapons or other combat options and STR, CON, etc at about 10 - normal for a healthy 20 yr old? Isn't this making my mage "more cost effective?"
Yet you do see something wrong with creating yet another different cost schedule for characters of a different species or nature than the "norm?" It's okay in one case, but not in the other?
Now, what age SHOULD be is a Physical Limitation ("Waddaya mean, I have to make a CON roll to take a RECovery?" "You're not as young as you used to be, geezer, it's harder to catch your breath!") like "Lame," perhaps a Limitation you only permit to people with lower STR and CON than normal for the campaign. Just as you wouldn't give "Lame" to someone who bought up SPD and Running, or "Distinctive Features: Ugly" to someone with a COM of 18. Similarly, there should be a Physical Limit "Merely Mortal" in superheroic campaigns, for martial artists or gadgeteers who can hurt their fists if they hit brick walls, sometimes catch colds, and otherwise can't or don't take advantage of the assumption that playercharacters are all "superhuman."
Finally, I will suggest that if NCM were really such a great idea, it would have been adopted through the rest of the system. It is a complete anomaly in Hero. The New Dispensation emphasizes (Probably as the result of the collective experience of numerous players) setting "campaign limits" for things like Active Points, Damage Classes, Defense, etc. These are all only "suggested guidelines" - only Characteristic Maxima is a "rule" and only Characteristic Maxima is arbitrarily set at a certain point for all campaigns it applies to, rather than being flexible depending on style of campaign and subject to change at G.O.D. discretion. Further, nowhere else is it said "you can exceed the campaign limits if you pay double cost." It is always either a hard limit, or a limit that can be exceeded under some circumstances or with the right justification, not one you can break just by paying double. If the campaign rule is "No Mental Powers" you can't take an Ego Attack by paying 20 pts per die, or 40 pts even.
Hero is inherently a very complex system - in fact, I would judge it at just about the upper limit of practical complexity for a roleplaying game. NCM is a needless complication that adds nothing of value to the game. Putting characteristics among the things there should be "campaign limits" for would simplify the game and cost nothing.
Lucius Alexander


Likewise the idea that NCM applies with the same levels to pixies and ogres, but not to horses, elephants and palindromedaries is, well, just silly.
cheers, Mark

PPS (Post Palindromedary Stuff) And if you don't like the idea of a 40 STR Pixie - guess what? NCM STILL doesn't help you! It just means the Pixie and the Giant both have to pay the same high cost - it doesn't make it any harder for the Pixie than for the Giant to be strong. All told, one of the best possible things 6th Edition could do is probably to drop the Normal Characteristic Maxima.

[nexus]

Optional Characteristics:

I think there should definitely be something at the end of the Characteristics section of the book mentioning that at the Game Operations Director's option, some Characteristics can be added for certain campaigns, or the costs of characteristics changed if they will be more or less meaningful in a given campaign. Then give examples of optional Characteristics:

COM - Comeliness

MD - Mental Defense

MAN - Mana Points

Lucius Alexander

I can't quite justify redefining the palindromedary as a characteristic....not everybody has one!

That seems like a fair compromise. It would take up a little space but potentially adds a great deal of flexibility.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: NCM....

After reading much of the discussion, it seems to me that the concept/rule should stay, but be optional based on the campaign. If you like it, fine. If you don't, then don't use it.

[Paragon]

Actually, the problem is that there are several reasons to change it, and the people who don't want the change keep
focusing on one or two, just as with you chopping out most of my post to concentrate on this one thing. I agree that they work for most characters.



This assumes the others are relevant enough for someone to consider being worth responding to, though. My basic position is that its the proponents of change who need to make their case to change it. I've seen two consistent arguments for this: that it constrains character design, and that it makes the maths messy. I don't entirely disagree with the latter, but since (outside of some problems with Strength that are, to me, more artifacts of Strength's base cost than what it yields) they seem trivial to me, I don't pursue them.

The character constraint argument, on the other hand, I think has some legitimacy, but it also appears to be a selective objection, for the reasons I state, so that's the part I'm going to continue to address.

Or put another way, you're objecting because I didn't respond to points I never made myself and don't think are important. I don't think that's a reasonable objection. I don't feel obliged to defend positions I don't share, and I'm not required to share all objections to respond to one.

[Hugh Neilson]

Which actually has little if anything to do with the matter at hand. Both Powers and Characteristics give you something for what you are buying. STR allows you to hit people and lift things. DEX allows you to be agile and have CV. Movement allows you to move and increases the damage of existing Combat Maneuvers. Those are aspects of those abilities, not separate Powers.

The only place anywhere in the rules where you get an actual Power for having another one is in Figured Characteristics.[/quote]

Actually, all Mental Powers grant Mental Awareness, Stretching and Shrinking grant Momentum Damage bonuses, movement powers grant Move By and Move Through bonuses, Shrinking enhances DCV, Growth and Density Increase grant Knockback Resistance and a suite of other abilities, flight can boost lifting STR or knockback resistance, high EGO gets you more if you buy mental defense, both EGO and PRE defend from PRE attacks, but don't accumulate so you lose the benefit of buying one up if you also bought the other up, and HKA grants bonus dice derived from your STR, just off the top of my head. Telekinesis is always Indirect and mental powers posses automatic IPE.

The only cost break in the system that is "forced" upon you, regardless of what you are building, is Figured Characteristics.

As with most of the advantages gained above, you can limit the characteristics to grant no figured characteristics and voila! The cost savings is not "forced upon you."

They are inconsistent with the rest of the rules and therefore should be looked at. I'm not personally convinced that they should be removed, but whether or not I like the change ultimately depends on what is done to compensate for their loss.

To my mind, there are two issues. First, I think there's a lot more "coupling" than just figured characteristics. If we seriously think there is merit to decoupling, let's look at all the links. OCV and DCV based on DEX are no morre logical, or universal, than the figured characteristics' link to primary characteristics. There's no reason PRE should make you impressive, persuasive AND resistant to the impressiveness of others.

What are the advantages of keeping them?

1. They provide a cost break for cohesive characters.

I would say rather that, overall they balance when comparing powers-based characters (who use frameworks) with stat-based characters (who benefit from figured's). Until I see the mechanics used in the new regime, it's tough to say that the revised system won't be as (or more) balanced, but the extent of change required system-wide makes me nervous in that regard.

If they made sense for all characters, we wouldn't be here. A giant blob monster doesn't have a high DEF but has a high STR. A forklift doesn't get a high DEF from having a high STR, it gets it because it's a hunk of metal. Strip off those metal plates and it wouldn't have a high DEF.

Nor does it make sense that a natural thief has high CV's, nor that a natural con man is impressive, or resistant to the impressiveness of others. Why can a hypnotist (Mind Control) always detect other mental powers in use? Thus, this argument, at least to me, goes beyond Figured Characteristics to the issue of any ability that grants other abilities. Don't stop at the six items which were labelled "figured characteristics" - there are lots of other effects figured from other abilities. And not every character taking the baseline ability should automatically have the coupled abilities, on a conceptual basis.

At the same time, however, I'd like to see some concrete examples of characters for whom Figureds are actually a problem, or how specifically it is a problem for "all characters". I'm not seeing that, and I like the change, at least a little.

I agree. I would also like to see examples of teams, of comparable power level, with differing abilities, which are (or at least are believed) balanced under the current model presented under the new model to show me that balance will be maintained without inordinate levels of increased complexity.

[archermoo]

My basic position is that its the proponents of change who need to make their case to change it.

Except that Steve has already stated that he intends to drop Figured Characteristics unless someone can provide him with a "particularly convincing argument". Fair or not, that puts the onus on those opposed to the change to come up with that particularly convincing argument. Checking out the first post in this thread will give you what Steve's reasons for thinking the change is a good one, so will give you a starting place towards coming up with it.

[McCoy]

This might be being discussed on another thread, so if so I apologize. But didn't power frameworks get created in the first place to balance the energy blasters and martial artists with the Bricks, because the bricks got a huge point break because of figured characteristics?
Not that I recall. Frameworks were suppost to be a bonus for a tight concept and consistant Special Effects. Spreading an EB was the mechanic introduced to make up to Blasters that Bricks got their first two dice of damage "for free."

[Paragon]

Except that Steve has already stated that he intends to drop Figured Characteristics unless someone can provide him with a "particularly convincing argument". Fair or not, that puts the onus on those opposed to the change to come up with that particularly convincing argument. Checking out the first post in this thread will give you what Steve's reasons for thinking the change is a good one, so will give you a starting place towards coming up with it.

I honestly don't think I'm going to convince Steve. I saw his argument and I've expressed the problem with the only part of it I think can be argued on anything but perspective, but I don't think that's going to be sufficient if he's dedicated to doing so. So the best I think I can do is point out that I think there's an inconsistency in the logic of those supporting it.

[Paragon]

Not that I recall. Frameworks were suppost to be a bonus for a tight concept and consistant Special Effects. Spreading an EB was the mechanic introduced to make up to Blasters that Bricks got their first two dice of damage "for free."

ECs are a bonus for tight concept. That's never really been what multipowers or even VPPs were about.

[archermoo]

I honestly don't think I'm going to convince Steve. I saw his argument and I've expressed the problem with the only part of it I think can be argued on anything but perspective, but I don't think that's going to be sufficient if he's dedicated to doing so. So the best I think I can do is point out that I think there's an inconsistency in the logic of those supporting it.

Understandable. I haven't seen objections to it that I've found particularly convincing, so it wouldn't surprise me if Steve wasn't convinced by them either.

[Toadmaster]

Except that Steve has already stated that he intends to drop Figured Characteristics unless someone can provide him with a "particularly convincing argument". Fair or not, that puts the onus on those opposed to the change to come up with that particularly convincing argument. Checking out the first post in this thread will give you what Steve's reasons for thinking the change is a good one, so will give you a starting place towards coming up with it.


You know this is true and has been said several times. The issue I have here is 1 Steve should at least explain himself, why does he think this is a good move? Perhaps doing so could persuade us, but cause I'm the writer doesn't do it for me. 2 I don't find repeating this over and over to be any more useful than people saying they won't buy 6th if this or that change is implimented. Both are true statements but neither are particularly satisfying arguments.

Leaving it unanswered just strengthens my lack of enthusiasm for the new edition.

[Diamond_J]

my Char block setup as CHAR, BASE, COST

STR 10 1x
DEX 10 1x
CON 10 1x
BODY 10 1x (possibly 2x)
INT 10 1x
EGO 10 1x
PRE 10 1x

PD 2 1x
ED 2 1x
MD 2 1x
SPD 2 10x
REC 4 2x
END 20 1/2x
STUN 20 1x

CV 3 3x (possibly 2x)
ECV 3 3x (possibly 2x)

RUN 6" 2x
SWIM 2" 1x
LEAP 2" 1xthis would also effectivly do away with CSLs (as they are built in as stats you can put points into) and have the advantage of reducing those cost totals up in Steve's post back down to around the same levels. it adds a few characteristics, sure, but i think that taking uo 3 extra lines on a sheet (actually only 2, because COM got the boot) is very worth this evening out of attributes and the beneifts of severing the ties on these things.

I like this configuration but I think Steven Long should do away with CON. Since all secoundary attributes are divorced, CON’s purpose becomes minimal almost non-existent. All CON would do is provide the factor of how much damage one can take before becoming stunned. BODY can assume this role rather well in CON's absence don't you think? That's also one more attribute that can be thinned out, streamlining everything.

I'd also be tempted to rename DEX and END as AGILITY and ENERGY. You could literally make all these changes without even touching the rest of the system mechanics.

STR, DEX, BODY, INT, EGO, PRE; these are the only essential prime attributes. Moreover it provides 3 physical and 3 mental attributes, an even emphasis on the physical and mental thus providing greater balance.



I hope HERO staff is reading this.

[Diamond_J]

You know this is true and has been said several times. The issue I have here is 1 Steve should at least explain himself, why does he think this is a good move? Perhaps doing so could persuade us, but cause I'm the writer doesn't do it for me. 2 I don't find repeating this over and over to be any more useful than people saying they won't buy 6th if this or that change is implimented. Both are true statements but neither are particularly satisfying arguments.

Leaving it unanswered just strengthens my lack of enthusiasm for the new edition.

It's not that it's being said over and over your missing the point. Chances are this is going to happen regardless. What needs disscussing is how this is to be implimented. What should the attributes be worth with this change in mind. Futhermore I honestly don't understand what the big deal is. These proposed alterations change the systeme in a way that's unobtrusive, which is to say devorcing prime and secoundary stats only makes for less book keeping and a quicker learning curve

Do you follow?

What doesn't help is all the talk about what it shouldn't be. It would save time if people kept to explane what it should be. It's easy to crap on an idea and harder to come up with your own.

[Toadmaster]

It's not that it's being said over and over your missing the point. Chances are this is going to happen regardless. What needs disscussing is how this is to be implimented. What should the attributes be worth with this change in mind. Futhermore I honestly don't understand what the big deal is. These proposed alterations change the systeme in a way that's unobtrusive, which is to say devorcing prime and secoundary stats only makes for less book keeping and a quicker learning curve

Do you follow?

What doesn't help is all the talk about what it shouldn't be. It would save time if people kept to explane what it should be. It's easy to crap on an idea and harder to come up with your own.


Fine then enjoy your game, I won't be there. I am not alone either, I hope DOJ can find replacements.

[Kdansky]

Separating figureds results in some advantages, like the freedom to create all concepts and not be blocked out on some by the rules for no good reason (high con, high body, low end, low stun) and makes some other concepts waaaay cleaner priced (low con, low str, high stun, high end). Since you are allowed to combine any powers and skills, you should also be allowed to combine any characterstics.
The disadvantage of separating? None. You can still build all the old characters, although they will be priced slightly differently. But as soon as you change anything, pricing we change too... So thats really no argument against change.

[Toadmaster]

It's not that it's being said over and over your missing the point. Chances are this is going to happen regardless. What needs disscussing is how this is to be implimented. What should the attributes be worth with this change in mind. Futhermore I honestly don't understand what the big deal is. These proposed alterations change the systeme in a way that's unobtrusive, which is to say devorcing prime and secoundary stats only makes for less book keeping and a quicker learning curve

Do you follow?

What doesn't help is all the talk about what it shouldn't be. It would save time if people kept to explane what it should be. It's easy to crap on an idea and harder to come up with your own.


You know I've had time to think this over, and what I have decided is that since it is quite obvious that the opinions of long time players who have invested a large amount of time and gobs of money over the years are apparently not wanted, I no longer have an interest in dealing with them. The HERO boards used to be a fun place to hang out and discuss ideas. But ever since the 6th ed was announced it isn't. A lot of uglyness has shown up, and while Steve supposedly put these up so we could discuss these proposed changes it is quite apparent that is not the case. The Mods have failed to keep it civil and in fact the mods have had to warn each other. I have somewhere in the neighborhood of $5000 worth of HERO stuff, I think that is enough. I've always thought HERO gamers were a cut above but its clear they are just as petty as any others.

Go ahead and warn me ban me or what ever, no notice has been taken of the abuse of the wary of change crowd so it won't surprise me and I won't make much difference since I won't be spending time here anymore anyway.

[rmccarty4]

REC:... I often see people selling REC back (with high con and str you get an easy 6-8 points), and I never see them buying it, because it's expensive.
...
END: 0.5... Nobody buys End. NOBODY. End reserve on the other hand looks mighty tasty. I would try to go with 1:5, that looks fair and gives good numbers. I spend 10 points on end and get 50 END, which last me about 2 turns tops.

I have to imagine that your playing experience is primarily with low-med SPD characters (5 & below), and with low-medium power level (say, <= 50 Active Pts), OR everyone buys Reduced or Zero END Cost on their powers. I say this because the value of Endurance and Recovery is pretty much proportional to how much END you spend in a turn, both of which are directly proportional to the SPD of characters and END cost of attacks & powers. A 6 SPD character spending, say, 5-8 END/Phase will burn 30-50 END per Turn. That's easily done with a Flying, Force-Field using, Energy Blasting character. Of course, Reduced END Cost or Zero END Cost are possible responses, but they cost points too, just like END & REC. You write that 50 END will last you two turns, tops -- the remedy to that is to buy up your REC, no?

As for the effectiveness of a large REC, I recall fighting Giganto, who IIRC had a REC north of 20. We almost had him on the ropes, after two turns of hard fighting. When Giganto took a Phase 12 Recovery and a Post-12 Recovery one right after the other, we knew (OOC) that his STUN & END were essentially at full again. OTOH, we were running low on END by that time.

Without Figured Chars in 6E, I think players will be wise to buy up their REC, and often END, and at current costs (2:1 & 1:2, respectively). Drop the prices as you suggest, and it'll be even more effective -- too effective, IMO.

[rmccarty4]

Having noodled further, I'm starting to come around to the idea that BODY should be costed 1:1 in a no-Figured-Characteristics world.

Complaints about Characteristic costs seem to revolve around STR, and to a lesser degree, CON & DEX. Without Figured Characteristics or Leaping, I strongly believe STR is correctly costed at 1:1. Without the SPD benefit but everything else DEX currently does, 3:1 is still appropriate, as I see 2:1 creating a further incentive to substitute DEX for Combat Skill Levels.

But I don't read discussions that BODY is too cheap under existing rules, so taking the STUN benefit away should reasonably drop the cost. Besides, it'll help contribute to dramatic reality: most heroes really are damn hard to kill, even when they're wounded.

[Starlight]

There’s been a lot of rhetoric and emotional content so far in the discussion regarding figured characteristics but up until now not much in the way of numbers. I want to begin to address this lack. I’ll be looking at superhero characters only. Someone more familiar with heroic level games than I am can easily do the same exercise with heroic characters. I’m going to use Steve Long’s example Brick from his starting post and compare that result with three of the example superhero characters in 5ER. (pages 496-503)

These are the extra points needed to return characters to their exact starting condition given the removal of figured characteristics and no change to any characteristic cost.

Example Brick (Steve Long) requires an additional 122pts.
Tarus (50 STR Semi-brick) requires an additional 109pts.
Eagle-Eye (Martial Artist) requires an additional 46pts.
Maelstrom (Energy Blaster) requires an additional 52pts.

From these results we can see that no fixed additional number of character points will keep these character archetypes balanced against each other. Adding 122pts to restore the brick gives the martial artist and energy blaster roughly 70pts extra after bringing them back to their starting condition. Conversely adding 52pts to restore the energy blaster or martial artist leaves the brick taking a hit of 70pts.

It’s been stated elsewhere that bricks are overpowered by default. I cannot say my own gaming experience has shown any evidence of that - but I’m willing to concede the point hypothetically in the interest of furthering the discussion. If bricks were overpowered to the extent of anything like 70pts it would have utterly broken the superhero game. Since the superhero game is not completely broken we can presume this is not the case. In which event removing figured characteristics and leaving characteristic costs unchanged will now break the superhero game.

If it was simply a matter of adjusting the starting character points to compensate I believe Steve Long's stated intent to remove figured characteristics would be the right course of action. Doing this would offer greater flexibility without preventing any existing concept from being created. The results above show clearly, however, that removing figured characteristics will have a very profound effect on the relationship between character archetypes in the superhero game. I would be interested in seeing the results from like exercises in other genres. One cannot but wonder if this is a Pandora’s Box that should be left shut, considering the impact, or the amount of remedial work required to minimise the impact, does look to outweigh the benefit.

[BobGreenwade]

I'm cross-posting this from the Combat thread, since it applies at least as much to this topic.I also think that CV and Skill Rolls should be computed in the same way (either Stat/5 or Stat/3).I've implied it elsewhere (particuarly in the Characteristics thread), but I'd like to clearly state my opposition to this idea. Having Skills Rolls work on CHA/5 and CV on CHA/3 is an aspect of the system that's been good at making nearly every point of DEX count for something significant; whether the next pip is worthwhile depends on which is more important for the particular character. Toss in initiative -- 15 beats 14, 21 beats 20, and so forth -- and there just aren't that many unattractive numbers for DEX. (A few, but not many.) We have almost as good a situation with EGO. I'd love to see more of the same for other Characteristics: the finer damage differentiation for STR (and PRE, for Presence Attacks), greater use of ICV and PCV (perhaps in the proposed Social Interaction system), and other ideas.

[steamteck]

IThese proposed alterations change the systeme in a way that's unobtrusive, which is to say devorcing prime and secoundary stats only makes for less book keeping and a quicker learning curve



I guess our opinion of unobtrusive is different. Of course some find COM so obtrusive and offensive it has to go. I disagree about the quicker learning curve and have posted why earlier several different ways.

[steamteck]

I
I'd also be tempted to rename DEX and END as AGILITY and ENERGY. You could literally make all these changes without even touching the rest of the system mechanics.

STR, DEX, BODY, INT, EGO, PRE; these are the only essential prime attributes. Moreover it provides 3 physical and 3 mental attributes, an even emphasis on the physical and mental thus providing greater balance.

.


I like the way it is now but as long as we're cutting down. I'd just as soon see other peoples sacred cows on the cutting block too and this is a pretty good configuration. I like agility and energy ( played any Freedom Force?) but DEX may cover more that just agility.

[BobGreenwade]

There’s been a lot of rhetoric and emotional content so far in the discussion regarding figured characteristics but up until now not much in the way of numbers. I want to begin to address this lack. I’ll be looking at superhero characters only. Someone more familiar with heroic level games than I am can easily do the same exercise with heroic characters. I’m going to use Steve Long’s example Brick from his starting post and compare that result with three of the example superhero characters in 5ER. (pages 496-503)

These are the extra points needed to return characters to their exact starting condition given the removal of figured characteristics and no change to any characteristic cost.

Example Brick (Steve Long) requires an additional 122pts.
Tarus (50 STR Semi-brick) requires an additional 109pts.
Eagle-Eye (Martial Artist) requires an additional 46pts.
Maelstrom (Energy Blaster) requires an additional 52pts.

From these results we can see that no fixed additional number of character points will keep these character archetypes balanced against each other. Adding 122pts to restore the brick gives the martial artist and energy blaster roughly 70pts extra after bringing them back to their starting condition. Conversely adding 52pts to restore the energy blaster or martial artist leaves the brick taking a hit of 70pts.

It’s been stated elsewhere that bricks are overpowered by default. I cannot say my own gaming experience has shown any evidence of that - but I’m willing to concede the point hypothetically in the interest of furthering the discussion. If bricks were overpowered to the extent of anything like 70pts it would have utterly broken the superhero game. Since the superhero game is not completely broken we can presume this is not the case. In which event removing figured characteristics and leaving characteristic costs unchanged will now break the superhero game.

If it was simply a matter of adjusting the starting character points to compensate I believe Steve Long's stated intent to remove figured characteristics would be the right course of action. Doing this would offer greater flexibility without preventing any existing concept from being created. The results above show clearly, however, that removing figured characteristics will have a very profound effect on the relationship between character archetypes in the superhero game. I would be interested in seeing the results from like exercises in other genres. One cannot but wonder if this is a Pandora’s Box that should be left shut, considering the impact, or the amount of remedial work required to minimise the impact, does look to outweigh the benefit.

Surely true, Starlight, but let's try a couple of other things than increasing points.



Let's say here that we halve the cost of STUN and REC, and reduce END cost to 1/10 as it is in END Reserves. That's 62 points less, bringing us much closer in line with the others.



This one saves 6+8+10=24, so comes out 28 points up. Closer to being in line, maybe even close enough if you accept that bricks were overpowered. I don't, so let's add something else.

Instead of just buying straight STR, buy something like:

22 EC: Great Strength
23s-Great Strength: +45 STR
23s-Muscle Tension: +15 PD +15 ED Force Field, 0 END (+1/2)

I built this to be 5th Ed legal, save for not taking No Figured on STR. Hence the Force Field, but I think that works out well: when you're unconscious, you relax, so the muscle tone that acts as a defense goes away. It wouldn't particularly bother me if the Power Must Cost END thing were removed, though.

Reduce base STR to 15 for a savings of 45 points, and PD and ED each to 15 for 30 more. Only 7 points there, so 53 compared to 28. I find that reasonably acceptable, but it could stand some more tweaking.What if the only cost changes are reducing DEX to x2, CON and BODY to x1 each?

Frankly, short of something extremely simple like that, I'm starting to see that decoupling Figured Characteristics would either grossly throw off game balance or require such changes as to risk making the game nearly unrecognizable as Hero. What you've shown here, Phil, is a not-unreasonable attempt at a compromise, but we do need to remember that the more radical the change is made to the system the greater the risk of unforeseen side effects. We're mostly intelligent, reasonable people here, but the real test audience for how well this works will be the semi-reformed powergaming minimaxers -- the ones who understand the meaning of character concept, but still want to build the most number-effective character possible.

[steamteck]

Frankly, short of something extremely simple like that, I'm starting to see that decoupling Figured Characteristics would either grossly throw off game balance or require such changes as to risk making the game nearly unrecognizable as Hero. What you've shown here, Phil, is a not-unreasonable attempt at a compromise, but we do need to remember that the more radical the change is made to the system the greater the risk of unforeseen side effects. We're mostly intelligent, reasonable people here, but the real test audience for how well this works will be the semi-reformed powergaming minimaxers -- the ones who understand the meaning of character concept, but still want to build the most number-effective character possible.


I'm in that camp.:D

[Lucius]

Frankly, short of something extremely simple like that, I'm starting to see that decoupling Figured Characteristics would either grossly throw off game balance or require such changes as to risk making the game nearly unrecognizable as Hero. What you've shown here, Phil, is a not-unreasonable attempt at a compromise, but we do need to remember that the more radical the change is made to the system the greater the risk of unforeseen side effects. We're mostly intelligent, reasonable people here, but the real test audience for how well this works will be the semi-reformed powergaming minimaxers -- the ones who understand the meaning of character concept, but still want to build the most number-effective character possible.

Steve Long still has, what, a year and a half to work on it?

And he has our help for as long as he wants it.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary and I weren't really in favor of this "decoupling" scheme but if it's what Mr. Long wants, we think he can possibly pull it off without wrecking the game.

[archermoo]

You know this is true and has been said several times. The issue I have here is 1 Steve should at least explain himself, why does he think this is a good move? Perhaps doing so could persuade us, but cause I'm the writer doesn't do it for me. 2 I don't find repeating this over and over to be any more useful than people saying they won't buy 6th if this or that change is implimented. Both are true statements but neither are particularly satisfying arguments.

Leaving it unanswered just strengthens my lack of enthusiasm for the new edition.

He has explained why he thinks it is a good idea. Check out the first post in this thread, where he first introduces the idea. He has in fact explained his position on every single change that he has proposed, both the ones that he agrees with and the ones that he doesn't. I won't claim that you or anyone else finds his reasons to be convincing, but you shouldn't pretend that he hasn't given them. Even if you don't find his reasons to be convincing they at least give you a starting point to frame a counter-argument.

And the reason that I brought it up is that someone else made the comment that people who want the change should have to provide the argument to change things. I was pointing out that that isn't the case here.

[archermoo]

I have to imagine that your playing experience is primarily with low-med SPD characters (5 & below), and with low-medium power level (say, <= 50 Active Pts), OR everyone buys Reduced or Zero END Cost on their powers. I say this because the value of Endurance and Recovery is pretty much proportional to how much END you spend in a turn, both of which are directly proportional to the SPD of characters and END cost of attacks & powers. A 6 SPD character spending, say, 5-8 END/Phase will burn 30-50 END per Turn. That's easily done with a Flying, Force-Field using, Energy Blasting character. Of course, Reduced END Cost or Zero END Cost are possible responses, but they cost points too, just like END & REC. You write that 50 END will last you two turns, tops -- the remedy to that is to buy up your REC, no?

As for the effectiveness of a large REC, I recall fighting Giganto, who IIRC had a REC north of 20. We almost had him on the ropes, after two turns of hard fighting. When Giganto took a Phase 12 Recovery and a Post-12 Recovery one right after the other, we knew (OOC) that his STUN & END were essentially at full again. OTOH, we were running low on END by that time.

Without Figured Chars in 6E, I think players will be wise to buy up their REC, and often END, and at current costs (2:1 & 1:2, respectively). Drop the prices as you suggest, and it'll be even more effective -- too effective, IMO.

I frequently buy up both REC and END for characters under the current system.

[archermoo]

I like the way it is now but as long as we're cutting down. I'd just as soon see other peoples sacred cows on the cutting block too and this is a pretty good configuration. I like agility and energy ( played any Freedom Force?) but DEX may cover more that just agility.

I've never found "Well I don't like some of the changes, so I'll support other ones that people don't like as payback" to be a particularly convincing argument.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, Mental Awareness I grant you, but all of those other things? Just part of the definition of the Power involved, and in some cases (growth momentum for Shrinking) ones I wouldn't lament the loss of. They don't give you Powers separate from themselves, they can be used in ways that, while they could be bought as other Powers, are an intrinsic part of the ability in question. That's what makes Figured Characteristics different: they are separate from the abilities they are based on.


If you don't perceive the Shrinking and Strretching bonuses as a variant of the separate Hand Attack power, they don't give you powers separate from themselves. I think Knockback Resistance is a separate power, but you can get it from Growth, Density Increase, Strength and Flight. Sure, they are logical outgrowths of those abilities. But I think Endurance, STUN and REC are logical outgrowths of physical health, so gaining these abilities from buying up CON is not granting powers separate from CON. Rather, the ability to purchase each of these attributes of health separate and apart from purchasing CON becomes an ability to customize, much like you could decide your growth monentum or stretch momentum is faster than the norm and buy extra dice, or decide it is absent due to your SFX and limit the ability (or limit the stat with figured characteristics), or do the same with knockback resistance. Whether certain abilities logically link to certain other abilities is a matter of opinion, and as such one which cannot be settled objectively.

I'm not concerned about the cost savings being forced. That would be silly. I'm concerned that a specific set of figured stats are the only ones I can get the cost break for. If a cost break for cohesive concept is desirable, which I'm not entirely sure of, then I would like to see characters get that cost break for STR and CON and so on regardless of concept, not only if they follow the one the book lays out. Yes, those will be the exceptions, but I see no reason they should be left out just because they are the few.

As indicated many pages ago, I feel an alternative solution would be to reprice figured characteristics (lower), revise the formuli slightly, and revise the value of "No Figured", to have the effect that taking No Figured on any primary stat would result in the same cost savings as selling back all of the figured characteristics. With this done, then bundle or no, all characters would achieve the same point savings.

Making the same changes to the price of figured characteristics and reducing the price of the related primary characteristics to their "no figured" costs would have the same effect, but (at least under my model) leave those characteristics with fractional costs. So, for the same reason (in my view) Aid costs No END by default and 10 points per die, instead of costing END by default (just like Healing) and costing 6 2/3 points per die, we leave in figured's and keep stat costs in even points.

Another alternative indicated above would be to allow characteristics in EC's so that characters could take "Big Strong Guy" EC's and "Healthy as a Horse" EC's. However, I think seeing the stats in the charateristics block is more intuitive than every Brick having a "Big Strong Guy" EC with STR, defenses, STUN and REC, and replacing the old 23 CON with "EC: Healthy" holding CON, STUN, END and REC.

There may be other great ideas for fixing the balance, but all these great rebalancing ideas have one thing in common - they aren't being presented. In the vacuum of "should we ditch figured characteristics, costing a standard Brick an extra 122 points and my standard Energy Projector 47 points, my answer is categorically NO because:

(a) I don't see the concerns raised regarding Figured to be that significant.

(b) I believe those concerns can be resolved in easier ways.

(c) I believe the proposed solution creates balance problems that are far more significant than the problems created by figured characteristics.

(d) I believe there are many more disguiosed "figured characteristics", most notably OCV and DCV. If these are not a problem, then I really don't think the clasically labelled Figured's are such a problem.

So I'll say it one more time: If you want me to buy in to the elimination of figured characteristics, show me how the characters will balance afterwards. Don't just tell me "oh, we'll have a fix for that - trust us". Show me how it will work overall, and show me that it will be balanced. That's my most significant concern.

First runner up is "Show me that decoupling will be addressed in the other areas where it currently creates similar problems". This is an area where I am seeing this - leaping is being considered, as are momentum damage and mental awareness. But there are still a lot of others, the most notable (and the one where logic and concept disconnects are still reasonably common) being CV derived from DEX.

I'm afraid I'm leaning more and more to the get rid of them camp. Ah, well.

If someone could show me the how the balance will be maintained, I would be much more inclined to accept the change, even if I thought the conceptual issues would be neutral.

That's actually both easy and impossible. Easy because there are ways to get them to balance, impossible because no specific plan has been officially presented. There is no real way to appease your nervousness on that score until Steve speaks up on it. Whereas examples of how Figured Characteristics get in the way should logically be easy enough to do. I'm hoping to be convinced.

Steve has spoken. He has said, in his first post, that he leans towards elimination of figured characteristics, but is uncertain how he will balance the change. When he shows me how he will balance the change, my concerns may be mollified. Until he does (and just giving everyone X additional points won't do it!), I think my concerns remain balanced.

There are two questions here:

1. Should they be eliminated? My answer: they are no different than the many other abilities which grant other abilities, so I am not hung up on whether or not they are eliminated. Here I would be on the fence. But if it is to be done, it should be done across the board, not merely to those six abilities that we label as "figured characteristics".

2. What will their elimination do to game balance? Here, I am very concerned, and I feel that, until and unless this question is addressed and resolved, I oppose removal of figured characteristics.

Not that I recall. Frameworks were suppost to be a bonus for a tight concept and consistant Special Effects. Spreading an EB was the mechanic introduced to make up to Blasters that Bricks got their first two dice of damage "for free."

Actually, a designer's article on 2nd Ed indicated that Spreading was supposed to be in the first edition, but somehow got lost (the term used was "Magneto attacked our disks"). I think spreading does differentiate EB's from STR, such that theyeach have benefits the other lacks.

You know I've had time to think this over, and what I have decided is that since it is quite obvious that the opinions of long time players who have invested a large amount of time and gobs of money over the years are apparently not wanted, I no longer have an interest in dealing with them. The HERO boards used to be a fun place to hang out and discuss ideas. But ever since the 6th ed was announced it isn't. A lot of uglyness has shown up, and while Steve supposedly put these up so we could discuss these proposed changes it is quite apparent that is not the case. The Mods have failed to keep it civil and in fact the mods have had to warn each other. I have somewhere in the neighborhood of $5000 worth of HERO stuff, I think that is enough. I've always thought HERO gamers were a cut above but its clear they are just as petty as any others.

Go ahead and warn me ban me or what ever, no notice has been taken of the abuse of the wary of change crowd so it won't surprise me and I won't make much difference since I won't be spending time here anymore anyway.

I disagree with your conclusion on one simple basis. I have seen entrenched positions on both sides of every issue with any controversy. I have seen rude responses to, and from, both sides. The debate is certainly heated.

I have not seen Steve Long, or any Hero rep (sorry, Mod's or even Simon don't count in my eyes as Hero reps) espouse these entrenched positions or respond rudely. And I see no evidence Steve is not serious about wanting feedback - he could have left this entire forum out and said "this is what we will change". He didn't. When I see HIS responses incorporating the same entrenched views and rudeness, then I will believe there is a problem. Not before.

I have to imagine that your playing experience is primarily with low-med SPD characters (5 & below), and with low-medium power level (say, <= 50 Active Pts), OR everyone buys Reduced or Zero END Cost on their powers. I say this because the value of Endurance and Recovery is pretty much proportional to how much END you spend in a turn, both of which are directly proportional to the SPD of characters and END cost of attacks & powers. A 6 SPD character spending, say, 5-8 END/Phase will burn 30-50 END per Turn. That's easily done with a Flying, Force-Field using, Energy Blasting character. Of course, Reduced END Cost or Zero END Cost are possible responses, but they cost points too, just like END & REC. You write that 50 END will last you two turns, tops -- the remedy to that is to buy up your REC, no?

No. It's to buy reduced END. That's cheaper.

As for the effectiveness of a large REC, I recall fighting Giganto, who IIRC had a REC north of 20. We almost had him on the ropes, after two turns of hard fighting. When Giganto took a Phase 12 Recovery and a Post-12 Recovery one right after the other, we knew (OOC) that his STUN & END were essentially at full again. OTOH, we were running low on END by that time.

How would you have nbeen doing if he had an extra 10 PD, 10 ED and 10 DEX (for the same 40 point cost as 20 REC)?

Example Brick (Steve Long) requires an additional 122pts.
Tarus (50 STR Semi-brick) requires an additional 109pts.
Eagle-Eye (Martial Artist) requires an additional 46pts.
Maelstrom (Energy Blaster) requires an additional 52pts.

From these results we can see that no fixed additional number of character points will keep these character archetypes balanced against each other. Adding 122pts to restore the brick gives the martial artist and energy blaster roughly 70pts extra after bringing them back to their starting condition. Conversely adding 52pts to restore the energy blaster or martial artist leaves the brick taking a hit of 70pts.

It’s been stated elsewhere that bricks are overpowered by default. I cannot say my own gaming experience has shown any evidence of that - but I’m willing to concede the point hypothetically in the interest of furthering the discussion. If bricks were overpowered to the extent of anything like 70pts it would have utterly broken the superhero game. Since the superhero game is not completely broken we can presume this is not the case. In which event removing figured characteristics and leaving characteristic costs unchanged will now break the superhero game.

If it was simply a matter of adjusting the starting character points to compensate I believe Steve Long's stated intent to remove figured characteristics would be the right course of action. Doing this would offer greater flexibility without preventing any existing concept from being created. The results above show clearly, however, that removing figured characteristics will have a very profound effect on the relationship between character archetypes in the superhero game. I would be interested in seeing the results from like exercises in other genres. One cannot but wonder if this is a Pandora’s Box that should be left shut, considering the impact, or the amount of remedial work required to minimise the impact, does look to outweigh the benefit.

That's the problem exactly.

What if the only cost changes are reducing DEX to x2, CON and BODY to x1 each?

Frankly, short of something extremely simple like that, I'm starting to see that decoupling Figured Characteristics would either grossly throw off game balance or require such changes as to risk making the game nearly unrecognizable as Hero. What you've shown here, Phil, is a not-unreasonable attempt at a compromise, but we do need to remember that the more radical the change is made to the system the greater the risk of unforeseen side effects. We're mostly intelligent, reasonable people here, but the real test audience for how well this works will be the semi-reformed powergaming minimaxers -- the ones who understand the meaning of character concept, but still want to build the most number-effective character possible.

Again, BINGO.

To reiterate my key point, the balance is the most problematic aspect of the proposal - and has not been addressed in any but the ost superficial detail

[IndianaJoe3]

Q: Should all characters start with 0 in all Characteristics?
Q: Should we get rid of the concept of negative Characteristics?

I think we should start with the assumption that normals (loosely defined) :D are based on 0 points and have baseline values for stats. If that baseline is zero, we need to have rules for negative characteristics. If that baseline is not zero, we don't need those rules. The current rules for negative STUN and BODY would be fine, negative STR would need to be reworked, and the rest can be discarded.


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?
The problem with the current system is that most breakpoints are STAT/5. Using different breakpoints for different areas would encourage a wider variety of values.


Q: Should we get rid of the concept of Figured Characteristics, and just make all Characteristics straightforward purchases?
I really don't like this idea, because it winds up changing so much. The current system is reasonably well balanced. The math isn't that hard, and only needs to be done during character creation and maintenance.

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 questions about relative cost are endemic to HERO discussions, and limited SPD is still problematic. (I have SPD 3, and "+2 SPD, only when shooting guns". What phases do I go on?) :rolleyes:

Sub-Issue #1: If Figured Characteristics are removed, should the costs of any Characteristics be changed to compensate?You have to, because the current costs include (imperfectly, in some opinions) the value of related figured characteristics. It's not a side benefit.

Some argument could perhaps be made for CON, since Skills aren’t based on it, but I think that “resistance to being Stunned” is worth 2 Character Points per point — if I change it I have to re-examine every character built in terms of offense and defense, and so do players.Buying your DEF (assuming PD and ED are merged) up by one also costs 2 points, and it prevents the loss of a point of STUN and BODY as well as making a character harder to stun. Why would you buy CON up at all?


Q: Should Leaping be removed as something that’s factored from STR?
I don't have a problem with that. No other movement is coupled to STR.


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?
Either make it useful or get rid of it. I don't care which.

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?
No. It minimizes the unbalancing effects of characters that get a lot of actions. It needs to allow more differentiation an the low end, but that's a topic for another thread.

[Chris Goodwin]

He has explained why he thinks it is a good idea. Check out the first post in this thread, where he first introduces the idea. He has in fact explained his position on every single change that he has proposed, both the ones that he agrees with and the ones that he doesn't. I won't claim that you or anyone else finds his reasons to be convincing, but you shouldn't pretend that he hasn't given them. Even if you don't find his reasons to be convincing they at least give you a starting point to frame a counter-argument.

Maybe I'm naive about things like debate and argument and such, but if an idea is good, doesn't it stand on its own merits and not need to be framed as a counter-argument to something else?

[steamteck]

I've never found "Well I don't like some of the changes, so I'll support other ones that people don't like as payback" to be a particularly convincing argument.


Not not what I said or at least meant. I meant as long as basic original stuff is on the block. why not just go for the whole barrel.

[Diamond_J]

You know I've had time to think this over, and what I have decided is that since it is quite obvious that the opinions of long time players who have invested a large amount of time and gobs of money over the years are apparently not wanted, I no longer have an interest in dealing with them. The HERO boards used to be a fun place to hang out and discuss ideas. But ever since the 6th ed was announced it isn't. A lot of uglyness has shown up, and while Steve supposedly put these up so we could discuss these proposed changes it is quite apparent that is not the case. The Mods have failed to keep it civil and in fact the mods have had to warn each other. I have somewhere in the neighborhood of $5000 worth of HERO stuff, I think that is enough. I've always thought HERO gamers were a cut above but its clear they are just as petty as any others.

Go ahead and warn me ban me or what ever, no notice has been taken of the abuse of the wary of change crowd so it won't surprise me and I won't make much difference since I won't be spending time here anymore anyway.

I'm sorry to here that. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, however so is everybody else. The nature of mature discussion means that sometimes we hear things we don't like. If everybody agreed, out of the fear of offending, this would be insincere and a waste of time. Plus it seams incredibly strange that you would condemn HERO because of the people who post on the site. At any rate NO harm was intended on my behalf my previous post was a generality not a direct attack against you. If you took it this way I apologize. Buck up change can be a good thing.

[Doc Democracy]

I've tried to catch up but it is never going to happen. I guess I should say what I think - though it is probably obvious given recent discussions.

I think that characteristics are an anachronism. I think that they mix up the game and twist things so that other powers get twisted to keep, for example, STR in line with other bits of the game.

My suggestion for a sixth edition would be more radical than getting rid of figured characteristics and instead suggest getting rid of characteristics completely.

Now obviously there would have to be a character baseline upon which everything else got built, there would have to be the game stats that we use to play the game (STUN, END, REC, BODY, SPD) but everything else could be bought through the skills or powers sections of the game.

Just think - so many less numbers to look at on the character sheet and never again having to worry whether 60STR costs to much, too little or anything else.

CV would be a base number - 3 and could be bought up through the combat skill system (Similarly ECV would be base).

Lifting would be bought independently of damage inflicting capacity.

There would be no base PD or ED, all defences would be bought through the powers system.

I just think that this would clean up the system and make it look much more modern than if it carries on clunking about with a 1970s paradigm.

I know this doesn't put me even in the side eddies of the mainstream but I'd never have forgiven myself for not raising the point at this time.

Doc

[GamePhil]

My suggestion for a sixth edition would be more radical than getting rid of figured characteristics and instead suggest getting rid of characteristics completely.


"My God, it'll be beautiful." Judge Doom

You're a man after my own heart, Doc. For better or worse, I don't think it'll happen, but I wouldn't object. Well, I would after all the sales dried up and support for Hero disappeared, but that's another issue.

If something like that ever happens, it will be because of a slow evolution in that direction or a sudden upheavel from some unimaginable source. Just the idea of decoupling Figureds or getting rid of COM (please don't misunderstand: I'm not saying that these are unimportant issues, just that they are less radical than this one, so don't bug me :) ) has people up in arms. Something like this would be unrecognizable as Hero to much of our cast of characters, including people who actually consider those changes trivial.

Still, it's nice to dream, isn't it?

[Doc Democracy]

"My God, it'll be beautiful." Judge Doom

You're a man after my own heart, Doc. For better or worse, I don't think it'll happen, but I wouldn't object. Well, I would after all the sales dried up and support for Hero disappeared, but that's another issue.

[snip]

Still, it's nice to dream, isn't it?


I guess I would be happy if the sixth edition had toolkitting options outlined to play without characteristics. Something that guided players in how the game could be played without characteristics and the issues that could be avoided by doing so. :)


Doc

[GamePhil]

Not not what I said or at least meant. I meant as long as basic original stuff is on the block. why not just go for the whole barrel.

And you are absolutely right. We should certainly discuss anything that comes to anyone's mind, no matter how entrenched in the game it is, as long as it doesn't go on too long and is a sincere effort to improve the game.

[Diamond_J]

I've tried to catch up but it is never going to happen. I guess I should say what I think - though it is probably obvious given recent discussions.

I think that characteristics are an anachronism. I think that they mix up the game and twist things so that other powers get twisted to keep, for example, STR in line with other bits of the game.

My suggestion for a sixth edition would be more radical than getting rid of figured characteristics and instead suggest getting rid of characteristics completely.

Now obviously there would have to be a character baseline upon which everything else got built, there would have to be the game stats that we use to play the game (STUN, END, REC, BODY, SPD) but everything else could be bought through the skills or powers sections of the game.

Just think - so many less numbers to look at on the character sheet and never again having to worry whether 60STR costs to much, too little or anything else.

CV would be a base number - 3 and could be bought up through the combat skill system (Similarly ECV would be base).

Lifting would be bought independently of damage inflicting capacity.

There would be no base PD or ED, all defences would be bought through the powers system.

I just think that this would clean up the system and make it look much more modern than if it carries on clunking about with a 1970s paradigm.

I know this doesn't put me even in the side eddies of the mainstream but I'd never have forgiven myself for not raising the point at this time.

Doc

This could work. My only concern is that it may be a difficult concept for a new player to wrap there head around. Don't know if I've ever seen a system implement something like that before. Again I think it could work, the challange would be how to go about explaining things in the players book.

[Susano]

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.

Last night our FH group fought a dragon. This made me think about the size of creatures and how they should be expressed. This in turn made me decide that SIZ (or SIZE) would be a great characteristic. It would help define a creature's size without resorting to Always On Growth and with out the inherent vagueness of a Physical Limitation. For example, with a set SIZ characteristic, you could package together STR, BODY, Movement, KB Resistance, and other such values, making it easier to scale creatures up and down. You'd also know how big a creature was, how much map space it occupied, and what sort of reach it had. Example -- if the dragon we fought has 20' of neck, 30' of body, and 20' of tail, how much Reach does it have? Do I have to buy Stretching twice? With SIZ you could say that "Size Class 10 has 5 hexes of reach to represent long necks, tails, wings, or arms." And if the creature has a neck or tail longer then 5 hexes... then you buy Stretching with all the various Advantages and Limitations.

This would also unify people with vehicles and make it easier to figure out what a vehicle can hold (your truck can hold up to 20 SIZ in any combination). Also, the swallow whole would be a little easier (a Size 20 dragon can devour up to 16 SIZ of prey before satiated...). Heck, now I could build the blob! (For ever 10 SIZ of prey the Blob kills, it gains 1 SIZ....) Now imagine how one could use this with Summon (you can summon any combination up to 20 SIZ of creatures worth no more than X points each), Duplication (for each duplicate you make, all Duplicates are 1 SIZ less), and it would put Growth and Shrinking into one power: Size Adjustment (or Manipulation).

About the only issue I see is Movement... you can have big, but slow creatures, but even then, a 100' dinosaur probably takes huge steps, even if it is fairly slow over all. This can be expressed by a low DEX and a low SPD. You might be able to get away with extra SPD only to bite, if you want.

Oh yeah, this would really work! Steve, please consider it!

[steamteck]

I like the idea of a size characteristic it comes very close to one of the "wows' I've been wanting even if it is a GURPS thing already. It would simplify many character designs for me. what Susano said!

[archermoo]

Not not what I said or at least meant. I meant as long as basic original stuff is on the block. why not just go for the whole barrel.

Ah, sorry then. It seemed to be what you were saying when you said:


I like the way it is now but as long as we're cutting down. I'd just as soon see other peoples sacred cows on the cutting block too


If that isn't what you meant sorry for the misinterp. :thumbup:

[incrdbil]

Oh yeah, this would really work! Steve, please consider it!

I wasn't sold on that idea until you expressed it liek that susano. Excellent!

[archermoo]

Maybe I'm naive about things like debate and argument and such, but if an idea is good, doesn't it stand on its own merits and not need to be framed as a counter-argument to something else?

Within the framework of "What is 6e going to look like" it pretty much only matters what Steve can be convinced of. He has presented his opinions on all of the proposed changes, and provided reasons for them. If someone wants to change Steve's mind, countering his existing arguments seems the best route to go.

[Susano]

Thanks.

[steamteck]

Ah, sorry then. It seemed to be what you were saying when you said:



If that isn't what you meant sorry for the misinterp. :thumbup:


All is cool.:thumbup:

[Hugh Neilson]

They don't give you separate powers that are listed separately on your sheet and don't in any way depend on the use of the Power they are bundled with. PD doesn't even require that you still have a STR score, it could be drained to 0 and you would still have it, while Density Increase when dropped to 0 doesn't give you that advantage. Likewise, if your DEX is drained you lose CV, but don't lose SPD. If Stretching is drained, you cannot use its damage bonus. And so on. It is hardly a matter of perception that Figured stats work differently from the various examples you have given.

I suppose we could have Figured's drained with Primaries, but I suspect that would not be adequate from your perspective.

But, see, intuitive is a subjective meter. If you have statistics that show that this is more intuitive for the majority of people, great, but it's not more intuitive to me, so we can go around with that all day. My feeling is that ECs are a consistent mechanic, and I'd prefer to have one mechanic that applies to everything (or three, including all Power Frameworks) than almost everything and then have Figured Characteristics.

I believe most people will find "Being healthy gives you greater stamina" in the present form of "Buy CON and it automatically grants you higher STUN, END and REC unless you choose to have it not do so" than "You have to buy all the attributes of improved health separately, using a framework that previously couldn't hold most of those attributes", but to each his own.

Interesting, since some work has already been done toward this. Since you choose to discount it and further discount that the methods of doing it are even valid, however, I see nothing further to discuss with you on this subject. I don't delete the rest of your post either due to agreement or because I'm discounting it, I just see no point to responding to it, especially since you did the Internet version of shouting already.

I don't see them as invalid - I don't see where they are being suggested as the means by which the issue will be addressed. And my intent in bolding is the same as in any text medium - to emphasize what I consider a key point within lengthy documents. If you choose to interpret that as shouting, well that's your subjective interpretation, but was not my intention.

This could work. My only concern is that it may be a difficult concept for a new player to wrap there head around. Don't know if I've ever seen a system implement something like that before. Again I think it could work, the challange would be how to go about explaining things in the players book.

I think the removal of characteristics entirely would be consistent with the idea of decoupling. If you want to have a very agile character, decide what that agility means and buy the component parts. Voila - your character is agile. But I agree it would be a difficult concept for players to grasp intuitively, where simply having a stat called "Strength" suggests a character who can lift more and punch harder.

It comes down to how much deocupling we want to do. I think there are logical links (like growth momentum adding to damage, and healthy people having higher STUN, END and REC). I'm OK with maintaining them. I also see a certain logic to breaking items down to their component parts, and you pay for the parts you want your character to have. There's an elegance to that, but much more than the removal of the six figured characteristics would be required to really achieve that elegance. To just sever a few links on the basis they were implemented different than others makes little sense to me. That's the philosophical aspect.

Of equal or greater importance, to me at least, is the practical aspect. That covers two broad aspects. First, which approach carries more complexity, and are the benefits of added complexity justifed in some other way? The extra math at present is a bit more complex, but seems to lead to reasonable and logical results. An EC for "Healthy" seems the more complex approach. Second, and more importantly, is whether the change can be undertaken in a manner that maintains balance between characters, and between types of characters. To date, we've had a few suggestions as to how such balance might be retained, but I have no idea how the proposed "remove figured stats" will maintain that balance, and I'd need to see that to make a final judgement. Absent such balancing, I disagree with eliminating figured characteristics. I would be very interested in hearing Steve's thoughts on maintaining that balance, but I suspect he's still mulling over the possibilities. I hope, at some point, Steve will close these "what has gone before" threads and start one or more new threads beginning with the approach he favours, or the possibilities he's considering, at that time. Some issues will have solidified, and some new ones may have arisen. But it's been less than a week, so closure at this point would be quite premature.

[Chris Goodwin]

Last night our FH group fought a dragon. This made me think about the size of creatures and how they should be expressed. This in turn made me decide that SIZ (or SIZE) would be a great characteristic. It would help define a creature's size without resorting to Always On Growth and with out the inherent vagueness of a Physical Limitation. For example, with a set SIZ characteristic, you could package together STR, BODY, Movement, KB Resistance, and other such values, making it easier to scale creatures up and down. You'd also know how big a creature was, how much map space it occupied, and what sort of reach it had. Example -- if the dragon we fought has 20' of neck, 30' of body, and 20' of tail, how much Reach does it have? Do I have to buy Stretching twice? With SIZ you could say that "Size Class 10 has 5 hexes of reach to represent long necks, tails, wings, or arms." And if the creature has a neck or tail longer then 5 hexes... then you buy Stretching with all the various Advantages and Limitations.

This would also unify people with vehicles and make it easier to figure out what a vehicle can hold (your truck can hold up to 20 SIZ in any combination). Also, the swallow whole would be a little easier (a Size 20 dragon can devour up to 16 SIZ of prey before satiated...). Heck, now I could build the blob! (For ever 10 SIZ of prey the Blob kills, it gains 1 SIZ....) Now imagine how one could use this with Summon (you can summon any combination up to 20 SIZ of creatures worth no more than X points each), Duplication (for each duplicate you make, all Duplicates are 1 SIZ less), and it would put Growth and Shrinking into one power: Size Adjustment (or Manipulation).

About the only issue I see is Movement... you can have big, but slow creatures, but even then, a 100' dinosaur probably takes huge steps, even if it is fairly slow over all. This can be expressed by a low DEX and a low SPD. You might be able to get away with extra SPD only to bite, if you want.

Oh yeah, this would really work! Steve, please consider it!

Repped. And, I agree.

[nexus]

I like the idea of a size characteristic it comes very close to one of the "wows' I've been wanting even if it is a GURPS thing already. It would simplify many character designs for me. what Susano said!

If Size is included as a Characteristic I still attracted to the idea of making Transforms work against Size by default and possibly increasing the cost per die because they will be more effects (or allowing PD/ED/DEF to affect them by default). Might make that a House Rule at some point.

One question. Maybe I'm misreading but if Size as a characteristic comes with certain built in benefits wouldn't that be counter to the idea of decouple figured characteristics and Leaping from Strength?

[Susano]

If Size is included as a Characteristic I still attracted to the idea of making Transforms work against Size by default and possibly increasing the cost per die because they will be more effects (or allowing PD/ED/DEF to affect them by default). Might make that a House Rule at some point.

One question. Maybe I'm misreading but if Size as a characteristic comes with certain built in benefits wouldn't that be counter to the idea of decouple figured characteristics and Leaping from Strength?

I don't see Figured and Leaping being part of Size. Being big doesn't let you leap any further. in fact many large creatures have little to no leaping due to weight. As for Figured... extra STR, CON, BODY, PD, ED, and so on is part of a... SIZ EC. Actually, making Transform versus SIZ works... except that only affects Physical, not Mental or Spirit. And if people are SIZ 0, well... (actually, that does beg the question -- what is SIZ 0?) Still, it means if you Drain SIZ, you can easily shrink creatures instead of using Transform.

[nexus]

I don't see Figured and Leaping being part of Size. Being big doesn't let you leap any further. in fact many large creatures have little to no leaping due to weight. As for Figured... extra STR, CON, BODY, PD, ED, and so on is part of a... SIZ EC.

No wait, I put that poorly. I mean some of the suggestions I've seen for Size include the Characteristic giving benefits directly. For Ex: The higher you size the more reach you have, increased movement, etc. Like how Strength grants Leaping currently. That seemed counter to the idea of removing Figured characteristics and side benefits from Primary Characteristics.

I'd have Mental or Spiritual work against Ego but good point about Size 0. I guess I tend to see Transforms are things that usually work unless the target is somehow resistant to them (either due to a limitation on the power or innate Power Defense) but that would make them a little too powerful and close to absolute. I was assuming Size would start at 8, less than that being smaller than the human norm (for Hero) and greater than that being larger

[Susano]

No wait, I put that poorly. I mean some of the