Characteristics Issues

[GamePhil]

I think the figured characteristics can be replaced by bonus/free points in new powers.

So, basically, rather than taking away bonuses from some characters, you give them to everyone.

That's pretty workable, and while it might tend to guide people toward a pseudo-class like system, we already have that in the system with the current Figured Characteristics structure, but only in regards to specific character types. It would even, ignoring setting it up and balancing it in the first place, be fairly easy to implement: each Power that has a base would just have to have a line added.

However, by associating Powers specifically with Characteristics across the board you run into one of the same problems as the Figured Characteristics get now: you don't take into account unusual character types. If a character shouldn't have an association between Ego and Telepathy, does he just lose it, or does he buck up and take the extra dice and move on? If something like this were to be implemented, I'd prefer to see it left in the hands of the GM and the players how the associations are made (not that you said they shouldn't be, that might very well have been your intent).

[Paragon]

Yet the FF is permitted in an EC, no problem, and the armor is book illegal. Which is a classic example of why the "must cost END" restriction is arbitrary and should go.



I stand corrected; I'd not found the specific clause about END costing powers under ECs, and since I'm more cogent about 4e than 5e, I didn't assume it had carried over.

That said, I still stand by my opinion most people are, EC savings or not, unwilling to buy what adds up to second rate armor just so they can fit it in an EC; I can count the number of 0 END (as compared to 1/2 END) force fields I've seen in any PC build over the years, in my group or any others I've seen on the fingers of one hand.

[PhilFleischmann]

I don't really see that. Anyone can still buy up their EGO at the same cost the mentalist does to narrow the ECV gap, so I don't see how comparisons to DEX cost are too relevant. And given the large number of DEX-based skills compared to EGO-based ones I think DEX being a little more expensive would still be appropriate.
But the non-mentalist isn't getting nearly as much use out of buying up his EGO. He's a lot less motivated to do so. Just as the mentalist is less motivated to buy a lot of DEX. How much EGO is it really worth for the non-mentalist to buy? A few points, maybe, but not nearly as much as the mentalist would (and can, since it'd be that much cheaper than DEX).

[Hugh Neilson]

You are 100% correct. But if it is balanced correctly, this archetyping wouldn't neccessarily be a bad thing. It might reduce group ability overlap some, might prevent players form gimping themselves at creation, rewards sound concepts, etc..... It may also reduce some of the need for ECs and Multipowers in some cases.

But, for it to work, the powers cost up front needs to average kinda high to offset the potential abuse. A basic attack shoudl cost 15 or 20 to get if based on a stat... and I am not sure thats a power that ever should be based on a stat.

"this stat is the key to this archetype" sounds a lot like "this stat is the prime requisites for this class". I'd prefer to avoid that connotation.

[David Blue]

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

A: No, the game is human-centric and should remain so, unless the movies and the genre materials we are trying to simulate shift from being human-centric to being based on devices built from zero characteristics up.

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

A: As long as you can still go to negative STUN and BODY I could live with this change or without it.

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?

A: Just fix INT. I don't think the system overall is bad, it's more that INT is, and the rest is sadly clunky but still workable enough not to change.

I would suggest an exception for INT to make every point valuable: cost it at 2pts per point of INT, and roll your INT value directly as a characteristic roll, e.g. 17 INT, INT roll 17-. I admit that's messy, but I don't think the mess is as bad as what we've got now.

COM is already perfect: it's a pure "beauty contest" number, which is what it's supposed to be.

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

A: No. Disaggregation of characteristics makes super-specialization overly efficient.

It's only the subsidy given to characteristic clumping that makes beefy but reasonably all-round characters thick with appropriate but over-priced secondary characteristics workable.

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

A: Failure to change the characteristic costs means that BODY, already a poor bargain (though I often invest in it as I think it's dramatically sound), will be a pathetic bargain. CON will be gutted. STR, which as a brick fan I think is fine the way it is, will be nerfed to the point that I wouldn't want to play bricks any more.

This seems to me like a horrible idea.

Secondary characteristics should change anyway, because some are over-priced. END would be priced about right at 1pts for 8pts of END. At 1pt for 2pts of END, it's a bad joke. If all you want is for your character to last longer, you've got to think of some other way to do it, because paying quadruple a fair price doesn't work.

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

A: No, seriously, please, NO. If you gut beefy, stat-heavy characters and favor highly specialized walking gadget racks instead, which is what I think this comes around to, providing more points to every character turns the wand-wielding weasels into GODS.

If you make Strength unbearably dear and useless and Cosmic Variable Power Pools dirt cheap, and then give everybody quadruple the points "to compensate", that doesn't mean brick fans will still be in paradise, it means the superiority of wands of omnipotence over mere brawn will be far more apparent than if you hadn't given out the extra points.

The worse you nerf STR, the tighter you have to keep total points, to keep the favored character types from showing what they can really do - all the time.

Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

A: No. It's correct as is. Even if it does turn feeble at high point totals where VPPs are the way to go.

Occasionally I run into the down side: currently I'm playing a character who would be cheaper with 20 STR instead of his current 10, because out of character conception I invested heavily in the secondary stats. But these occasional oddities are as nothing compared to the consequences of tearing the heart out of the brick archetype.

Exception: for heroic games, I think it will often work well to set normal characteristic maxima at 15, thus charging 2pts for each point of STR over that. Even start charging double from 10 up, in some games. But only as an option to suit the needs of some games.

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

A: This is justifiable. I wouldn't, but if you want to reduce the value of points invested in STR, here is the place to cut. There are enough characters like Batroc the Leaper and the Terrible Toad on the one hand and the Thing on the other to back that up.

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

A: If you do what you suggest above, I think you might as well go ahead and do this too. STR will be like COM, except that it would cost twice as much, and situations where people may see your face and admire you are more common than occasions where people see you working out in the weight-lifting room and admire you.

Hand to hand damage is already a very inadequate reason by itself to buy Strength. It's no range. It's normal damage by default, which makes it about half to two thirds as efficient as killing damage. It offers nothing like the bang for a buck of martial arts. And mainly, the whole world is set up to deal with it, unlike the obscure, specialized and generally un-defended attacks you could buy instead.

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

A: I would say, let it stand. DEX is a bargain, but not such a bargain that I would want martial artists nerfed to fix it.

In general, I think that game mechanisms, such as DEX, that encourage you to be fairly good at a lot of things, rather than investing in the ultimate obscure killer attack, a lot of specific levels to back it up, and an obscure super-effective defense, are a good thing. Aggregation subsidies are typical of Hero, and they already simulate dramatic fiction better than specialized freaks will, if the subsidies are removed.

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

A: No. Incentives to aggregate reasonably, simulating the range of abilities a normal fictional hero might have, are a good thing.

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

No. There is a problem, but as Steve said, CV escalation wars would follow, as night follows day.

"Third, it would increase the percentage of their starting points that characters spend on Characteristics."

A: No, I think this is a serious misunderstanding, as with Strength. When costs are driven through the roof, purchases will decrease. Instead, more points will be spent on purchases that substitute more effectively for the nerfed ability.

Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

A: I think it's good to redefine it as "thinking power" but the main thing is to see that every point of it does something for you, as "thinking power" that has exactly the same effects whether you have INT 13 or INT 17 seems wrong.

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

A: No, and I have nothing to add to what Steve said.

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

A: No. EGO is moderately over-priced for most characters, but if Mental Defense was a figured characteristic, which I think it should be, EGO would balance well enough.

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

A: No, and I have nothing to add to what Steve said.

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

A: No, even though apparently Steve will do so. (And I think that will be a pity, but not a calamity.)

COM is fun, and a cheap way to say who your character is. 3pts in COM, taking you from 10 to 16, will change how your character relates to the world vastly more than a typical three point skill will.

COM is necessary, or almost necessary, in some genres. And it needs to work for people who aren't using it in combination with a Seduction roll or anything else. It needs to work for people who aren't even aware they have it.

And it's nothing like a skill. It's often very important that it not be a skill. Len Brown was so handsome that Iron Maiden spent a considerable portion of each day's mastermind planning figuring out how she was going to jump his bones, but not because of how expertly he primped himself in from of a mirror. The innocent village maiden can be and should be able to be more beautiful than the experienced, sophisticated and highly skilled sex bomb of a queen, and not because the queen is ugly or her experts are inept.

Also, Snow White can be more beautiful than the queen even if there are two grades of the Beautiful talent, and the queen buys the higher one - Beautiful, as opposed to Above Average.

COM as a skill - no, please, no. If you have to, just say Hero will no longer cater to or really tolerate genres where physical beauty and the lack of it matter, but don't reverse the conventions on how beauty works in the kinds of stories where it matters most.

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

A: As I said elsewhere, I think it's better to give objects PD and ED.

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

A: Yes. It makes sense, and it balances the cost of EGO better.

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

A: I need it for mastermind villains like Magneto, who fight teams alone. Please keep it.

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

A: No, most people find it useful. But...

I think that gamers who don’t want to bother with END already just aren’t bothering with it, or build their characters so that it’s not an issue. A sidebar in the book about “eliminating END” is enough to deal with this issue, I’d say.

I disagree because I've been one of those players, and played in games with other new players who felt the same. "Just not bothering" with END caused all sorts of problems we were ill-equipped to deal with, for the same reason that we needed to ditch it in the first place. We needed all the help we could get.

I strongly recommend that you give a complete page, or preferably two, to a set of simplified play instructions that work as well as they can be made to. Please don't toss this aside. Don't despise the new players and the new gamemasters that need this. Think it through. Work at it. Play-test it properly.

Because I guarantee you, nobody will need your guidance more than the players that need this, and nobody will be less equipped to just wing their way through the bits that the writer thought were too trivial / boring to be a real problem. Timid new players don't want to change anything, if they can avoid it, except to get rid of burdens that are just too big, so even something like "now how does 0 END Force Field balance against Armor?" can seem an almost insoluble problem.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

A: No, but if you do this, I think it should be possible to purchase visible size and size as mass separately. That is the most elegant approach, as opposed to deciding whether it's a zeppelin or an iron battleship that's a special case.

This would require a complete rewrite of the Growth and Shrinking rules - which I think is a good idea anyway.

[Aeralys]

I have to say that at first, the idea of no figured characteristics shocked me. It has always felt so very ingrained into the system.

however, after reading some of the things you had to say about it, I feel like a great number of the problems that currently exist (such as the price of dex, or the price of str) are no longer problems as soon as figured characteristics don't depend on them. The problem of how many extra points to give people to make up for that change seems to be an even larger problem then you are eliminating, though.

If there was a solution to the problem of how many extra points each character needs to buy his figured characteristics, it feels like it would be a very, very nice change, as well as a step towards streamlining the system. However, I can't actually see an easy way of making it possible.

[James Gillen]

I have to say that at first, the idea of no figured characteristics shocked me. It has always felt so very ingrained into the system.

however, after reading some of the things you had to say about it, I feel like a great number of the problems that currently exist (such as the price of dex, or the price of str) are no longer problems as soon as figured characteristics don't depend on them. The problem of how many extra points to give people to make up for that change seems to be an even larger problem then you are eliminating, though.

If there was a solution to the problem of how many extra points each character needs to buy his figured characteristics, it feels like it would be a very, very nice change, as well as a step towards streamlining the system. However, I can't actually see an easy way of making it possible.

That's basically my opinion.

JG

[JmOz]

I just realised what my problem with the idea of Size as a characteristic, it seems to be in opposition to the idea of dropping figured characteristics. If the goal is to make things more unatached, well what does size benefit the character that would not be a form of "Figured Characteristic". IF anything I think the idea of Packages is interesting for it

[Mini-Nukette]

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

A: No, but if you do this, I think it should be possible to purchase visible size and size as mass separately. That is the most elegant approach, as opposed to deciding whether it's a zeppelin or an iron battleship that's a special case.

This would require a complete rewrite of the Growth and Shrinking rules - which I think is a good idea anyway.

You could use use Size/Mass to counter Leaping from STR? An elephant may be strong, but its size and weight keep it firmly planted on the ground.

Mass could also be associated to Armor defenses. Armor Resistant Defence would increase Mass, and perhaps Size by a smaller ratio. Paying to reduce a RD powers Size/Mass would provide less bulky/lighter armor.

In fact these two stats have a horde of potential uses. Vehicle creation, movement speed adjustment, checks for weak flooring, perception modifiers, lifting/pushing, grappling/throwing...

[Hugh Neilson]

A number of suggestions made above incorporate reducing the costs of some stats. CON, BOD and DEX seem the most likely candidates on the Primary side, with REC, STUN and END on the Secondary (well, we can't call them Figured - that may change) side.

Such cost reductions would impact the efficiency of adjustment powers. In order to mitigate this, I would suggest consideration be given to naming some or all of these characteristics as "defensive" in nature, such that adjustment powers only have half effect. In addition to balance, this would make sense as:

- DEX provides DCV (and the removal of SPD makes this a more significant aspect of DEX)
- CON defends from being stunned
- BOD defends from being killed
- STUN defends from being KO'd
- END defends from being exhausted
- REC helps defend from being KO'd and exhausted

[GamePhil]

Here's my first stab at what SIZ might look like. I don't know what Steve has in mind for it, of course.

Assumptions
I am assuming that SIZ:
Will not have any Figured Characteristics. No bonuses/penalties to STR or BOD.
Will give/take away Reach, if the character has limbs.
Will increase/decrease mass and length/width/height.
Will start at 10.
Will provide a base of Knockback Resistance.
Will use doubling/halving of the above (except KBR) per some number of levels.

First Pass
Cost: 2 points.

Basics
Size represents how large and massive the character is. At the base value of 10, the character is assumed to be at or around 2m in its longest proportion, up to 1m in other proportions, and about 100kg. For each point above or below that, mass is approximately doubled/halved. For every three levels, height (the longest proportion) is likewise approximately doubled/halved. These are all approximations, and some variance is allowed.

Very small characters will generally have a SIZ of 1, define their mass and proportions as they like, and may take further Powers or Skills to simulate extremely small size.

Knockback
For every point less than 10, the character takes an extra inch of Knockback if those rules are used. For every point more than 10, one less inch of Knockback is taken.

Combat Value
For every three levels less than 10, subtract 2 from OCV in HTH combat and add 2 to DCV in Ranged Combat. For every three levels over 10, add 2 to OCV in HTH and subtract 2 from DCV in Ranged.

Reach
A character with a SIZ of 10 or less has about a 2 m reach. Even if the character does not have limbs that reach that far, it is assumed that he can move far enough to get that much distance, although this may be at a penalty to OCV. Every three levels of SIZ over 10 doubles that reach.

Characteristics
Several Characteristics are appropriate to buy up for large characters: STR (at least enough to carry half the character's mass), Body, Running, and so on. Except for STR, there is no requirement to do so. While small characters might very well sell some of these Characteristics back, again, there is no requirement.

Varying Mass and Volume
If the two are greatly different, define SIZ by the higher of the two. The character will have the effects of SIZ differently for Mass and Volume. For example, an animated holiday float might have the Reach associated with its Volume, but the Knockback Resistance associated with his mass, and should take the SIZ level for its volume. With the GM's permission, the higher level of SIZ might be worth a -1 Limitation.

Final Notes
Size 0: The character has no volume or mass. It has no reach, and cannot engage in HTH combat. This may impact the character in further ways, depending on character conception. For example, an incorporeal creature might also have to take Desolidification, while a character with no physical form might also have to sell back BODY and STR to 0.

Absolute Effect for Size: Some characters may be truly immense. In these cases, the GM can establish a SIZ level that is effectively infinite using the Absolute Effect rule. This should probably never be done for normal characters, but might be used for galaxy- or even universe-spanning Bases, for example.

[Hugh Neilson]

Here's my first stab at what SIZ might look like. I don't know what Steve has in mind for it, of course.

Assumptions
I am assuming that SIZ:
Will not have any Figured Characteristics. No bonuses/penalties to STR or BOD.
Will give/take away Reach, if the character has limbs.

As an immediate thought, there should be some way to purchase Reach directly in the system, with no add-ons. Currently, we kludge in Stretching.

Will increase/decrease mass and length/width/height.
Will start at 10.
Will provide a base of Knockback Resistance.

That seems to make Knockback Resistance a figured characteristic.

Will use doubling/halving of the above (except KBR) per some number of levels.

First Pass
Cost: 2 points.

Basics
Size represents how large and massive the character is. At the base value of 10, the character is assumed to be at or around 2m in its longest proportion, up to 1m in other proportions, and about 100kg. For each point above or below that, mass is approximately doubled/halved. For every three levels, height (the longest proportion) is likewise approximately doubled/halved. These are all approximations, and some variance is allowed.

This seems a very fast increase/decrease in size.

Very small characters will generally have a SIZ of 1, define their mass and proportions as they like, and may take further Powers or Skills to simulate extremely small size.

Knockback
For every point less than 10, the character takes an extra inch of Knockback if those rules are used. For every point more than 10, one less inch of Knockback is taken.

So knockback resistance basically costs 2 points, not 3, since it's going to link directly to Size. I trade off some OCV/DCV issues, but I can offset those with reallocation of skill levels. Again, I think 1/1 is too fast.

Combat Value
For every three levels less than 10, subtract 2 from OCV in HTH combat and add 2 to DCV in Ranged Combat. For every three levels over 10, add 2 to OCV in HTH and subtract 2 from DCV in Ranged.

So all small characters will clearly be ranged combatants. They won't be able to hit in HTH (despite the fact that they can stand on the top of your head and punch straight down) and they'll be no harder to hit in HTH than anyone else (despite being the size of a gnat).

Meanwhile, all Growth characters will be HTH combatants (in fairness, this isn't a change) since they will gain an OCV advantage and suffer no DCV advantage (despite the fact that their opponent can stand on their head and punch down).

I don't think I buy into the HTH/Range distinction.

Reach
A character with a SIZ of 10 or less has about a 2 m reach. Even if the character does not have limbs that reach that far, it is assumed that he can move far enough to get that much distance, although this may be at a penalty to OCV. Every three levels of SIZ over 10 doubles that reach.

So for 30 points (+15 SIZ), I get 64" reach. So long, Stretching!

Characteristics
Several Characteristics are appropriate to buy up for large characters: STR (at least enough to carry half the character's mass), Body, Running, and so on. Except for STR, there is no requirement to do so. While small characters might very well sell some of these Characteristics back, again, there is no requirement.

Varying Mass and Volume
If the two are greatly different, define SIZ by the higher of the two. The character will have the effects of SIZ differently for Mass and Volume. For example, an animated holiday float might have the Reach associated with its Volume, but the Knockback Resistance associated with his mass, and should take the SIZ level for its volume. With the GM's permission, the higher level of SIZ might be worth a -1 Limitation.

Sounds like we really need two stats, Size and Mass. It also seems like we're right back where we started with, since SIZ does not grant many of the abilities we would associate with an increased or reduced size. My SIZ 25 giant still runs at 6", as does your SIZ 1 gnat, for example.

Final Notes
Size 0: The character has no volume or mass. It has no reach, and cannot engage in HTH combat. This may impact the character in further ways, depending on character conception. For example, an incorporeal creature might also have to take Desolidification, while a character with no physical form might also have to sell back BODY and STR to 0.

Absolute Effect for Size: Some characters may be truly immense. In these cases, the GM can establish a SIZ level that is effectively infinite using the Absolute Effect rule. This should probably never be done for normal characters, but might be used for galaxy- or even universe-spanning Bases, for example.

I think this at least identifies the kinds of things we might want a SIZ stat to grant. However, I think it also highlights some of the issues to be contended with in defining the stat, which ultimately may show it to mne more trouble than it's worth.

[GamePhil]

As an immediate thought, there should be some way to purchase Reach directly in the system, with no add-ons. Currently, we kludge in Stretching.


Sure, but not what I'm worried about right now.


That seems to make Knockback Resistance a figured characteristic.


As you wish. As I previously said, I'm not going to continue to repeat my reasoning for why it isn't, barring a novel argument. There's no point.


This seems a very fast increase/decrease in size.


I'm going under the assumption that each level of SIZ is a level of Growth, and that reducing it will be consistent with the increase. I think it's a little odd that a 20 SIZ will be so far beyond what is reasonable for a human, but that's why I posted it here. Feel free to make suggestions on what you think the increase should be.


So knockback resistance basically costs 2 points, not 3, since it's going to link directly to Size. I trade off some OCV/DCV issues, but I can offset those with reallocation of skill levels. Again, I think 1/1 is too fast.


Hmm? KNBR is already 2 points, not 3. What are you referring to? As for whether it relates directly to SIZ, you can always buy more.


So all small characters will clearly be ranged combatants. They won't be able to hit in HTH (despite the fact that they can stand on the top of your head and punch straight down) and they'll be no harder to hit in HTH than anyone else (despite being the size of a gnat).


Well, if you sell back your SIZ to 7, you have six extra points. That's enough for a couple of 3 point levels, so I'm not particularly concerned with their OCV penalty, and let's face it, there has to be something to make it worth points to sell back. As for being the size of a gnat, an ant is the size of a gnat. I generally have no trouble stepping on one if I really want to, but I'd have problems hitting it with a handgun. It's not the size that make a gnat hard to hit, but size and movement, and even then it's not really that hard. As such, I don't have too much difficulty with them having to buy it, either.


Meanwhile, all Growth characters will be HTH combatants (in fairness, this isn't a change) since they will gain an OCV advantage and suffer no DCV advantage (despite the fact that their opponent can stand on their head and punch down).


That's a matter of wanting SIZ to be consistent and to have more benefit than drawback when you get large without Characteristic Bonuses. I wouldn't mind seeing or coming up with a better way of doing that. I did consider, for example, allowing a bonus for high SIZ to STR or Body, but the problem with that is the reduction for low SIZ. Some benefit must be had that will not cripple the low SIZ character too badly and that is consistent throughout.


So for 30 points (+15 SIZ), I get 64" reach. So long, Stretching!


Yup, it's a shame that Stretching is overpriced. Perhaps it will be re-worked in the new system, I certainly hope so. Personally, I'd like it to have a multiplicative element, or to be counted as a form of Movement, or both. But that's another issue.


Sounds like we really need two stats, Size and Mass. It also seems like we're right back where we started with, since SIZ does not grant many of the abilities we would associate with an increased or reduced size. My SIZ 25 giant still runs at 6", as does your SIZ 1 gnat, for example.


I don't know that we need both Size and Mass, but I'm certainly not against it. It reduces certain problems.

As for the running example, since HERO is not a closed system, I don't see that as much of an issue. If your dwarf (fantasy race, not little people) becomes a giant, and you think that should give you more Running, buy more Running. There are plenty of rather large creatures that don't immediately outrun smaller ones. It all depends on finding the right balance of what being big or small must mean and getting a reasonable balance.

[Mini-Nukette]

I would expect comparative Size to effect the hit chances, maybe +/-1 per difference of the targets Size versus the Size of the attacker.

The attackers Size could in itself be based on the limb or weapon used, so a punch or kick could use the attackers Size/5, whilst a bodyslam would use the attackers full Size.

The force of the blow could be based on Size/Mass, and the speed of impact, effecting push/knockback and damage. Lowering the STR you put behind the attack could result in making it faster and more accurate.

"Grond is gonna crush stupid bugboy!" - the SIZ 1 hero Bluebottle doesn't want to get swatted by the huge SIZ 4 palms Grond is swinging around in the air trying to hit him - especially as Grond has four of them - let alone be caught in one of Grond's fists - but his small size and speed are so far eluding the four-armed behemoth.

[James Gillen]

I just realised what my problem with the idea of Size as a characteristic, it seems to be in opposition to the idea of dropping figured characteristics. If the goal is to make things more unatached, well what does size benefit the character that would not be a form of "Figured Characteristic". IF anything I think the idea of Packages is interesting for it

I can roll with it, but then I'm in favor of Size and against decoupling Figured Characteristics.

JG

[Hugh Neilson]

As you wish. As I previously said, I'm not going to continue to repeat my reasoning for why it isn't, barring a novel argument. There's no point.

I don't think it requires much novelty to suggest that an ability that rises or falls in direct proportion to a characteristic is a figured characteristic, especially when it can also be purchased separately (unlike, say, CV).

I'm going under the assumption that each level of SIZ is a level of Growth, and that reducing it will be consistent with the increase. I think it's a little odd that a 20 SIZ will be so far beyond what is reasonable for a human, but that's why I posted it here. Feel free to make suggestions on what you think the increase should be.

Thinking on it, this becomes problematic. What should the minimum size be? If I have Size 1, and 3 points double or halve my size, then the minimum size (Size 1) is about 9" tall (1/8 of 6' or 72"). So we have no bug-sized characters unless we can push size into the negatives, or we increase the impact of 1 point of Size. The latter exacerbates the speed with which characters will enlarge with added Size.

Well, if you sell back your SIZ to 7, you have six extra points. That's enough for a couple of 3 point levels, so I'm not particularly concerned with their OCV penalty

Why not spend those points on 2 levels with ranged attacks instead? Given that smaller size grants advantages at range and drawbacks in HTH, it would clearly be sub-optimal to have a small character focus on HTH, or a large one focus on ranged combat.

As for being the size of a gnat, an ant is the size of a gnat. I generally have no trouble stepping on one if I really want to, but I'd have problems hitting it with a handgun. It's not the size that make a gnat hard to hit, but size and movement, and even then it's not really that hard. As such, I don't have too much difficulty with them having to buy it, either.

What makes it so difficult for that ant to strike you if it's in HTH range? Do you find bee or wasp stings easy to dodge? Stepping on the ant actually sets out, to me, the issue of AoE being based on scale. Try Grabbing the ant instead of stepping on it and see how well that works. Now squirt it with the hose (a ranged attack). Which is easier? For that matter, often when you step on an ant, its smaller size enables it to evade damage due to the tread of your shoe. Hmmm...could that be DCV?

That's a matter of wanting SIZ to be consistent and to have more benefit than drawback when you get large without Characteristic Bonuses. I wouldn't mind seeing or coming up with a better way of doing that. I did consider, for example, allowing a bonus for high SIZ to STR or Body, but the problem with that is the reduction for low SIZ. Some benefit must be had that will not cripple the low SIZ character too badly and that is consistent throughout.

Exacerbated, of course, by the desire to rid the SIZ characteristic of figured characteristics. Even if figured's were retained, most SIZ items, as you note, would not be figured characteristics under the present rules, so we now have another tier of figured characteristics.

Yup, it's a shame that Stretching is overpriced. Perhaps it will be re-worked in the new system, I certainly hope so. Personally, I'd like it to have a multiplicative element, or to be counted as a form of Movement, or both. But that's another issue.

It's only another issue if we believe that Stretching is overpriced (I think it is, at least without the velocity adder, but I don't think multiplication is the answer) and that it will be changed. Besides, does your reach really double if your height does? Do elephants reach that much further? The arm is twice as long, but if you want to hit someone on the ground, some of that length needs to cover the distance to the ground. They actually got further away from your fist.

I don't know that we need both Size and Mass, but I'm certainly not against it. It reduces certain problems.

Your initial discussion certainly highlights issues of size differing from mass.

As for the running example, since HERO is not a closed system, I don't see that as much of an issue. If your dwarf (fantasy race, not little people) becomes a giant, and you think that should give you more Running, buy more Running. There are plenty of rather large creatures that don't immediately outrun smaller ones. It all depends on finding the right balance of what being big or small must mean and getting a reasonable balance.

You can also buy extra DCV (limited to range or not), buy skill levels to enhance OCV, take disadvantages to reduce OCV or DCV (under limited circumstances or not), buy Reach with Stretching (under whatever model and pricing it adopts), buy knockback resistance (or reduce it with a disadvantage) and explain it all with the SFX of being larger or smaller.

I thought the idea of Size was to bundle the effects of a different size in one package. To me, the real answer is that, if Size cannot answer the problem of not getting the logical results of a larger or smaller character, it hasn't resolved the issue it was supposed to address. With that in mind, why complicate the game by introducing it?

[GamePhil]

Thinking on it, this becomes problematic. What should the minimum size be?


I was assuming it would be 1, since that is one of Steve's "leaning toward" proposals (no negatives, possibly that 0 means "not having it").


Why not spend those points on 2 levels with ranged attacks instead? Given that smaller size grants advantages at range and drawbacks in HTH, it would clearly be sub-optimal to have a small character focus on HTH, or a large one focus on ranged combat.


For the moment, I am unconvinced that that's a bug. And since a small HTH character might still be attacked in range, and gets points back that can be used for HTH, it looks pretty good for him. The large character not being as good at ranged? Not seeing a difference between then as now.


What makes it so difficult for that ant to strike you if it's in HTH range?


If "HTH range" is "already sitting on me", nothing, but as HERO defines HTH range as "Within two meters", quite a lot. There may have to be some work done on eliminating the penalty if the target starts out actually in reach, but that seemed too complex.


Do you find bee or wasp stings easy to dodge? Stepping on the ant actually sets out, to me, the issue of AoE being based on scale. Try Grabbing the ant instead of stepping on it and see how well that works. Now squirt it with the hose (a ranged attack). Which is easier? For that matter, often when you step on an ant, its smaller size enables it to evade damage due to the tread of your shoe.

You have just argued that the tread of your shoe should be Area of Effect, then followed with saying that the fact that it doesn't always work indicates a high DCV. If it's area of effect, it indicates some form of Desolid or high Defenses, not DCV. If it's not, then see the next paragraph.

Again, I already proposed that the character the size of an ant might need to have more abilities than the Characteristic alone indicates, so, sure, under some circumstances the ant might get away. I don't think any combat capable character is going to fail to hit an ant, and the current rules give it such a high DCV that many would, however.

Sure, it could also be a matter of scale rather than a straight bonus or penalty, and I even copied over Mini-Nuke's post for later consideration.


Exacerbated, of course, by the desire to rid the SIZ characteristic of figured characteristics. Even if figured's were retained, most SIZ items, as you note, would not be figured characteristics under the present rules, so we now have another tier of figured characteristics.


I developed the Characteristic for this sample based on what currently appears to be the way things are going. I'm not arguing for or against Figured Characteristics.

In any event, I don't understand. If Figureds were kept, I see no reason why SIZ wouldn't provide them. Or are you saying that the STR bonus that might be logical would be undesirable?


It's only another issue if we believe that Stretching is overpriced (I think it is, at least without the velocity adder, but I don't think multiplication is the answer) and that it will be changed. Besides, does your reach really double if your height does? Do elephants reach that much further? The arm is twice as long, but if you want to hit someone on the ground, some of that length needs to cover the distance to the ground. They actually got further away from your fist.


I would like Growth and Stretching to increase reach the same way, but currently they don't. Stretching is not the logical Power to work with when developing the new Characteristic. Therefore, I based it on Growth. All that does is demonstrates that perhaps reach for Growth is too far, or that reach for Stretching is to short. No change for me there.

Your initial discussion certainly highlights issues of size differing from mass.

No, my initial discussion highlights that there might be exceptions for volume and mass being fairly closely related. If the exceptions are the rule, then yes, they should be separated. I'm not convinced that this is the case.


I thought the idea of Size was to bundle the effects of a different size in one package. To me, the real answer is that, if Size cannot answer the problem of not getting the logical results of a larger or smaller character, it hasn't resolved the issue it was supposed to address. With that in mind, why complicate the game by introducing it?

And I thought the idea was that SIZ is something virtually every character will have, it has a continuum of levels with proportional effects, and so logically it should be a Characteristic. I'm not sure that the bundling of everything that might be part of it is necessary or desirable, though if Figureds were to be kept in some form I think they would work fine.

[Hugh Neilson]

I was assuming it would be 1, since that is one of Steve's "leaning toward" proposals (no negatives, possibly that 0 means "not having it").

I agree. My issue was more towards the minimum size as in "how small should it go". As noted above, 9" or thereabouts (call it action figure size) results if we halve for every 3 points reduced. If we make it more rapid to allow bug-size, then growth takes place even faster if we're over 10. Unless we use some number other than 10 as a baseline, further differentiating this from other primary characteristics. Maybe that's not a big deal if Figured's go - we'll have a number of characteristics with base values other than 10.

For the moment, I am unconvinced that that's a bug. And since a small HTH character might still be attacked in range, and gets points back that can be used for HTH, it looks pretty good for him. The large character not being as good at ranged? Not seeing a difference between then as now.

We disagree on this, then. The small HTH guy is much better off being a small ranged guy, and the HTH advantage of the big guy is increased since he no longer takes a DCV penalty there, and he gets OCV advantages.

If "HTH range" is "already sitting on me", nothing, but as HERO defines HTH range as "Within two meters", quite a lot. There may have to be some work done on eliminating the penalty if the target starts out actually in reach, but that seemed too complex.

Logically, "HTH range" must be close enough to reach out and make contact. To the extent one needs to move, your size examples don't change movement rates anyway.

You have just argued that the tread of your shoe should be Area of Effect, then followed with saying that the fact that it doesn't always work indicates a high DCV. If it's area of effect, it indicates some form of Desolid or high Defenses, not DCV. If it's not, then see the next paragraph.

Or my shoe might have a flat sole or have treads where the ant can hide (AoE or Non-Selective AoE).

I don't think any combat capable character is going to fail to hit an ant, and the current rules give it such a high DCV that many would, however.

Grab the ant, then. I don't think it's as easy to grab it as it is to step on it, and 1 OCV isn't the full explanation.

In any event, I don't understand. If Figureds were kept, I see no reason why SIZ wouldn't provide them. Or are you saying that the STR bonus that might be logical would be undesirable?

I see a third tier. Presently, we have primaries and figured's. But if Size provides STR, is STR now a secondary/figured characteristic? Does that mean STR no longer provides PD, REC and STUN? Are those now tertiary characteristics? Or does STR derived from Size provide no figured, while STR purchased provides Figured? It's an added layer we don't presently have, since Size would logically influence stats that are not currently Figured, most notably STR, BOD and PRE.

A further thought: what happens when Dr. Shrinky Drains or Suppresses a character's Size to 0? Does he cease to exist, get placed out of the game (so small as to have no possible effect), enter the Microverse, or some other option? IOW, just how powerful will a Size Drain be?

[Klaus Mogensen]

Have you ever been attacked by a Wasp? Both hitting it and getting out of the way are very hard (and often ends with an Ouch!).

Often. I find wasps quite easy to hit with a backhand slap. Once even caught one in the air between two schnapps glasses (which aren't much bigger than the wasp itself). About getting out of their way, I usually manage; when I don't, it's more because of their speed than their size.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[PhilFleischmann]

Another thought on the topic of the sheer number of Characteristics that we have and the desire to "simplify" the system by reducing this number:

The HERO System has 14 Characteristics (8 Primary, and 6 Figured/Secondary),

BUT,

D20, 3.X also has at least that many:

Strength
Intelligence
Wisdom
Dexterity
Constitution
Charisma
Hit Points
Armor Class
Level
Base Attack Bonus
Fortitude Save Bonus
Reflex Save Bonus
Will Save Bonus
Caster Level

So maybe 14 isn't too many after all.

[CTaylor]

I still think damage and jumping should be detached from Strength. You don't necessarily hit harder or jump further simply because you can lift more weight, and Strength as it is right now is a bit cheap for the results. I would strongly oppose changing costs, though. That would change old characters so much as to be destructively difficult to rebuild. Some things just have to stay the same to retain the continuity between editions.

We're not arguing how to make a new, better game, but how to upgrade a present one.

[incrdbil]

Strength
Intelligence
Wisdom
Dexterity
Constitution
Charisma
Hit Points
Armor Class
Level
Base Attack Bonus
Fortitude Save Bonus
Reflex Save Bonus
Will Save Bonus
Caster Level

So maybe 14 isn't too many after all.

Unfortunately, the last 8 are not widely percoeved as characteristics.

[CTaylor]

So if people are daunted by Hero's honesty and superior organization then it's a question of presentation? That D20 can get away with a host of stats, it's because they don't call them stats?

How about a different way of presenting figured characteristics (which is what most of the D20 ones are) then, if that's really an issue? Keep them as is, but call them something other than "figured characteristics" then?

[nostromo]

I personally would be partial to a d100 method or at least an optional dice system for if you wanted to do 3d6, d100, d10 etc.

[GamePhil]

First part deleted because I don't disagree that it's a potential problem.

We disagree on this, then. The small HTH guy is much better off being a small ranged guy, and the HTH advantage of the big guy is increased since he no longer takes a DCV penalty there, and he gets OCV advantages.


I said "pretty good", not "optimal". The character is at a slight disadvantage compared to a character that went for all Ranged, sure, but it doesn't appear to be egregious, especially in a game with some restrictions. I would still be willing to play the small fellow as an HTH specialist, though the large one as ranged I might balk at.


Logically, "HTH range" must be close enough to reach out and make contact. To the extent one needs to move, your size examples don't change movement rates anyway.


Logically in the real world, sure, but less so in game mechanical terms. Small characters have always had the ability to reach 2m in Hero with little to no penalty, I'm just assuming that same thing but putting some penalty on them because of shorter reach (more easily kept at bay by longer reach characters) or having to move across the hex (and it's the fact that they have to move that causes them the problem, regardless of having the same movement rate).

I'm certainly not saying it can't use work, though, I'm simply explaining the logic. I'm certainly open to other suggestions on how to achieve a continuum that doesn't cripple the ant unduly while giving a reasonable benefit for having a high Size. Another idea that does that job more logically without breaking the requirements would be fine by me, that's just the one I have come up with so far.


Or my shoe might have a flat sole or have treads where the ant can hide (AoE or Non-Selective AoE).


Sure, but it was your statement that using an AOE because of scale is what makes it easy to hit the ant, and making it non-selective returns us to the same problem: you can't hit the ant if it has a massive bonus to HTH DCV because of its size.


Grab the ant, then. I don't think it's as easy to grab it as it is to step on it, and 1 OCV isn't the full explanation.


It isn't as easy, but it is doable, and it's more because of the boot problem: I can easily get my fingers around it, it just slips through.

Again, though, I don't disagree that the small character might have further bonuses, it just may have to buy them outside of the Size if the Characteristic is going to work throughout the continuum.


I see a third tier. Presently, we have primaries and figured's. But if Size provides STR, is STR now a secondary/figured characteristic? Does that mean STR no longer provides PD, REC and STUN? Are those now tertiary characteristics? Or does STR derived from Size provide no figured, while STR purchased provides Figured? It's an added layer we don't presently have, since Size would logically influence stats that are not currently Figured, most notably STR, BOD and PRE.


Not necessarily a new layer in that sense. If SIZ were to provide such bonuses, they would be bonuses to existing stats. Thus, you buy a 15 STR, get your Figureds from that 15, and then get a +5 bonus to give you a 20 that doesn't add to them. In fact, if it was going to have a bonus, that's how it would have to look regardless: you get a +X STR based on your SIZ score, and that bonus changes up and down as your SIZ is changed.

But, yes, it would be a different form of a Figured Characteristic-like construct, but would be no different from what Vehicles get in 5th, so there is precident.


A further thought: what happens when Dr. Shrinky Drains or Suppresses a character's Size to 0? Does he cease to exist, get placed out of the game (so small as to have no possible effect), enter the Microverse, or some other option? IOW, just how powerful will a Size Drain be?

This is a separate issue, one that comes up as long as the assumption that Characteristic 0 == not having it. I suspect that an Adder or Advantage for Aid/Drain to Give/Take Away a Characteristic may be in order, or that it should require a Transform to get you to 0 or give you a stat.

It will be odd to be able to make Shrink Rays with Drains, as that's always been agin' the rules in the past (one of the big things that made Inherent seem necessary, if I recall).

[AnotherSkip]

Of course if we wanted to size could be a hex field adjuster akin to what megascale does though that may do all kinds of head breaking things....

thus you don't run faster with + SIZ you just cover more Real distance still moving at a relative 6" movement, while a -Siz covers less real world distance but still moves 6" which is dramatically consistant with media interpretations.

which explains why smaller ppl ride bigger ppl.....

[Tech]

Combat Value
For every three levels less than 10, subtract 2 from OCV in HTH combat and add 2 to DCV in Ranged Combat. For every three levels over 10, add 2 to OCV in HTH and subtract 2 from DCV in Ranged.

This seems similar to the 3rd edition version of Shrinking, which got changed in the 4th edition.

[Klaus Mogensen]

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

I don't see much need for that, but wouldn't much mind it either.

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

Negative STR is very meaningful, given the logarithmic scale. I suppose if lifting ability in the 1-20 scale was refigures as STR^2, that would cease to be a problem. However, that would make the scale very granular at the low end, which might be a problem for shrinking characters or small fantasy creatures such as winged fairies.

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?

Something less clunky than the current system would be nice.

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

Yes!!

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

I think at least CON and BODY would have to be changed, or else melded into a single characteristic defining toughness.

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

That depends entirely on whether the characteristic costs are changed.

Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

Not if it doesn't add to Figured Charactertics. If it does, double the cost.

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

I think that would be helpful.

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

No.

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?
Q: Should DEX be split into two or more Characteristics?

I'm in favor of the latter. I would prefer one (DEX) that determines Melee OCV and manual skills and another (AGI) that determines DCV and athletic skills. For Ranged OCVs, see below

Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?
Q: Should INT be “redefined”?
Q: Should PER be removed as something that’s factored from INT?

I could see INT and PER as two characteristics, where PER among other things would determine Ranged OCV (aiming, judging distance). Even if PER is kept a part of INT, I think Ranged OCV should be based on this - but then, the cost might have to be increased to 2.

Q: Should the cost of EGO be reduced to 1 Character Point per point?
Q: Should ECV be removed as something that’s factored from EGO?

I would say reduce EGO cost to 1, but retain defensive ECV as something factored from it. Offensive ECV should be bought from 0, since it is something alien to normal humans. I could also see EGO merged with PRE as a WILL characteristic with a cost of 2.

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Yes, that aspect is better suited for talents and disadvantages.

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

I'm in favor of merging PD and ED. Armor and such could still have Limitations that make them less effective against either energy or physical. Such Limitations could also be applied to certain objects where this seems reasonable.

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

Not sure about that one.

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

No, but there may be ways to rework it. E.g. a 6-segment chart where those with SPD>6 would get two phases in some segments.

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

I have noted one good thing about having abilities/powers cost END: High-SPD characters have to either buy Reduced (or 0) END to their abilities or risk running out of END quickly. This gives diminishing returns for increased SPD, which I find a good thing.

Still, I think it's worth considering. It would simplify many things. Powers could get Limitations that they cost STUN to use, if people want a cost break or think that it would suit their character concepts. Charges are also somewhat similar to END.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

I don't really see why, but if there's good reasons, I'm not dead set against it.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[CTaylor]

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

I don't see that as an advantage, all it would do is move the stats by 10 points in one direction. "Because it's more like D20" is not a selling point to me.

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

No. Very useful for the game, lots of build concepts there.

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?

Depends. If you can do it without substantially changing the way Hero works (i.e. keep it the same game with a new edition instead of Fuzioning it) I'd be open to the idea.

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

No. All games have figured characteristics, they make sense. I can tell you're leaning toward it, and I'd encourage you to not do so. Strongly.

Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

No, all you have to do is strip the leaping and damage bonus from the stat and you've got a proper cost.

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

I'd really encourage you to avoid this kind of radical change. Moving powers that you get for free off strength is one thing, changing the very concept of characteristics is another. Again, new edition, not new game.

[/b]Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?

I would encourage you not to, but I could live with it. You'd have to recost DEX to do this.

[b]Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

This makes me very uncomfortable, I think it should be left as is. Changing characteristics that fundamentally = new game, not new edition.

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

I could live with this, but I don't see it as being necessary, or even all that beneficial.

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

No. Too many mental powers are based off EGO (and presence attacks). Ego at present has too many useful abilities to lower the cost.

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

No, this makes sense to me conceptually.

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

One of the attractive ideas that Hero has is splitting defense up like this. If anything it makes more sense to have more defense types, not fewer.

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

It is, in a sense. Many games have this as a default, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

No. Changing this changes something too fundamental to Hero Games. Do not do this.

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

Absolutely not. Again, one of the things that attracts me about Hero is the fact that doing things tires you out.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

Yeah I know you don't like the size-adjusting powers, but they are good. Stop trying to get rid of them.

[Diamond_J]

I still think damage and jumping should be detached from Strength. You don't necessarily hit harder or jump further simply because you can lift more weight, and Strength as it is right now is a bit cheap for the results. I would strongly oppose changing costs, though. That would change old characters so much as to be destructively difficult to rebuild. Some things just have to stay the same to retain the continuity between editions.

We're not arguing how to make a new, better game, but how to upgrade a present one.

On a human scale you'd be rite, on the scale of champions I dissagree. Body builders arn't the strongest punchers in the world because their bulk gets in the way. This reduces the speed of there punch and Force is a direct aplication of mass and speed. On a grander scale, incredable strength and we're talking the ability to lift tonnes would result in increadable punching power. Champions is allso a Superhero genera. Name one character with super strength in the comics that doesn't hit realy hard. If you can they're the exeption not the rule


As for jumping: Stronger legs = greater downward force

It's the same as my argument above. On the human scale bulk makes the difference so does your height in this case. human beings just arn't strong enough to reflect this. Both bulk and inflexability cancel much of the relatively small bonus weightlifers get with there power. Keep in mind muscle puts on weight which in turn means we must exert even more downward force to leave the ground. An additional 100lbs of weight however doesn't reflect much on a being who can lift tons.

[CTaylor]

Well Hero is for all genres, not just Champions, and it would allow strength's cost to be kept static without leaving it over powered for the cost at present. You get what you pay for in Hero, and extra leaping and damage costs points and are specific powers already.

[nexus]

I can see Leaping being decoupled from strength. There are many cases where strength doesn't equate to jumping long distances or vice versa but melee damage seems pretty closely tied to strength in most genres and role playing games in general. It might make creating Heroic character in particular more complicated and less intuitive and play into the stereotype that in Hero you have pay points for "common sense" things.

[ajackson]

As for jumping: Stronger legs = greater downward force
Realistically, your standing leap distance will be no greater than (velocity)^2/10 meters (in 1 G). Your leap velocity, in turn, will be limited either by the amount of force you can apply, or the maximum speed you can contract your legs. There are plenty of possible mechanisms for strength that are very powerful but very slow. In addition, the time required to complete a realistic leap will be not less than sqrt(distance/5 meters)

As for deciding whether a particular implementation is slow, there's a simple rule you can apply: realistic leaping velocity will never exceed realistic running velocity. If the brick doesn't have super-running, he will not realistically have super-jumping either.

[Southern Cross]

Which would be Running,Usable as Leaping (+1/4 Advantage on Running)!
And isn't a "realistic" CHAMPIONS campaign an oxymoron?

[ajackson]

Which would be Running,Usable as Leaping (+1/4 Advantage on Running)!
and isn't a "realistic" CHAMPIONS campaign an oxymoron?
Yes, but if you're trying to offer realism reasons why Strength should give leaping, I will respond with realism reasons why it shouldn't.

[Opal]

There's realism and there's dramatic realism, and there's just what makes some sense in a game. Currently, in Hero, Strength is decoupled from your mass, you can be as strong as you want, it doesn't make you any heavier. If you're getting stronger without getting any bigger, you probably should be able to jump higher. He should probably be running faster, too. IRL, if you're already lean, and get stronger, you've also gotten heavier. There are a lot of other issues with jumping and physics, the cubed-squared-law, muscle and limb morphology and so forth that clearly go way beyond Hero's 'dramatic' level of realism.

[schir1964]

Well, I'm going to comment on some things and summarize on what I think would be a compromise for allowing for both methods of handling stats and so forth.

The problem of course is that to have mechanics be generic enough to build anything but still allow for the Human-Centric builds to remain easy or straight forward.

Personally I would prefer the mechanics to be more flexible and thus support the decoupling of the figured characteristics. But I also recognize that we need to make the Human-Centric builds easy which is why there would need to be mechanic to associate characteristics (I'm repeating for the benefit of new readers).

Other mechanics that would need to be created would be an actual Reach Mechanic and a Manipulation Mechanic. These two mechanics would allow for elimination of Extra Limbs as a separate power and grants more flexibility for creating Non-Human Templates.

What would need to be created whole cloth is a "Human Template" overlay that would have all those associated characteristics prefigured.

What things would make the Human Template unique?

2d6 Damage
1" Reach (Arms/Legs)
Fine Manipulation (Hands) - This mechanic needs to be fully defined for various levels
Rough Manipulation (Legs) - This mechanic needs to be fully defined for various levels
Mass
Perception (Binocular Vision 120 Degrees, Ranged)
Perception (Binocular Aural 360 Degrees, Ranged)
Perception (Smell ???)
Perception (Taste)
Perception (Touch)
6" Movement (Requires Manipulation: Legs And/Or Arms)
2" Climbing (Requires Manipulation: Hands And Arms And/Or Legs)
Leaping (Requires Manipulation: Legs)
Lift (Requires Manipulation: Arms And/Or Legs)
Strength Associations: Reach, Manipulation, Leaping, Lift, Damage, Figured Characteristics
Dexterity Associations: ...
Constitution Associations: ...
Body Associations: ...
Intelligence Associations: All Perceptions, ...
Ego Associations: ...
Presence Associations: ...
Comeliness (or other Appearance implementation) Associations: ...


Just a quick summary of what would need to be evaluated for the Human Template. The template would have all the costs prefigured as needed so that creating Human-Centric characters would be no more difficult that with existing system, but would allow for the extension of creating whatever is needed for other Non-Human-Centric campaigns.

Also notice that I included mass but not size. If the additional mechanics were created and detailed enough, then a Size Stat would be only be needed as Guideline to show what levels each of the other mechanics would have at different levels of size. In short, different size characters would simply be Sub-Templates off the Human Template.

Anyway, I hold no expectations that such radical changes will ever be implemented, but to remake the system from scratch, it would seem the most logical approach in order to have generic mechanics and still have the ease of Human-Centric builds.

Just My Humble Opinion

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Assumptions

The minimum Characteristic is 1, 0 indicating the lack of the Characteristic.
There are no Figured Characteristics.
The Characteristic starts at 10.
There have to be benefits to buying it up, and a net drawback to buying it down.


Absence of size remains problematic, but that will be an issue due to the "0 means you don't have it" change, and will need to be addressed in that context.

Altered Premises
On the last pass, I was attempting to have a smooth, logarithmic increase from 1 to infinity. This is giving me characters getting too large by 20, and ridiculous sizes by 30, to be reasonably close to human. If I change the formula to bring them more in line, then small characters won't be all that small. There simply needs to be some compression at the low end to make it work.

In addition, with the very reasonable possibility of eliminating the Hex as a unit of measurement, there is less reason to abstract Reach. It can be a significant penalty to small characters that they can't reach as far, so perhaps that will be enough.

I don't see a viable approach that won't compress the low end.

Basics
Cost: 1 point
Base: 10

SIZ 0: The character has either minute or even non-existent mass and volume. He has no Reach, and must be already touching a target to hit it in HTH combat. He may have a number of Powers to simulate aspects of his size not covered by the Characteristic.

SIZ 1-10: The character is up to 10 kg per level of SIZ. He measures .2 m in height per SIZ, and .1m in width and depth per SIZ (Alternatively, .2 m in longest measurement and .1 m in the other two, or an equivalent in volume).

I'd probably set the upper end of the measure based on Siz - ie a character with 1 SIZ can be no more than 0.2 x 0.1 x 0.1 and a character of SIZ 10 can range from 1.8 x .9 x .9 to 2.0 x 1.0 x 1.0.

SIZ 11+: Every five points of SIZ doubles mass, while each 15 doubles proportions/volume. Alternatively, five points of SIZ can double one proportion as well as doubling mass. Each point over a multiple of 5 increases Mass by a further 20%, until the next multiple is reached. That is, a SIZ 11 is up to 120 kg, SIZ 17 is 280 kg, and so on.

Effects
Knockback: In a game using Knockback, a 100kg object will be knocked back acording to the normal rules. Each halving of mass will increase distance traveled by 1", while each doubling will decrease distance traveled by 1". However, this change in distance traveled does not affect damage, as momentum is assumed to be the same (please don't bring up the real physics), except in cases where the large character takes 0" or no knockback.
Reach: Most characters will have a reach of .2 m per SIZ up to 10, x2 per 5 full points of SIZ thereafter.
DCV: Large characters will suffer a -2 DCV for every 15 points of SIZ over 10 they have.
Perception: Large characters take a -2 to Stealth and Concealment rolls to hide them for every 15 points of SIZ over 10.
Small characters do not get a bonus to DCV or Perception, as such a bonus would be taken at -5 SIZ. Also, it is meant to be worth points to sell back SIZ.
STR: The character is considered to have a bonus/penalty of SIZ-10 to STR. If SIZ is changed, STR is changed proportionally.


So 15 points buys me 3" Knockback resistance, -2 DCV, -2 Stealth/conceal and +15 STR. Is there any drawback to +5 SIZ, or should all characters take this instead of +5 STR to get a free 1" KB resistance? Maybe it should be -1 DCV for every +5 SIZ as well - that's a faster DCV decline, but keeps everything even in units of 5 SIZ.

Notes

Things to possibly add: Optional rules for "scale changes" altering CV, giving the effect of Area of Effect, or changing Movement rates.
I'm not entirely satisfied with Reach. Specifically, I'm not sure about making things that are big but have little Reach take a Disadvantage, much as I don't care for high STR low Leaping characters taking same.
It may be necessary to just dump both the penalties for being large and the extra STR, leaving the primary effect to be increased Reach, but again I wanted big creatures to be easy to hit without needing to take a Disadvantage to simulate it.
Alternatively, being small size may need to be beefed up if the STR penalty is kept. If the other drawbacks to being small are worth the points you get, or some percentage thereof, clearly the penalty to STR must be at least partially counterbalanced.


Overall, I think this approach just complicates matters. I still need to buy other abilities to simulate my size change, and I have another characteristic cluttering up the landscape. I'd rather just incorporate specific example constricts for larger and smaller characters, since we'll nee similar templates anyway if we have a SIZ stat that only does some of this.

Overall, I'm concluding the concept of a SIZ sounds interesting but the execution is impractical, making it ultinately more trouble than it's worth.

[Chris Goodwin]

Yes, but if you're trying to offer realism reasons why Strength should give leaping, I will respond with realism reasons why it shouldn't.

There's probably some rationale for basing a character's Running speed on Strength, Constitution, and/or Dexterity, but we've never done it. If 1e had done it, we'd now be talking about decoupling Running from those things. We don't even blink that Running's not based on anything; why are we worried about Leaping?

[Opal]

There's probably some rationale for basing a character's Running speed on Strength, Constitution, and/or Dexterity?I was thinking all three. Running = (STR + DEX + CON)/5 = 6" normal, 12" max. ;) Leaping would be STR/5, Swimming CON/5. They could all be figured!


Speaking of figured characteristics, I was thinking, rather than SIZ giving you STR like growth, how about STR giving you SIZ.

SIZ could be a figured characteristic, say (STR + BOD)/2. 10 is 'normal' size (which, honestly, they should consider making less than 2 meters, already - Murphy's Rules has gotten enough milage out of that).

Instead of SIZ costing points, deviating from your figured SIZ - in either direction, as with Shrinking and Growth - would cost point. Probably not a whole lotta points, but some.

[GamePhil]

So 15 points buys me 3" Knockback resistance, -2 DCV, -2 Stealth/conceal and +15 STR. Is there any drawback to +5 SIZ, or should all characters take this instead of +5 STR to get a free 1" KB resistance? Maybe it should be -1 DCV for every +5 SIZ as well - that's a faster DCV decline, but keeps everything even in units of 5 SIZ.


Not precisely. Keep in mind that true Knockback Resistance decreases the damage taken, while this won't unless KNB is completely eliminated. As for +5 SIZ, it has the drawback of making you mass in at twice as much and only gives you the limited form of KNB, so it's not quite all good. You also have to squeeze under doorways and whatnot.

I'm not entirely happy with the idea of it giving STR, I just don't see a viable alternative that doesn't give you characters limping around.

[GamePhil]

Speaking of figured characteristics, I was thinking, rather than SIZ giving you STR like growth, how about STR giving you SIZ.

SIZ could be a figured characteristic, say (STR + BOD)/2. 10 is 'normal' size (which, honestly, they should consider making less than 2 meters, already - Murphy's Rules has gotten enough milage out of that).

Instead of SIZ costing points, deviating from your figured SIZ - in either direction, as with Shrinking and Growth - would cost point. Probably not a whole lotta points, but some.

Well, assuming that some form of Figured Characteristics are kept, there's still some problems. The main one: Getting a size that is not way out of proportion is really hard. For example, your sample formula gives us a 10 SIZ for those stats, which is desirable, but a 35 SIZ for a 60 STR, 10 BODY character, which may not be depending on what SIZ means. Needing to pay (for instance) 25 more points to be a 60 STR character of normal size may not be to everyone's liking.

[Hugh Neilson]

Not precisely. Keep in mind that true Knockback Resistance decreases the damage taken, while this won't unless KNB is completely eliminated. As for +5 SIZ, it has the drawback of making you mass in at twice as much and only gives you the limited form of KNB, so it's not quite all good. You also have to squeeze under doorways and whatnot.

I'm not entirely happy with the idea of it giving STR, I just don't see a viable alternative that doesn't give you characters limping around.

I think you summarize my main problem with the concept (as opposed to your proposed implementation) right there. There are really no viable alternatives for making the SIZ characteristic work in a fashion that it solves more problems than it creates.

Well, assuming that some form of Figured Characteristics are kept, there's still some problems. The main one: Getting a size that is not way out of proportion is really hard. For example, your sample formula gives us a 10 SIZ for those stats, which is desirable, but a 35 SIZ for a 60 STR, 10 BODY character, which may not be depending on what SIZ means. Needing to pay (for instance) 25 more points to be a 60 STR character of normal size may not be to everyone's liking.

The other problem is that we still have to determine what SIZ does. Obviously, if it's figured from STR and BOD, it can't also grant either. I think we all agree it makes stealth difficult, and reduces DCV, and perhaps enhances Reach. Beyond that, we have no real consistent vision for what it does.

Using your example, we now have a SIZ 35 Brick. Let's assume we don't want him to be SIZ 35 - what do we do? I guess we sell back SIZ, but it seems most of SIZ is negative, not positive, so it should actually cost us points, not generate them, to reduce it, shouldn't it?

[GamePhil]

I think you summarize my main problem with the concept (as opposed to your proposed implementation) right there. There are really no viable alternatives for making the SIZ characteristic work in a fashion that it solves more problems than it creates.


Possibly, but not to say "Steve can do it!" but I'm just a lowly fan tossing out ideas, and I'm satisfied enough with that one to go forward with my ideas elsewhere. I think Steve can do better.

But, we'll see. It may not even go in, much as it would suit my needs once the kinks are worked out.


The other problem is that we still have to determine what SIZ does. Obviously, if it's figured from STR and BOD, it can't also grant either. I think we all agree it makes stealth difficult, and reduces DCV, and perhaps enhances Reach. Beyond that, we have no real consistent vision for what it does.

Using your example, we now have a SIZ 35 Brick. Let's assume we don't want him to be SIZ 35 - what do we do? I guess we sell back SIZ, but it seems most of SIZ is negative, not positive, so it should actually cost us points, not generate them, to reduce it, shouldn't it?

Keep in mind that this is Opal's proposal I was responding to and has nothing to do with my earlier proposal. In that one, it was indeed necessary to buy down, as well as up, SIZ. I see some problems with this, including that it then functions contrary to all other Characteristics and that you have to figure out a benefit from increasing or decreasing it.

I'm beginning to wonder actually if SIZ should be a free Characteristic, with the advantages of going either way balanced with the drawbacks. Then you'd just pick one. This still makes it work differently from other Characteristics, and you'd certainly have to leave things out to be bought separately, but it could solve some problems.

[Tonio]

I have an idea.

Why don't we keep Figureds as they are, but add to them? DEX should be figured off STR, but inversely, since stronger characters tend to be clumsy. They're also good at combat, though, so figure some CSLs off STR to make up for the lost DEX. Make CON figured off STR, too, since stronger characters are usually in better health, too. BODY should be figured off both STR (higher mass from more muscles) and CON (better health = harder to kill). Strong characters are usually slow in the brain department, so figure INT inversely, too. EGO should be figured off STR directly, since strong characters are notoriously stubborn and strongwilled. PRE should be figured off STR, too, since stronger characters are naturally more impressive. Since physical strength is attractive, COM should be figured off STR, too.

We can figure some Powers off characteristics, too. HA/HKA could be figured off STR, since strong characters often maximize the use of their strength by using weapons. (Bricks and such can either define the HA/HKA to be their fists, or buy down their figured HA/HKA.) EB/RKA could be figured off DEX, since agile characters maximize their dexterity by using ranged weapons/attacks. EGO naturally results in a whole slew of mental powers (which can be bought down for those who wish to have a naturally high willpower w/o having mental powers). INT gets you Enhanced Senses; a high enough INT gives you Danger Sense. Running, Leaping, Tunnelling... all should be figured off STR. Flight, Gliding, Swinging should be figured off DEX (they're all graceful or agility-intensive).

Now, all we really need to do to build a HERO character is decide how strong you want him to be... the rest falls in naturally, according to the character archtypes we all enjoy playing.


Yes, this post is supposed to be dripping with sarcasm... but it's what Figured Characteristics really amounts to.

[StGrimblefig]

...
What would need to be created whole cloth is a "Human Template" overlay that would have all those associated characteristics prefigured.

What things would make the Human Template unique?

2d6 Damage
...
Comeliness (or other Appearance implementation) Associations: ...


Just a quick summary of what would need to be evaluated for the Human Template. The template would have all the costs prefigured as needed so that creating Human-Centric characters would be no more difficult that with existing system, but would allow for the extension of creating whatever is needed for other Non-Human-Centric campaigns.

...

- Christopher Mullins

Let's not forget the Disadvantages of being human, that serve to balance out the cost of the basic "Human Template":

Dependence (food)
Dependence (water)
Dependence (oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere)
Dependence (sleep)
Susceptibility (extremely high temperatures)
Susceptibility (extremely low temperatures)
Susceptibility (radiation)
Susceptibility (poisons)
Psychological Limitation (human condition) [what specific PsychLims define the "Human Condition?"]
Physical Limitation (made of meat)
Normal Characteristic Maxima (maybe?)
etc...

Note that the first few of them are the inverses of the Life Support Power, and should be costed appropriately. In fact, seen from this point of view, LS is just the "buying off" of these basic human Disadvantages.

I am probably not qualified to define the specific PsychLims that should be included to define the Human Condition, but I think that there should be some -- if for no other reason than to differentiate human psychology from that of apes, or cheetas or dogs.

Are there any Physical Limitations that are necessary to define humanity? Many PhysLims are defined as the lack of something, so from this point of view, most PhysLims are just "selling back" parts of this template.
Should NCM be included? All "normal" humans have it, but including it would require supers to buy it off -- the inverse of the current philosophy.

Just some things to think about.

[Chris Goodwin]

I was thinking all three. Running = (STR + DEX + CON)/5 = 6" normal, 12" max. ;) Leaping would be STR/5, Swimming CON/5. They could all be figured!

Bwahahahahaha! :rofl:

Speaking of figured characteristics, I was thinking, rather than SIZ giving you STR like growth, how about STR giving you SIZ.

SIZ could be a figured characteristic, say (STR + BOD)/2. 10 is 'normal' size (which, honestly, they should consider making less than 2 meters, already - Murphy's Rules has gotten enough milage out of that).

Keep in mind that this is Opal's proposal I was responding to and has nothing to do with my earlier proposal. In that one, it was indeed necessary to buy down, as well as up, SIZ. I see some problems with this, including that it then functions contrary to all other Characteristics and that you have to figure out a benefit from increasing or decreasing it.

I'm beginning to wonder actually if SIZ should be a free Characteristic, with the advantages of going either way balanced with the drawbacks. Then you'd just pick one. This still makes it work differently from other Characteristics, and you'd certainly have to leave things out to be bought separately, but it could solve some problems.

Perhaps SIZ should be a "determined value" (a la CV) rather than a full blown Characteristic. My thoughts on mass vs. BODY are that if you buy +1 BODY and -1" of Knockback Resistance, you can package them together as one level of Increased Mass. Perhaps you take a Limitation against them, perhaps you can use that as a rationale for taking a Physical Limitation (which could, itself, go in the package).

There's another thing you can buy, Scale (which might just be considered a Characteristic). In the era of hexes, spending 5 points doubles the size of one hex for you; you're still one hex in height, move 6 hexes per Phase, can reach into the next hex, etc., but now the hex is bigger. Now that hexes are going away, 5 points would just double your height, reach, and movement. Buying up the Scale would also give you a rationale for the Inconvenient Size Physical Limitation, for +2 to others Range Modifier to hit you per level of Scale. You can also buy down your Scale; -5 points would halve your height, reach, and movement.

Permanent size increases would then package up +1 BODY, -1" Knockback Resistance, and potentially other things as desired (most likely +5 STR) into a Size Increase Template. Every third level of Size Increase would mean you'd buy one level of Scale as well. It's actually more likely you'd see something like a "Gross Size Increase" Template, including +3 BODY, -3" Knockback Resistance, +15 STR, +3 Scale, and then an "Intermediate Size Increase" including just the BODY, KBR, and STR. Any or all of those things can be bought Costs END and/or Nonpersistent to represent a character who can grow or shrink at will.

[scarlett]

Re: Eliminating figured characteristics.

I believe that one strength of the HERO System is that with every new edition an existing character can be updated with minimal pain or cost.

At least in my group, HERO characters aren't the "roll a new one" every week variety. In fact, I've been playing the same character off and on for years in an absolutely enormous "world."

Radical changes to the system will require weeks/months of retrofit. Please keep that in mind?

[Tonio]

Re: Eliminating figured characteristics.

I believe that one strength of the HERO System is that with every new edition an existing character can be updated with minimal pain or cost.

At least in my group, HERO characters aren't the "roll a new one" every week variety. In fact, I've been playing the same character off and on for years in an absolutely enormous "world."

Radical changes to the system will require weeks/months of retrofit. Please keep that in mind?

Well, given that you'd already have the value of the formerly-Figureds all set, updating the character would only involve calculating the new cost of these characteristics, which would be as simple as (value - starting) * cost, an expression involving one substraction, one multiplication, and three constants.

[Opal]

The other problem is that we still have to determine what SIZ does. Obviously, if it's figured from STR and BOD, it can't also grant either. I think we all agree it makes stealth difficult, and reduces DCV, and perhaps enhances Reach. Beyond that, we have no real consistent vision for what it does.It also makes you harder to throw or knock back, could reasonably make you harder to grab (and make grabbing easier for you), might give you some other offensive advantage (like higher OCV as well as reach) in melee. On the down side, it's very inconvenient when it comes to dealing with vehicles, equipment, and structures scaled for smaller characters, and it gives you less 'surplus STR' for leaping.


Using your example, we now have a SIZ 35 Brick. Let's assume we don't want him to be SIZ 35 - what do we do? I guess we sell back SIZ, but it seems most of SIZ is negative, not positive, so it should actually cost us points, not generate them, to reduce it, shouldn't it?Yes, I'd say that reducing SIZ from it's figured level should cost points. Increasing it might also cost points. Neither might cost all that many points, depending on exactly how you decide to model the effects, mechanically. As a campaign ground-rule, you might give characters some latitude with thier SIZ, figure it differently, or have it be independent. For instance, in a supers game where you don't give out NCM, and there are a variety of valid F/X for being very strong without being very big, you might figure STR at 8+STR/5, so a 60 STR brick would be SIZ 20, and could be normal sized for a nominal cost, or you might decouple SIZ unless a character took NCM.

[Rockhoof]

I generally regard COM as a worthless characteristic. That kind of thing always seemed to me to be more suitable to an advantage/disadvantage that affects PRE attacks and/or social interaction rolls.

I see this reaction a lot, and I'd advocate a that solution (COM being a perk of some sort) as well as a different strategy. Change COM to Charisma - CHA. COMeliness is how [un-]pretty you are; that's of limited use. CHArisma is much more than that. Charisma is your force of personality, and that should have some in-game effects. You can be ugly and still have Charisma, Ghandi wasn't pretty, but people listened when he spoke.

You can get rid of PREsence entirely, and change PRE attacks to CHA attacks, which allow for all sorts of different SFx: A pretty girl can CHA attack the doorman to let her and her friends in (SFx: She's pretty), a Tank character can CHA attack a goon to force it to attack him and not the Energy Projector (SFx: He's intimidating). Negative PRE becomes a non-issue because everything is now a positive value

Even more interesting would be basing power skill rolls off of CHA. Your ability to summon demons depends somewhat on INT (you gotta know how to summon demons), but even more on your persuasiveness (if you can't persuade them, they may eat you instead of the BBEG over there).

What if you wanted to model a priest with powers from some god? a Power Skill based off of INT doesn't seem too good of a match, but basing it off of CHA does. Turning undead? Undead don't care how pretty you are, but your force of personality matters to them a lot.

In conclusion, changing COM to CHA is a much more elegant solution, providing players with increased granularity and it still achieves the reduction in stats, by allowing you to eliminate PRE entirely as well as eliminate that "Negative COM is a benefit" issue.

[archermoo]

I see this reaction a lot, and I'd advocate a that solution (COM being a perk of some sort) as well as a different strategy. Change COM to Charisma - CHA. COMeliness is how [un-]pretty you are; that's of limited use. CHArisma is much more than that. Charisma is your force of personality, and that should have some in-game effects. You can be ugly and still have Charisma, Ghandi wasn't pretty, but people listened when he spoke.

You can get rid of PREsence entirely, and change PRE attacks to CHA attacks, which allow for all sorts of different SFx: A pretty girl can CHA attack the doorman to let her and her friends in (SFx: She's pretty), a Tank character can CHA attack a goon to force it to attack him and not the Energy Projector (SFx: He's intimidating). Negative PRE becomes a non-issue because everything is now a positive value

Even more interesting would be basing power skill rolls off of CHA. Your ability to summon demons depends somewhat on INT (you gotta know how to summon demons), but even more on your persuasiveness (if you can't persuade them, they may eat you instead of the BBEG over there).

What if you wanted to model a priest with powers from some god? a Power Skill based off of INT doesn't seem too good of a match, but basing it off of CHA does. Turning undead? Undead don't care how pretty you are, but your force of personality matters to them a lot.

In conclusion, changing COM to CHA is a much more elegant solution, providing players with increased granularity and it still achieves the reduction in stats, by allowing you to eliminate PRE entirely as well as eliminate that "Negative COM is a benefit" issue.

Except that Charisma already exists in the system, as PRE. I don't see any particular need to rename it to Charisma.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, given that you'd already have the value of the formerly-Figureds all set, updating the character would only involve calculating the new cost of these characteristics, which would be as simple as (value - starting) * cost, an expression involving one substraction, one multiplication, and three constants.

Now rebuild the character to eliminate the points you spent to get the Figured's back up to their former level. That will carry some extra operations.

Of course, for full reverse compatibility, we'd be forced to change nothing at all, which pretty much defeats the purpose of having a new edition.

[Rockhoof]

Except that Charisma already exists in the system, as PRE. I don't see any particular need to rename it to Charisma.

Which is fine, I just think people have a more intuitive understanding of CHA. Also, changing PRE to CHA broadens the definition of that characteristic, which allows for more SFx. You only ever hear of commanding or calming presences, whereas charisma embodies all that and more. We should change the vernacular to match the common usage, IMO.

To horribly abuse math terminology, PRE is a proper subset of CHA. Why use the more limited definition?

[archermoo]

Which is fine, I just think people have a more intuitive understanding of CHA. Also, changing PRE to CHA broadens the definition of that characteristic, which allows for more SFx. You only ever hear of commanding or calming presences, whereas charisma embodies all that and more. We should change the vernacular to match the common usage, IMO.

To horribly abuse math terminology, PRE is a proper subset of CHA. Why use the more limited definition?

If you are using PRE as a limited subset of CHA then you are the one that is putting the limit on it. They are synonyms.

[Tonio]

Now rebuild the character to eliminate the points you spent to get the Figured's back up to their former level. That will carry some extra operations.

No need, we're not talking about re-creating characters, but porting. If the game mechanics changed, then a re-build might be in order. But if PD still does the same thing, then the new character should have the same PD, regardless of how much it now costs him.

[CTaylor]

Radical changes to the system will require weeks/months of retrofit. Please keep that in mind?

Absolutely. The mantra has to be "new edition, not new game."

[input.jack]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: There’s some attraction to this idea. It would eliminate issues about selling things back or creating many types of non-human characters. To some extent it mirrors “HERO System logic” of not getting anything for free (though of course doing this would mean characters would have to have about +200 points to build themselves on just to get to “human standard” Characteristics and related abilities).

While in an absolute sense this appeals to me, I think it’s probably not necessary. Starting at 10s has been a part of every edition of the HERO System, and it tends to go along with the “dramatic simulation” aspect of the system. I don’t mind being a little humanocentric in this regard, either. ;)

While its possible, I dont think its necessary. People -can- sell off characteristics when creating non-Humans, and since its basic addition and subtraction, I dont think thats a big dealio. Changing the values to 0 would make more mathematical sense, but it would also mean more base points to keep track of. Also, having the 10s on the sheet is a subtle reminder of what "Human average" is, which can be useful when scaling a character :)

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

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

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

As you say, it becomes...odd...when dealing with negative STR. The only problem with removing negative characteristics, especially STR, is that it means that the system -will- inherently beark down at the small end of things. If someone wants to run a game where the PCs are all ants, scaled with Humans, right now they can. (WHY they would is another matter, entirely). If you alter the Str 1-5 scale so that STR 0 = 0 lift, it removes it from the smooth, logical progression we have now.

If that doesnt bother you, then go for it. But there are some people whose OCD will go haywire. ;)


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

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

Now. obviously some Characteristics already have point-by-point effectiveness regardless of the existence of the breakpoints: DEX, used for initiative; CON, used to resist Stunning; BODY, used to resist dying; EGO, used to withstand continuing-effect Mental Powers. (To the extent PRE is used to resist Presence Attacks, it might count too.) And there are some Characteristics to which point-by-point effectiveness can be ascribed (i.e., STR, as shown in UB), though my opinion is that inserting that level of detail into the core rulebook is a bad idea. But even with all that, the breakpoints often persist since they’re so efficient.

In an ideal world I would strongly prefer to avoid this, to give every point of a Characteristic some worthwhile effect, and to give gamers a reason to differentiate their characters by buying that 16 PRE or 14 INT. However, I’m not sure that’s feasible without changing the entire HERO System more than I want to, or cluttering it up in ways that I don’t think are helpful. For example, I’ve seen some players suggest Skill systems along the line of “roll 3d6, add your Characteristic, try to beat thus-and-such target number.” That doesn’t seem workable to me for a variety of reasons. Nor have I ever had any other idea that would work. I can’t even come up with tables like the UB STR Table for the other Characteristics that most need it — INT and PRE — because they’re both “abstract” Characteristics that can’t be pegged to an easily-determined thing like “how many kilos you can lift.”

So unless I have some sort of brainstorm or someone comes out of left field with a suggestion worthy of consideration, my thinking is that Characteristics are likely to stay just the way they are in this particular respect. It’s not the most desireable state of affairs, but the alternatives seem worse.

I agree with you on this one. All the primary Stats should be on the same scale (10 = average, 20 = doubling point), and if you reduce one (like STR or INT) to fit a "break point" scale, all ther est have to be reduced, too.

People will always gravitate towards the break points, but thats not necessarily a bad thing. Other Players will continue to give their characters 14 STRs, or 16 INTs, because thats just how they want things to be.

I think fixing the problem here would create new, uglier problems.

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

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

However, making this change raises a couple of sub-issues:

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

Steve’s Thoughts: My feeling on this is no, they should not. I think regardless of the side benefit of getting Figureds, each Primary Characteristic provides one or more valuable functions that justify its current cost. 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.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: This one’s a little trickier. Let’s analyze some caase studies to get an idea of the mathemetical effects. I’ve chosen three: a brick; a high-end martial artist/athlete, and Pulp explorer Randall Irons.

Here’s a theoretical brick’s Characteristics under the 5E rules:

Val Char Cost
60 STR 50
20 DEX 30
30 CON 40
25 BODY 30
10 INT 0
10 EGO 0
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0

30 PD 18
30 ED 24
5 SPD 20
25 REC 14
60 END 0
70 STUN 0
Total Cost: 236

Here’s the same character with no Figureds:

Val Char Cost
60 STR 50
20 DEX 30
30 CON 40
25 BODY 30
10 INT 0
10 EGO 0
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0

30 PD 28
30 ED 28
5 SPD 30
25 REC 42
60 END 20
70 STUN 50
Total Cost: 358

So, that’s 122 more points — and a final cost that, exclusive of anything else, can’t be achieved for a standard 350-point starting superhero.

Now here’s a high-end martial artist, such as you might find in a Champions or wuxia campaign, under the 5E rules:

Val Char Cost
20 STR 10
25 DEX 45
20 CON 20
15 BODY 10
15 INT 5
15 EGO 10
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0

15 PD 11
10 ED 6
6 SPD 25
10 REC 4
40 END 0
40 STUN 5
Total Cost: 161

Now with no Figureds:

Val Char Cost
20 STR 10
25 DEX 45
20 CON 20
15 BODY 10
15 INT 5
15 EGO 10
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0

15 PD 13
10 ED 8
6 SPD 40
10 REC 12
40 END 10
40 STUN 20
Total Cost: 213

That’s a cost increase of 52 points.

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

Val Char Cost
15 STR 5
15 DEX 15
18 CON 16
12 BODY 4
13 INT 3
13 EGO 6
20 PRE 10
14 COM 2

6 PD 3
6 ED 2
4 SPD 15
7 REC 0
36 END 0
39 STUN 10
Total Cost: 91

Now without Figureds:

Val Char Cost
15 STR 5
15 DEX 15
18 CON 16
12 BODY 4
13 INT 3
13 EGO 6
20 PRE 10
14 COM 2

6 PD 4
6 ED 4
4 SPD 20
7 REC 6
36 END 8
39 STUN 19
Total Cost: 122

So, Randall has to pay 31 more points for the same Characteristics.

In light of these examples, assuming we want to keep characters at the same level of power and competence (and I think that’s a safe assumption), some increase in the starting points is going to be necessary. “How much more?” is the obvious follow-up question, and that’s something I’ll have to consider for each character classification.

Separating figured stats from primary stats would, in fact, smooth out and speed up the character creation process a LOT. (For me, at least). I see no reason to change the costs of the Stats, though based on the examples Id recommend a +50 point bump to starting points, across the board.


Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

Steve’s Thoughts: Even assuming no other changes, I’m strongly opposed to increasing the cost of STR. To the extent there are problems with the cost of STR, I think that removing Figured Characteristics and Leaping from STR resolves them just fine.

Agreed. The ONLY reason people have thought STR was too cheap was because of the figured Char's that came along with it.

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

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

My gut says leave Leaping as part of STR.

My head sees your point about elephants and giants.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: While it might solve some difficulties, my thinking is that it should not. The correlation between raw force and damage is one most gamers can understand; it’s “gaming logical” even if it’s not necessarily “realistic.”

I would strongly oppose removing base HTH damage from STR. For exactly the reasons you give. While at the upper end, there might be a "loss of leverage", I think thats adequately reflected by the fact that damage increases linearly, and lift exponentially. Besides, remove figured stats, leaping, AND hand to hand damage from STR, and why bother listing it at all? ;)

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. Even if we get rid of Figureds, it still provides enough bang to be worth 3 Character Points per point, and I don’t think an increase is necessary. If CV were removed from DEX (see below), then the cost of DEX would probably need to change.

Agreed. So long as DEX adds to CV, it needs to remain 3 points / level.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: See my HEROglyphs column in DH #15 for a review of how this might work. Basically you split DEX into three Characteristics, each costing 1 Character Point per point, one for CV, one for DEX-based rolls, and one for SPD. This increases the granularity of the HERO System, making more precise character definition possible. However, adding more Characteristics clutters up the character sheet and increases the learning curve, and since it’s just replacing one thing (that can be Limited if necessary) with three things that basically have the same function, it doesn’t really streamline anything at all. I think DEX is fine as it is (though some other questions below discuss different aspects of it).

Personally, I think splitting it up into three, one-use aspects is easier than having all of these things derived from one Stat. Its actually -easier- to buy three things that are straightforward, than to buy one thing that does a lot of things, and then have to apply Limitations to get what you want. (Similar to the pain in the neck listed above, of having to take Limitations on Elephants STR regarding leaping)

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

Steve’s Thoughts: My current thinking is that it should not, though I haven’t completely abandoned the idea. There are definitely some arguments to be made in favor of this. First, logically there’s no real correlation between being nimble, agile, or deft, and being accurate with attacks and weapons. “Realistically,” accuracy is more a matter of training than anything, though natural aptitude can factor in. Second, making CV a Characteristic would allow characters to affect it with Adjustment Powers and the like. This would make building many powers and abilities easier in some ways. Third, decoupling CV would be consistent with decoupling Figureds in general, and Leaping from STR.

However, splitting off CV also poses some problems. It would mean adding one (or possibly two) Characteristics to the character sheet, and generally that seems undesireable to me. Second, by “gaming logic” dexterity and accuracy go together pretty well. Third, it would increase the percentage of their starting points that characters spend on Characteristics. Fourth, unless priced expensively (say, 5-8 points per +1 CV), doing this could easily lead to “CV inflation” in many games. Fifth, doing this might require changing the cost structure of Combat Skill Levels.

Realistically, ID say separate them.

For Playability, Id say keep it together.

Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

Steve’s Thoughts: Right now, INT in the HERO System is generally defined as the ability to perceive and react to problems and crisis situations quickly. If so, it could be better named, and it should probably factor into how SPD is calculated (see below). And there’s some question as to whether it should be the basis of so many Skills that seem to depend on intellect, memory, and reasoning power. Right now my thinking is we’d be better off to “redefine” it as being basically “thinking power,” and leave the idea of reacting to crises out, or at least only refer to it secondarily.

I think redefining INT as reasoning and memory power is best. Perception could easily be made its own thing (see below), and reacting to problems is what SPD is for.

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

Steve’s Thought