Characteristics Issues [Archive] - Page 6 - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Chris Goodwin

Mar 18th, '08, 01:31 PM

Patched, Fixed, kludged - whatever you want to call it, you can't buy your CON to 1000, sell back all the figureds and net spendable points out of the deal. Figureds are just a cost break under the post-1st rules. Thier only fundamentally broken if all power frameworks, limitations, and even skill enhancers, are also fundamentally broken.

Which, as the leader of the conspiracy, you obviously believe. ;)

See, I'm not opposed to all cost breaks, or cost breaks in general. What I'm opposed to are cost breaks that affect certain character concepts at the expense of others. For instance, one of your positions has been that decoupling Figured Characteristics hits bricks disproportionally hard because of the brick's reliance on physical Characteristics, where the big breaks for Figureds lie. With coupled Figureds, the cost break helps Bricks, true, but it also helps lots of other characters who -- we've seen, time and again! -- buy physical Characteristics out of concept in order to ride on the Figureds break. Putting a limit on how many Figureds can be bought down hasn't done anything to fix this, and which is why I've all along been harping on how broken Figured Characteristics is. The "sell back Figureds for free points mill" is what the patch was put in place for, but it didn't fix the fundamentally broken mechanic that encourages out of concept builds.

(On the subject of cost breaks, Elemental Controls I'm still iffy on, though not as much, and Multipowers a lot less still, because anyone can take advantage of those and get the same benefit. (I'm kind of iffy on Elemental Controls because of the somewhat arbitrary current requirements that, barring GM permission, only permit Powers that cost END in them (for which read, Energy Projector type Powers). There are Brick Tricks Multipowers, and Martial Arts really belong in Multipowers IMO.) )

If you have a system that can be gamed, people will game it. Why should we keep it, and continue to encourage people to game the system, rationalizing that it's okay because different concepts get to game the system in different ways? IMO that way lies character classes.

Opal

Mar 18th, '08, 01:51 PM

What I'm opposed to are cost breaks that affect certain character concepts at the expense of others.It's not like the cost break one character enjoys is paid for by another. But, some cost breaks are given for in return for restricting how the points can be spent. Points in an EC can only be spent on equally potent powers with the same F/X. Points saved by buying a Primary char are only spent on a precise set of figureds. A character with Characteristic Maxima can only buy his stats so high before the points he got for it start disapearing.

With coupled Figureds, the cost break helps Bricks, true, but it also helps lots of other characters who -- we've seen, time and again! -- buy physical Characteristics out of concept in order to ride on the Figureds break. I'm not so sure I've seen a whole lot of it. The game is called Hero System, afterall, and it is biased towards heroic characters, who tend to be physically capable. Exceptions exist, but they are, well, exceptions. In a point build stystem, you make character types that are supposed to be less common less common by making them more expensive - ironically, this often keeps them balanced, since enemies are less well-prepared for them (basing your character around DEX & STR is more efficient, point-wise, than basing it around EGO & EGO Blast, but enemies very often have higher DEX than ego, and no Mental Defense, because mentalists are uncommon).

A character with extremely low STR, DEX, CON, PD, ED, SPD, or STN, is going to be very unheroically frail and difficult to play to much effect (low SPD means minimal spotlight time, add to that being consistently KOd before you ever act, and what's the point?) Sure, you could give such a character 'fairer' points to reflect being so handicapped, but it still wouldn't be a very useable character, it'd be too imbalanced (in the sense of not well-rounded, not in the sense of over or under powered, though it might very well be /both/ of those, as well).

Being point-disfavored makes such characters uncommon, but, that uncommoness also makes them work better for players who /really/ want them. They may not be as effectual as others, as consistently, but they're unique, and will shine occassionally.

Then again, they're not all necisairly, /that/ point-disfavored. A character for whom buying any STR or CON would be out-of-concept could take 'Age' (with some other F/X), getting a different point break for having some good (for most genres) choices restricted, for instance. Nothing out there for the stubbornly low-DEX character in an action genre, but wouldn't be surprised if one could come up with something - some physical limitations, for instance - that would be consistent with the concept, net points, and make buying up dex inapropriate.

I'm kind of iffy on Elemental Controls because of the somewhat arbitrary current requirements that, barring GM permission, only permit Powers that cost END in themI think the END thing is a little odd, too, FWIW.

There are Brick Tricks MultipowersThere are, but since STR doesn't actually go into them, they're not nearly the cost break that they are for Energy projectors and the like.

Martial Arts really belong in Multipowers IMO.They might as well be. You pay for STR & Damage Classes (there's the reserve), and manuevers (slots).

If you have a system that can be gamed, people will game it. All systems can be gamed (not just games, either, laws and regs are routinely 'gamed'), and yes, some people will always game any system.

Why should we keep it, and continue to encourage people to game the system, rationalizing that it's okay because different concepts get to game the system in different ways? IMO that way lies character classes.You can't create a system that can't be gamed, but you can create one that lends itself to being gamed in predictable, even desireable, ways. That's where Hero is, now (and has been since 4th, at least). You can also change a system each time you notice it being gamed, closing one loophole while opening up others. MMOs are notorious for this (so I've heard), and it's from that tendency that we get the charming 'nerfed' coloquialism.

Tonio

Mar 18th, '08, 02:02 PM

You could look at the gadgetter as having paid a premium, but, really, he got a huge cost break compared to buying every single technological gadget he could possibly think of within a certain Apt limit, and with the restriction that he can only have a few of them at a given moment - even when you count in the cost of his Gadgeteering skill. But, I wasn't even really thinking of the VPP, just the skills that'd go with it. The gadgeteer, for instance, could likely disarm an alien megascale mutation bomb, quite apart from his VPP, because he has a very high Gadgeteering skill. The breakfall & acrobatics the martial artist has for combat, would also help him with second story work.

Those skills are available to everyone, whether they bought their Characteristics high and benefited from Figureds, or not. In fact, those that bought 'em high are better at some/most skills! The fact is the MA paid for his Breakfall and Acrobatics Skills, and the Gadgeteer paid for his Gadgeteering Skill.

He paid for STR, STR lets you lift stuff. It would be silly for STR /not/ to let you pick up heavy things.

Just as silly as if someone with a high "Überness" characteristic (if there were such a thing) were unable to shoot powerful beams, fly, and withstand all sorts of damage, cuz that makes you über. Such a characteristic wouldn't do very well in HERO, because it'd offer too much; there'd be no reason not to load up on it, unless it were more expensive than buying the individual components. If 10 points of STR are going to be as useful as 20 points in other places, it should cost the same as 20 points in other places.

Lots of powers have non-combat aplication. Flight will let you get a heart attack victim to the hospital in time, in spite of gridlock. Force Wall will shore up a failing levy. EB (cold) will help you put out a fire. Tunnelling will let you free trapped miners safely. Etc, etc... Really, arguably, any power has non-combat aplications. Should they all be bought sepparately? No! It would be nightmarishly complex - compared to Hero the way it is now, a system often criticised for it's complexity.

Yes, lots of powers have non-combat applications, but STR tops the list of "userfulness for price", considering all applications (combat and noncombat). Or at least is very high on the list.

And STR does damage, so 5pts/die is prettymuch the right price.

This blatantly ignores all other applications of STR! Add to EB the power of Flight (at 1" per 2pts spent on it), some defenses (at 2 pts of resistant PD or ED per 3pts spent on it)... is it still priced correctly at 5pts/die because it does damage? Obviously not. STR is NOT priced right precisely because it does one die per 5pts spent in addition to all the other added usefulness, especially in the form of Figureds.

EBs and FFs aren't priced wrong just because they can be had for less in ECs, either. The cost break is there for giving up some choice in what you get for the points you spend. Points in an EC always go to the same special effect (restrcitive). Points in STR always go to STR, PD, REC and STN (much more restrictive).

EBs and FFs aren't priced wrong... ECs are. Point-spending restrictions shouldn't give you point breaks. How much of a restriction would it be if I could only spend my points the same way as <insert favorite character here>? It's a total and complete restriction on ALL my character points. Once a character is built, the restrictions are meaningless. Moreover, the utility a character derives from the spending of his points is self-evident, and does not rely on why the points were spent like they were.

Characteristics are analogous to a set of propperly-priced powers in a point-saving Framework. I think it'd be cool if that were formalized, but it certainly shouldn't be eliminated.

Heh... "properly priced"? Nah. They're analogous to a "bias against creativity" points-saving Framework. :p

It's not a problem right now, because you can't do it. Just like you can't spend 30 points to buy a slot in your EC, then get back 60 for deciding not to have it, afterall.

Rhetoric aside, if selling back Figureds is a problem, the appropriate course of action is figuring (no pun intended!) out why, and correcting the cause of the problem, not ignoring it by disallowing it. That's like saying "my broken finger is no longer a problem, because I cut my arm off".

You seemed to be saying that something that you acknowledge was bad (selling back all figureds) is - like the position you espouse, decoupling figureds - somehow more desireable than the current way of handling them.

I'm saying that if we FIX the problem, rather than throwing a blanket over it, selling back Figureds wouldn't be a problem.

Opal

Mar 18th, '08, 03:14 PM

the Gadgeteer paid for his Gadgeteering Skill.The gadgeteer recieved a massive cost break compared to buying every technological focus you could ever think of. Part of that cost break was that he'd only have a few available on one adventure. But, buy buying a very high gadgeteering skill, he gained the ability to change his powers much more quickly - something that would be a +1 (or 2) advantage on his Control cost to buy without the skill. The skill is cheaper. Compared to buying a cosmic pool, he didn't just get the skill for free, he saved points by taking the skill.

Just as silly as if someone with a high "Überness" characteristic (if there were such a thing)But, there isn't such a thing, while there is such a thing as strength.

were unable to shoot powerful beams, fly, and withstand all sorts of damage, cuz that makes you über. Such a characteristic wouldn't do very well in HERO, because it'd offer too much; there'd be no reason not to load up on it, unless it were more expensive than buying the individual components.Funny, an EC with EB, Flight and Force Field works pretty well. No GM would buy the F/X 'uberness' - even with the oumlout - but asside from that, yes, you can get a cost break for a sensible set of powers associated with a speical effect, just as you can get a cost break for a (precise) set of abilities associated with being stronger.

If 10 points of STR are going to be as useful as 20 points in other places, it should cost the same as 20 points in other places.It costs as much as a 20 point power bought in a pre-existing EC of of 20 point powers.

Yes, lots of powers have non-combat applications, but STR tops the list of "userfulness for price", considering all applications (combat and noncombat). Or at least is very high on the list.A lot of it depends on F/X and situation, but there's no doubting that STR is a good deal, any way you slice it. It's also not a terribly unique sort of power, nor one that's likely to come as surprise to most opponents.

This blatantly ignores all other applications of STR!Not entirely. If /all/ STR did was a 1d6Np/5pts of STR punch, it'd be overpriced at 1:1. Heck, it'd be overpriced at 3. Add in grabbing (not as good as continuous), leaping (1pt) and the ability to throw things(not as good as ranged with a focus of opportunity), and what amount to little more than F/X-based stunts like lifting things, and it's pretty competative at 5 points. One might argue for a little more, but 5pts is disireable, and taking away any of the things STR does would be pretty counterintuitive.

Counting the figureds though would be like counting the FF you can buy in a multipower or EC as part of your EB. But, as far as what it does, yes, 5pts is good for STR. I'd say too good to allow the "no figured characteristics" limitation when it's bought in a power framework, for instance.

Add to EB the power of Flight (at 1" per 2pts spent on it), some defenses (at 2 pts of resistant PD or ED per 3pts spent on it)... An EB does damage, at range. In addition, it can be spread, be used to break out of entangles, and probably some other things based on it's F/X.

STR is NOT priced right precisely because it does one die per 5pts spentLet me rephrase that, then. The desireable price for STR is 5pts per die. 1d6 Np is not worth 5 pts, so STR needs some extras to be worth 5 pts.

in addition to all the other added usefulness, especially in the form of Figureds.
For figureds, think comparison to power frameworks, not individual powers.

EBs and FFs aren't priced wrong... ECs are. Point-spending restrictions shouldn't give you point breaks.Well, certainly completely arbitrary player-defined ones shouldn't. "Can only spend points on what I've already decided I want to spend points on" isn't a definition for an EC nor suitable as a disadvantage. Since they wouldn't really be restrictions. Well, maybe a small one, since the character wouldn't be able to change his mind later.

Once a character is built, the restrictions are meaningless.Not true, since they may well continue to affect how you spend exp.

Moreover, the utility a character derives from the spending of his points is self-evident, and does not rely on why the points were spent like they wereThe game is not that perfect. You can spend points in more or less effective ways, depending on campaign, circumstance, and, well, what else you've spent points on. A character with no effective attack who spends 30 points on an NND is more effective, even if that's a little on the weak side for the campaign. A character who already has a 6d EB is not much more effective for also buying a 30 pt NND - he can put stun on someone the EB would bounce off of, or throw an MPA, but he'd be better off adding the 30pts to his EB. If 6d can put even a little STN on most opponents, upping it to twelve is like getting the fucntionality of a 6d NND - with no defense at all.

Points are not perfect barometers of power effectiveness nor character effectiveness - and they could never be made to be. They are a resource that the player expends to define his character. And, by establishing groundrules that affect point costs, the GM encourages players to build characters that conform to the sort of campaign he has in mind. If the GM allows multipowers, he's encouraging players to build characters with many options. If he allow ECs, he's encouraging tight power concepts (and taking greater control over the design and development of characters with such concepts). If he disallows both, but allows powers, he's encouraging characters to have a single, substantial power - or, perhaps, several limitted but diverse ones.

Ditching figureds or buying all stats up from zero or allowing characters that outright 'lack' certain stats (and are unaffected/nonparticipating in the associated mechanics) are ways a GM could encourage players to build /very/ unusual characters, like disembodied spirits, freewilled golems, psychic jellyfish, or fungi from Yugoth. Using Figured chracteristics by default, encourages players build more human-like characters, or more propperly, makes efficiently building such characters easy to the point of beign automatic.

Since far more people want to play strong-jawed (human) heros than 4 dimensional blobs or forklifts, that's a good thing.

Heh... "properly priced"? Nah. They're analogous to a "bias against creativity" points-saving Framework. One player's creativity is another GM's headache.

Rhetoric aside, if selling back Figureds is a problem, the appropriate course of action is figuring (no pun intended!) out why, and correcting the cause of the problem, not ignoring it by disallowing it.That would be the more elegant solution, yes. Though, really, the reason it was a problem was because people could sell back all thier figured characteristics, and net a point per 10 CON (you could also net a point per 10 STR, but champaign caps limitted that abuse), and disallowing selling back more than one stat corrected it. Really, I'd say not allowing the selling back of figured characteristics at all would be better. Don't want a 4 REC? sell back STR or CON until it's low enough for you, then buy the primary back with the limitation, and buy up any other figureds to where you want them. Yes, it's more expensive. So is buying a magical lightningbolt outside of your mutant flame powers EC.

Really, the objection to figureds with regards to 'creative' characters is not that you can't build your wierd character, it's that /other/ players are saving points by building less wierd ones.

I'm saying that if we FIX the problem, rather than throwing a blanket over it, selling back Figureds wouldn't be a problem.I think I'll just officially come down on the side of selling back figured characteristics should be an oxymoron. You didn't pay points for them, you can't get points back by reducing them. Maybe you can take a physical limitation to get what you're trying to model (you want a glass jaw to go with your 60 STR, take 2x STN from normal physical attacks). Or, maybe if your concept calls for a character that can lift a great deal, but not leap or take a punch, you should be looking at 'no range TK' or something else other than STR.

Characteristics, as they stand, let you build a reasonable, familiar sort of character very easily and efficiently, without having to sort through the minutiae of the rules. That's a good thing. If you want to create a very unusual character, you have to get creative, learn more of the rules, and go for a more comples, possibly less efficient build. That's not a bad thing, because you're getting something out of it: a character that's going to be genuinely unique (and probably memorable) compared to those everyone else brings to the table.

Paragon

Mar 18th, '08, 03:28 PM

Philosophical difference. That's all.

I've always valued Consistency and Flexibility over forced balanced. You don't see it as virtue, I do. Just a difference of opinion here. Who is to say one is better than the other. Which was one of my points.

So it would seem that it is not that anyone is actually against such a change, it is that they don't agree that such change is possible. Fair enough.

- Christopher Mullins

Well, my argument there has been that at least some of the proponents of change for consistency seem to be concerned about it here, but not in other places where it seems no better. As a general philosophical basis I can respect it, but I have trouble with it being used as a defense of only _this_ change.

steamteck

Mar 18th, '08, 03:36 PM

Just as silly as if someone with a high "Überness" characteristic (if there were such a thing) were unable to shoot powerful beams, fly, and withstand all sorts of damage, cuz that makes you über. Such a characteristic wouldn't do very well in HERO, because it'd offer too much; there'd be no reason not to load up on it, unless it were more expensive than buying the individual components. If 10 points of STR are going to be as useful as 20 points in other places, it should cost the same as 20 points in other places.

Rhetoric aside, if selling back Figureds is a problem, the appropriate course of action is figuring (no pun intended!) out why, and correcting the cause of the problem, not ignoring it by disallowing it. That's like saying "my broken finger is no longer a problem, because I cut my arm off".

I'm saying that if we FIX the problem, rather than throwing a blanket over it, selling back Figureds wouldn't be a problem.

Connecting the things Opal mentioned is not silly for the way (9% of the people think of STR. Your counter example is just not relevant except in an eosteric theoretical sense which most gamers just don't want ot bother with in my experience . Your obviously differs

To me eliminating figures IS cutting your arm off because your finger is broken.Adjust the costs, change how buying back characteristics works OK, But seems like your argument is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

steamteck

Mar 18th, '08, 03:42 PM

Heh... "properly priced"? Nah. They're analogous to a "bias against creativity" points-saving Framework. :p

Oh come on! Stop with that already. My groups creativity kung fu can't be that much better than yours that Iron man , cybernetics and other non figured guys are so much of a problem for you. What can't you make? The only valid complaint I have seen is that no figured characteristics is mispriced. I just don't see this creativity crush. I see lots of extra work if they're eliminated because I use them as a baseline ( gee, almost like that was what was intended.)

Paragon

Mar 18th, '08, 03:50 PM

Oh come on! Stop with that already. My groups creativity kung fu can't be that much better than yours that Iron man , cybernetics and other non figured guys are so much of a problem for you. What can't you make? The only valid complaint I have seen is that no figured characteristics is mispriced. I just don't see this creativity crush. I see lots of extra work if they're eliminated because I use them as a baseline ( gee, almost like that was what was intended.)

That's pretty much my take on it; I've certainly managed to build such things to my satisfaction with the system as-is, and have seen a lot of other people do so, so I can't see it being that impossible.

That doesn't mean there aren't things in the jungle of characteristics that could use some adjustment, of course.

schir1964

Mar 18th, '08, 06:54 PM

Well, my argument there has been that at least some of the proponents of change for consistency seem to be concerned about it here, but not in other places where it seems no better. As a general philosophical basis I can respect it, but I have trouble with it being used as a defense of only _this_ change.
As you probably have already read, I wasn't using it as a defense of only _this_ change.

My preferred solution (not the one I suggested) requires that everything be torn down to simple elements and built back up from scratch in a more consistent flexible manner. I've already done this to some degree while I was researching the mechanics, but that is my personal pet project that will never see the light of day outside my own campaigns.

But no worries, mon! (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

Kenn

Mar 18th, '08, 08:35 PM

Oh come on! Stop with that already. My groups creativity kung fu can't be that much better than yours that Iron man , cybernetics and other non figured guys are so much of a problem for you. What can't you make? The only valid complaint I have seen is that no figured characteristics is mispriced. I just don't see this creativity crush. I see lots of extra work if they're eliminated because I use them as a baseline ( gee, almost like that was what was intended.)

Preach it Brother Steamteck....

I, too, use them as a baseline. I also don't want to have me and my group have to rework the points on 523 characters (of which 88% of them have at least one figured stat that wasn't raised; 57% have two or more unaltered figured stats, and 24% have three that weren't changed) because someone believes their creativity, for the past twenty years, has been stymied by a rule that no player in my group ever complained about.

Oh, and that's 523 characters who haven't seen any out of concept characteristic inflation except for DEX and SPD.

incrdbil

Mar 18th, '08, 09:41 PM

Tonio

Mar 19th, '08, 06:07 AM

Connecting the things Opal mentioned is not silly for the way (9% of the people think of STR. Your counter example is just not relevant except in an eosteric theoretical sense which most gamers just don't want ot bother with in my experience . Your obviously differs

Eeep, I'm sorry if it sounded like I was saying what Opal said was silly. He said it was silly for someone with high STR not being able to lift heavy stuff. I countered by saying it was just as silly as someone with a high "Überness" characteristic not being able to do all sorts of über stuff, my (awkward, I guess) way of pointing out STR isn't "one ability", but several, under a single conceptual blanket.

Oh come on! Stop with that already. My groups creativity kung fu can't be that much better than yours that Iron man , cybernetics and other non figured guys are so much of a problem for you. What can't you make? The only valid complaint I have seen is that no figured characteristics is mispriced. I just don't see this creativity crush. I see lots of extra work if they're eliminated because I use them as a baseline ( gee, almost like that was what was intended.)

I didn't mean to say it crushed creativity, but rather that it penalized it. Not that you can no longer be creative, but that you end up paying for it. Build a standard, human-logical character, and you save lots of points. Veer away from that standard, and things start getting disproportionately more expensive. Not more expensive because they're more useful, but more expensive simply because they no longer fall under the "human-logical" blanket.

And yes, asking to decouple Figureds is mathematically equivalent to asking that No Figured Characteristics be correctly priced per characteristic (as in it gives you back as many points as you're losing from not having the Figureds). I could live with a correctly priced NFC, although I'd probably make it the default in my games (I'd rather see all Characteristics w/o modifiers if possible). But that'd require a rebalancing of the current cost of all characteristics, or else we run into the sell-back problem, since taking NFC would be equivalent to selling back all the Figureds you got from the base.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 19th, '08, 06:12 AM

Figured characteristics aren't essential to anything. Baseline this, archetype that--all stuff HERO isn't supposed to be about. From my players, I see their reasosn to favor figured characteristics--you get a lot of bang for your buck.

Here is why figured should co, or the basic characteristics repointed. If the Base characteristics give more points in figured characteristics than the base costs in the first place, it puts a bias in the game to characters that lean heavily on those characteristics. That bias has no place in the default HERO rules. If the core of HERO's point values is that you should pay a fair cost for value (and its been said over and over in other areas a limitation that doesnt limit doesnt deserve a points break, etc)..then we have to increase the cost on STR and CON, at least, perhaps DEX too, or decouple figureds.

You know, I find it funny how we complain about stat inflation and point inflation, but no one ever suggests REDUCING the cost of something. I agree that a problem, in my opinion the true significant problem, with figured characteristics is that CON and STR grant more Figured than they cost directly. This should be fixed.

However, I believe the fix is not "decouple figured's and make all characters more expensive and now try to rebalance this all-new characteristic structure". Nor is it "Raise the price of all stats that grant figured characteristics". I believe the fix is to reduce the cost of REC, END and STUN. Rejig the Figured formuli so that, with revised formuli and new costs, we accomplish the following:

- No stat grants figured characteristics that cost more than that stat's own cost (CON and STR are the focus here)

- a -1/2 limitation for "no figured" is appropriate for STR, DEX and BOD - that is, 1/3 of the cost of these stats is recovered in figured characteristics (this is already the case for DEX)

- Set a limitation value for No Figured on CON that is commensurate with the value given up - this should be MUCH higher than -1/2.

- allow unlimited sellback of figured's - having fixed the cost problem, there is no need for this to be restricted

- A player might actually consider buying up STUN and REC to enhance his staying power in combat, instead of buying up defenses.

- A player might actually consider buying up ENDand REC to enhance his stamina, instead of buying reduced END.

The last two, more than anything else, persuade me that the problem is not that Figured's are too generous, or that primaries are underpriced, but that STUN, REC and END are overpriced. When something is too expensive in the marketplace, people don't buy it direct. They only buy it when they get a special deal, often in a bundle.

Few, if any, players would pay 19 points to buy +2 REC, +5 STUN and +20 END. But bundle it up with +2 ED and 10 points' resistance to being Stunned, and the package as a whole for 20 points is a decent purchase.

Tonio

Mar 19th, '08, 06:28 AM

You know, I find it funny how we complain about stat inflation and point inflation, but no one ever suggests REDUCING the cost of something. I agree that a problem, in my opinion the true significant problem, with figured characteristics is that CON and STR grant more Figured than they cost directly. This should be fixed.

However, I believe the fix is not "decouple figured's and make all characters more expensive and now try to rebalance this all-new characteristic structure". Nor is it "Raise the price of all stats that grant figured characteristics". I believe the fix is to reduce the cost of REC, END and STUN. Rejig the Figured formuli so that, with revised formuli and new costs, we accomplish the following:

- No stat grants figured characteristics that cost more than that stat's own cost (CON and STR are the focus here)

- a -1/2 limitation for "no figured" is appropriate for STR, DEX and BOD - that is, 1/3 of the cost of these stats is recovered in figured characteristics (this is already the case for DEX)

- Set a limitation value for No Figured on CON that is commensurate with the value given up - this should be MUCH higher than -1/2.

- allow unlimited sellback of figured's - having fixed the cost problem, there is no need for this to be restricted

- A player might actually consider buying up STUN and REC to enhance his staying power in combat, instead of buying up defenses.

- A player might actually consider buying up ENDand REC to enhance his stamina, instead of buying reduced END.

The last two, more than anything else, persuade me that the problem is not that Figured's are too generous, or that primaries are underpriced, but that STUN, REC and END are overpriced. When something is too expensive in the marketplace, people don't buy it direct. They only buy it when they get a special deal, often in a bundle.

Few, if any, players would pay 19 points to buy +2 REC, +5 STUN and +20 END. But bundle it up with +2 ED and 10 points' resistance to being Stunned, and the package as a whole for 20 points is a decent purchase.

I'm not sure whether lowering the cost of those characteristics is appropriate (and by "I'm not sure" I mean exactly that... not "I don't think it's a good idea"), but I do agree with the general gist of your suggestion, to price NFC appropriately (and hence allow unlimited sell-backs). I'd much rather have them decoupled (which doesn't exclude, and probably actually requires, the repricing), but it'd be purely a nomenclature issue, the costs would actually be the same. I do tend to think STR would still be overpriced; STR is almost, if not entirely, properly priced, I think, at 1:1 if it doesn't provide any Figureds.

GamePhil

Mar 19th, '08, 06:41 AM

Veer away from that standard, and things start getting disproportionately more expensive. Not more expensive because they're more useful, but more expensive simply because they no longer fall under the "human-logical" blanket.

Thus giving you the functional equivalent of GURPS' Unusual Background Advantage, though in a more limited area. Do they even still have that in 4th Edition?

So, basically, you're saying that a system that encourages a specific build of character over another, not because of increased effectiveness, but because it's more common, is not what HERO should be shooting for. Just because characters are outside of the most common types that almost everyone plays doesn't mean others should be penalized.

Nothing to add, just summing up. I believe that Hugh's suggestion is an adequate fix for that. Not the one I'd prefer, but it is straightforward and does the job.

GamePhil

Mar 19th, '08, 06:44 AM

I'm not sure whether lowering the cost of those characteristics is appropriate

Well, END can be gotten for 1:10 with a Reserve. REC is also 1 point for the Reserve, but since that only applies to the Reserve should be worth less than full REC, so that's more problematic.

STUN I could go either way. It's too prone to being lost to make me think that it's worth as much as PD, for example, even though it works against all forms of attack that do STUN and not just Physical ones.

Tonio

Mar 19th, '08, 07:31 AM

So, basically, you're saying that a system that encourages a specific build of character over another, not because of increased effectiveness, but because it's more common, is not what HERO should be shooting for. Just because characters are outside of the most common types that almost everyone plays doesn't mean others should be penalized.

Yup! Excatly what I'm saying. =)

Well, END can be gotten for 1:10 with a Reserve. REC is also 1 point for the Reserve, but since that only applies to the Reserve should be worth less than full REC, so that's more problematic.

Well, that REC also only works post12, unlike normal REC.

STUN I could go either way. It's too prone to being lost to make me think that it's worth as much as PD, for example, even though it works against all forms of attack that do STUN and not just Physical ones.

Makes sense... but really, I haven't thought about the pricing of those enough to have formed a strong opinion. =/

Paragon

Mar 19th, '08, 08:35 AM

As you probably have already read, I wasn't using it as a defense of only _this_ change.

Sure. My response was sui generis, really.

My preferred solution (not the one I suggested) requires that everything be torn down to simple elements and built back up from scratch in a more consistent flexible manner. I've already done this to some degree while I was researching the mechanics, but that is my personal pet project that will never see the light of day outside my own campaigns.

And that's at least a consistent point of view.

CTaylor

Mar 19th, '08, 08:36 AM

Paragon

Mar 19th, '08, 08:38 AM

STUN I could go either way. It's too prone to being lost to make me think that it's worth as much as PD, for example, even though it works against all forms of attack that do STUN and not just Physical ones.

Yeah, you can make some of the same argument I do about CON's stunning quality there. I think its a victim of coarseness in the basic design, I expect.

Paragon

Mar 19th, '08, 09:07 AM

I've never seen figured characteristics in terms of cost breaks, but in terms of logic: if you're big and strong, you will be able to take more punishment. If you're really healthy, you'll be able to go longer without tiring out. If you're agile and swift, you'll move faster and more often than someone else.

The figured characteristics were never about "how can we make this cheaper" but rather "this makes sense based on these stats" sort of like OCV and perception rolls.

Well, obviously in practice its going to do some of both, but I generally agree; I defend figured characteristics because for general use, I find someone who has a high CON, but none of the figureds associated with it strange and counterintuitive. Its one reason I have some problems generating sympathy for the problems of people with builds where the figureds seem to cause a problem; to me, the only way that'd be true is if the builds didn't make sense to me in the first place in most cases.

Kenn

Mar 19th, '08, 09:32 AM

I've never seen figured characteristics in terms of cost breaks, but in terms of logic: if you're big and strong, you will be able to take more punishment. If you're really healthy, you'll be able to go longer without tiring out. If you're agile and swift, you'll move faster and more often than someone else.

The figured characteristics were never about "how can we make this cheaper" but rather "this makes sense based on these stats" sort of like OCV and perception rolls.

That's how me and my players have seen it as well. A few of us were aware of the fact that increasing CON was cheaper than increasing END, STUN, REC, and ED (and honestly one has to be increasing all four of them to gain the cost breaks) but that wasn't ever an issue. We'd make sure the CON we purchased fit the concept of the character and maybe tweak the secondaries if we saw the need (e.g. my players like STUN scores that end in 0 or 5).

I was the GM, and I'm the one who minored in math, so I noticed. Several of my gaming friends have math anxiety, so they'd do the calculation and not think about "how can I save points."

Then again, after the first few years, I tried to get the game as far away as possible from the "how can I save/shave points" game.

Kenn

Mar 19th, '08, 09:35 AM

Well, obviously in practice its going to do some of both, but I generally agree; I defend figured characteristics because for general use, I find someone who has a high CON, but none of the figureds associated with it strange and counterintuitive. Its one reason I have some problems generating sympathy for the problems of people with builds where the figureds seem to cause a problem; to me, the only way that'd be true is if the builds didn't make sense to me in the first place in most cases.

Me too.

ajackson

Mar 19th, '08, 09:38 AM

I've never seen figured characteristics in terms of cost breaks, but in terms of logic: if you're big and strong, you will be able to take more punishment. If you're really healthy, you'll be able to go longer without tiring out. If you're agile and swift, you'll move faster and more often than someone else.
Frankly, figured stats from Con don't bother me that much. Figured stats from Strength, however, are another matter. The fundamental role of Con is in resisting damage; thus, having it give Rec/Stun is within its basic theme. The fundamental role of Str is in applying force; thus, having it give Rec/Stun is outside of its basic theme.

If Str cost was changed to x2, and Dex cost was changed to x4, I wouldn't have any point cost issues with the current rules for figured stats (I don't really object to Con; it really is the equivalent of an EC). However, at that point, just removing the calculation of figured stats has similar effects and is somewhat cleaner mechanically.

Opal

Mar 19th, '08, 09:48 AM

I believe the fix is to reduce the cost of REC, END and STUN. That could certainly address the problem of selling back figureds netting you points. A problem that's already been addressed, but still, one that seems to offend sensibilities.

Just pricing REC and END like the END Reserve would do it. 10 pts of STR would get you 9 pts in figureds, and 20 points of CON 15 pts of figureds.

I don't exactly see people going crazy with END reserves, so it might even work. REC, though, also gets you back STN, and a very high rec can have quite the impact, so I'm not too sure about it.

Similarly, changing the cost of STN would imply a different cost for Damage Reduction (at least).

Rejig the Figured formuli so that, with revised formuli and new costs, we accomplish the following:

- No stat grants figured characteristics that cost more than that stat's own cost (CON and STR are the focus here)
Fine thus far. It eliminates an ugly issue with the system.

- a -1/2 limitation for "no figured" is appropriate for STR, DEX and BOD - that is, 1/3 of the cost of these stats is recovered in figured characteristics (this is already the case for DEX)

- Set a limitation value for No Figured on CON that is commensurate with the value given up - this should be MUCH higher than -1/2.

- allow unlimited sellback of figured's - having fixed the cost problem, there is no need for this to be restricted
This I'm not so sure about. Figureds would still be a discount on a bundle of stats, even if a smaller one. There's no question that STR is worth it's 5 pts, even if it didn't give figureds, the figureds are a bonus, like the point savings in a Power Framework. If you can sell them back - or, for that matter, take 'no figured' /like you can now/ - you're really getting STR too cheap. At least 'no figured' saves you less the more limitations you have stacked with it. I'd honestly rather see 'no figured' and selling-back figured stats go completely. And make it a simple, hard rule that if you place a primary in a framework or limit it, you lose the figureds.

- A player might actually consider buying up STUN and REC to enhance his staying power in combat, instead of buying up defenses.
That's already a surprisingly effective option, but it's rarely taken, perhaps because it doesn't 'feel' tough, or perhaps, because STN & REC are so often 'free,' that players balk at spending points on them.

But, when you think about it, there are many defenses - PD, ED, resistant, Power, and Mental that you need to stop STN. 1 STN absorbs 1 point of damage against any such attack, stopping 1 STN from each costs 5 - and there are still wierd things like NNDs and AVLD:flash defense, not to mention AP and Find Weakness out there to reduce your defenses.

There's an upper limit on buying up STN, though, in Damage Reduction. If you can spend 60 points to halve all the damage you take (and that's not quite right, really), then if you already have 60 STN, it's more effecient to take the DR. I guess it'd actually be something more like 120 (if you can even take DR vs power attacks). The cheaper STN is, the higher that limit. FWIW.

- A player might actually consider buying up END and REC to enhance his stamina, instead of buying reduced END.Buying 0 END on three 60 point powers costs 90 points, 60 in an EC. 1/2 END costs, of course, half that. Buying enough REC to recover 4 phases worth of those (72) is very expensive, with an END reserve, though, the cost is only 72, and close to the cost of 0 END, even in the EC - and you can still push. Reduced END is a pretty good deal - if your GM lets you buy 90 Apt powers to get 0 END. If 0 END is counted against an Apt limit, OTOH, REC and END become the way to power tougher attacks. A lot of characters don't face nearly that kind of END demands, though. Martial Artists, for instance, don't need a lot of END, and many framework based characters will buy some of thier powers at reduced END, and others at full. Going to 0 END keeps you from pushing, so 1/2 End is attractive, and it effectively doubles the value of END you buy to fuel that power.

This leads to another thought. Buying up END and REC by themselves, is cheaper than buying CON and/or STR to get more of them. If all you want is END and REC, buying it straight is cheaper. It's only if you're buying /all/ the figureds associated with STR or CON, that it'd be foolish not to just buy the Primary.

Few, if any, players would pay 19 points to buy +2 REC, +5 STUN and +20 END. But bundle it up with +2 ED and 10 points' resistance to being Stunned, and the package as a whole for 20 points is a decent purchase.
Actually, I have a player who bought up his REC and END, and even STN, to fit his concept. Inefficient, but it's what he wanted. His character is perfectly effective, even though he's a replacement character with less exp. The 200+150 power level of FRED combined with my old-fashioned Apt and DC caps makes it pretty easy to be competative without being point-efficient. Gone are the days when you have to point-shave to squeeze campaign apropriate, let alone campaign-limit, powers into a 200 pt character. ;)

Changing the cost of figureds isn't a terrible idea, but I'd be concerned that GMs would have to start setting caps on more of them (currently, there are generally SPD guidelines and PD/ED caps, for instance). Very high REC, for instance, could be imbalancing, if you had REC equal to your STN & END for instance, you'd be starting every turn fresh as a daisy. That's very expensive at 2pt REC, but at 1 it'd be doable. If you're trying to balance STR such that selling back figureds is the same as taking a -1/2 no figureds lim, you basically have 1 pt to work with to pay for the current REC and STN it gives you (since you can hardly reduce the cost of PD). If you change the forumlas, you initiate character re-builds and change point costs for most characters. If you reduce REC and STN in value enough to fit that paradigm, they become very easy to buy up, and capping thier values would become prudent.

The Main Man

Mar 19th, '08, 09:51 AM

STUN seems properly priced to me because it lacks a counterpart (PD vs. ED; more on that in a moment).

GM's don't have much problems with high STUN totals as long as they are balanced with the DC's and DEF of the campaign.

60 STUN in a Standard Heroic game, for instance, is ridiculous, but just fine in a Standard Superheroic game.

One question I have is why does CON figure into Energy Defense in the first place?

How does the fact that I can take a hit or can hold my liquor make me safer against electricity?

This leads me back to campaigning to unify Physical and Energy Defense into a single characteristic called Defense (DEF).

What is DEF?

1) DEF protects a character from Physical or Energy damage.

2) Base DEF is Normal; it must be made Resistant.

3) Base DEF = (STR + CON) / 10 = [(STR / 5 = PD) + (CON / 5 = ED)] / 2

4) 1 DEF costs 2 CP = 2PD/2ED/1PD+1ED = 2 CP

Why DEF?

1) There is no mechanical difference between Physical and Energy damage in HERO system.

It is pure SFX at the most archetypal level that is utilized as vestigial mechanics.

Let damage be damage so game play can continue.

2) Vehicles and Bases already use a unified DEF CHAR, granted it is Resistant.

This is easily remedied because by purchasing Damage Resistance or the Resistant (+1/2) Power Modifier which I also support.

Sometimes extra PD or ED is purchased to represent particular armor plating or shields; this can be done for Bases, Characters, and Vehicles by purchasing DEF with a Power Limitation called Physical/Energy Damage Only (-1)

3) Physical and Energy Defense are already treated as one by Adjustment Powers.

Don't make such a convoluted ruling as 1/2 effect for PD and ED when DEF is mathematically identical and logical by comparison?

Why should 5d6 Aid only adjust PD or ED by 15 points when it costs 1 CP per point?

OTOH it makes perfect sense for 5d6 Aid to be able to adjust DEF by 15 points because it costs 2 CP per point in the first place.

Finally here is one last proposition regarding PD and ED:

1) Drop ED as a CHAR

2) Make it a Standard Defense Power

3) Integrate the SFX rules from The Ultimate Energy Projector to mechanically differentiate Energy from Physical damage.

Tonio

Mar 19th, '08, 11:11 AM

I'd honestly rather see 'no figured' and selling-back figured stats go completely. And make it a simple, hard rule that if you place a primary in a framework or limit it, you lose the figureds.

Wouldn't that be terribly narrow-minded, though? That would severely penalize anybody who wanted to deviate from your preferred character type. Kinda like saying "Energy Projectors and Martial Artists have to pay double for their powers, Bricks and Gadgeteers get theirs at normal cost, Mentalists and Speedsters go at half cost", no?

Vondy

Mar 19th, '08, 12:14 PM

". I believe the fix is to reduce the cost of REC, END and STUN.

End is 1:2. You want to reduce the price?
Stun is 1:1. I hate tracking fractions during creation. I like whole numbers.

Its also not something I would want to make cheaper for several other reasons.

Vondy

Mar 19th, '08, 12:21 PM

Why DEF?

1) There is no mechanical difference between Physical and Energy damage in HERO system.

It is pure SFX at the most archetypal level that is utilized as vestigial mechanics.

Let damage be damage so game play can continue.

So, how do I model a character who is more resistant to an energy special effect than a kinetic special effect if I only have one kind of defense? i.e., I want to reduce energy attacks by 20 and kinetic attacks by 10? And please don't tell me disadvantages, because that means I have to reinvent the wheel and clutter up a character sheet that I'm already trying to put into shorthand. It also means I end up with a notation for the different effects that looks suspiciously like what I already have.

Opal

Mar 19th, '08, 12:24 PM

Wouldn't that be terribly narrow-minded, though?It would be more consistent with the way Powers in Frameworks work. You get a bonus for sticking to the pattern - be it powers of the same FX & Apts; Powers useable one-at-a-time; or whatever. For figureds, you get a big savings for sticking to a defined pattern. Deviating from it should lose you the bonus.

I understand that you don't believe there /should/ be such a bonus. But, I believe there should, and that it shouldn't be abused.

That would severely penalize anybody who wanted to deviate from your preferred character type. I wouldn't say 'severely,' no. Characters who deviate from the prefered norm pay more, but they are also more unique, and can be more difficult for enemies to deal with, at first, (while allies can presumably get used to them). I mean, if your character is a psychic tube worm living in the marianas trench and interacting with the rest of the world via clairsentience and mental powers, you may, indeed, be getting 'ripped off' on the relatively few points you get for selling back your STR, DEX, and CON (compared to the savings others get for buying them up) - but seriously, you're a campaign-derailing freak of nature, should you really be 'encouraged?' No.

The point of having a bonus or cost break of some kind is to encourage people to take it. ECs encourage characters to have a unifying special effect. Multipowers and VPPs encourage (enable, really) characters who have many options, instead of being one-trick ponies. Characteristics encourage characters that are basically human-like, with familiar basic abilities, and the current set of figureds encourage fairly heroic (physically capable) examples, as well. For that matter, the structure of Disadvantages and 'normal' things like senses and needing air to breathe also strongly encourage humanish characters. If you could sell back human senses or got disadvantage points for dependence on oxygen instead of taking physical limitations or buying Life Support, that would also make the system more nuetral towards extremely quixotic characters.

It's certainly better when GMs have a toolkit to adjust those sorts of things - not every campaign needs to accept every Framework, for instance - than when they're not just a default, but simply the way the rules work with no options or guidelines for changing them.

It would be very desireable, I think, to give GMs a way of designing alternate characteristic sets for unusual character types that they want to encourage in thier campaigns. Something like that would be particularly useful for the sci-fi genre, which can feature decidedly /alien/ aliens, that, in spite of thier differences from humanity, might be just as common and just as much a part of the story. (Very different from the supers genre in which you might have a very alien villain or hero, but they're unique, and thier alieness is a big part of thier individual concept). Similarly, a GM wanting to open up his campaign to /any/ sort of character (perhaps it's set in a chaos realm where any sort of entity might exist at any given instant, or not; or maybe he invisions a multidimensional/paratemporal 'hub' that any sentient being might find it's way too) - should have the option, and the tools, to present his players with an incentive-free set of campaign guidelines. (How hard can it be? Something like the incomplete rules, combined with buying /everything/ the character does, no 'normal' baseline).

Kinda like saying "Energy Projectors and Martial Artists have to pay double for their powers, Bricks and Gadgeteers get theirs at normal cost, Mentalists and Speedsters go at half cost", no?No, actually, it's not like saying that. Hero has a number of different cost breaks at the moment. They mostly serve to enable desireable types of characters that would otherwise be unbuildable without point levels that would make other types overwhelmingly powerful.

Take a charater like Cyclops, for instance. He has basicaly one power, an EB. Alternately, look at an Iron Man or Dr. Strange - they have /many/ powers, not all of which may be accessible at one time. Now, if you didn't have frameworks, building a Dr. Strange, no matter how big a limitation you gave him for each of his powers being 'used infrequently,' would be impractical. You'd spend huge numbers of points on his powers, and be constantly buying new powers that you'd only use once. The cost for VPP is a much more reasonable way of allowing such an open-ended character. It's a vast discount compared to paying 'full price' for the powers it could be, but it doesn't deliver an unreasonable level of power for it's cost. A gadgeteer and a one-power Energy Blaster who invested comparable points in thier respective abilities would both be workable characters. The EB guy might have a campaign-max DC EB (or even slightly more), and plenty of skill levels with it, while the Gadgetter's VPP might only hold attacks on the low end of effective for the campaign, but both could be workable. If the gadgetteer paid full price for all his gadgets, OTOH, they'd either be ineffectual, or the EB guy paying the same points for his power would shatter the campaign damage guidelines. Same goes for ECs, if you give everyone enough points to easily buy a powerful attack, movement, and defensive power, you've also given them enough points to buy an overwhelming attack or unasailable defense quite easily. If you use ECs, though, the cost-break inherent in it encourages all three at a more reasonable level, rather than skimping on one or two and going overboard on another.

That's not the only effect of ECs, though. Speciall effects are supposed to be basically nuetral in thier usefullness. Sometimes the special F/X of your attack will let you do more damage, sometimes it'll keep it from doing as much, sometimes it'll be useful in a non-combat way, sometimes you might have to refrain from using it. If you have a few powers with radically different F/X, though, you can use the one that the current situation favors, and ignore the others. If you have a magical attack power and TK flight, you can zap people who are vulnerable to magic, but when in an anti-magic zone or facing a foe heavily protected against magic by limitted defenses, do a move through with your flight. If you're a 'mage' with the same powers in an EC, the anti-magic zone or magic-protected foe can't be worked around so easily. The character who sticks with one F/X is easier for the GM to work into a story - easier to challenge, to counter, or to spotlight - than one who has a mixed bag of powers that incidentally cover eachother's weakness.

Super-strong characters are one of the mainstays of supers - and exceptionally strong ones not exactly underrepresented in many other genres, as well - so encouraging them by making STR + Figureds a good buy is hardly unreasonable. Similarly, Heroic genres in general tend to focus on physically capable characters, so making DEX or CON plus thier associated figured characteristics a good buy is also sensible. Heros also tend to be good-looking, and COM happens to be very cheap.

The game has tons of incentives and disincentives built into it to make it what is is: The Hero System, the best RPG out there.

Susano

Mar 19th, '08, 12:25 PM

Tonio

Mar 19th, '08, 12:51 PM

It would be more consistent with the way Powers in Frameworks work. You get a bonus for sticking to the pattern - be it powers of the same FX & Apts; Powers useable one-at-a-time; or whatever. For figureds, you get a big savings for sticking to a defined pattern. Deviating from it should lose you the bonus.

I understand that you don't believe there /should/ be such a bonus. But, I believe there should, and that it shouldn't be abused.

I wouldn't say 'severely,' no. Characters who deviate from the prefered norm pay more, but they are also more unique, and can be more difficult for enemies to deal with, at first, (while allies can presumably get used to them). I mean, if your character is a psychic tube worm living in the marianas trench and interacting with the rest of the world via clairsentience and mental powers, you may, indeed, be getting 'ripped off' on the relatively few points you get for selling back your STR, DEX, and CON (compared to the savings others get for buying them up) - but seriously, you're a campaign-derailing freak of nature, should you really be 'encouraged?' No.

The point of having a bonus or cost break of some kind is to encourage people to take it. ECs encourage characters to have a unifying special effect. Multipowers and VPPs encourage (enable, really) characters who have many options, instead of being one-trick ponies. Characteristics encourage characters that are basically human-like, with familiar basic abilities, and the current set of figureds encourage fairly heroic (physically capable) examples, as well. For that matter, the structure of Disadvantages and 'normal' things like senses and needing air to breathe also strongly encourage humanish characters. If you could sell back human senses or got disadvantage points for dependence on oxygen instead of taking physical limitations or buying Life Support, that would also make the system more nuetral towards extremely quixotic characters.

It's certainly better when GMs have a toolkit to adjust those sorts of things - not every campaign needs to accept every Framework, for instance - than when they're not just a default, but simply the way the rules work with no options or guidelines for changing them.

It would be very desireable, I think, to give GMs a way of designing alternate characteristic sets for unusual character types that they want to encourage in thier campaigns. Something like that would be particularly useful for the sci-fi genre, which can feature decidedly /alien/ aliens, that, in spite of thier differences from humanity, might be just as common and just as much a part of the story. (Very different from the supers genre in which you might have a very alien villain or hero, but they're unique, and thier alieness is a big part of thier individual concept). Similarly, a GM wanting to open up his campaign to /any/ sort of character (perhaps it's set in a chaos realm where any sort of entity might exist at any given instant, or not; or maybe he invisions a multidimensional/paratemporal 'hub' that any sentient being might find it's way too) - should have the option, and the tools, to present his players with an incentive-free set of campaign guidelines. (How hard can it be? Something like the incomplete rules, combined with buying /everything/ the character does, no 'normal' baseline).

No, actually, it's not like saying that. Hero has a number of different cost breaks at the moment. They mostly serve to enable desireable types of characters that would otherwise be unbuildable without point levels that would make other types overwhelmingly powerful.

Take a charater like Cyclops, for instance. He has basicaly one power, an EB. Alternately, look at an Iron Man or Dr. Strange - they have /many/ powers, not all of which may be accessible at one time. Now, if you didn't have frameworks, building a Dr. Strange, no matter how big a limitation you gave him for each of his powers being 'used infrequently,' would be impractical. You'd spend huge numbers of points on his powers, and be constantly buying new powers that you'd only use once. The cost for VPP is a much more reasonable way of allowing such an open-ended character. It's a vast discount compared to paying 'full price' for the powers it could be, but it doesn't deliver an unreasonable level of power for it's cost. A gadgeteer and a one-power Energy Blaster who invested comparable points in thier respective abilities would both be workable characters. The EB guy might have a campaign-max DC EB (or even slightly more), and plenty of skill levels with it, while the Gadgetter's VPP might only hold attacks on the low end of effective for the campaign, but both could be workable. If the gadgetteer paid full price for all his gadgets, OTOH, they'd either be ineffectual, or the EB guy paying the same points for his power would shatter the campaign damage guidelines. Same goes for ECs, if you give everyone enough points to easily buy a powerful attack, movement, and defensive power, you've also given them enough points to buy an overwhelming attack or unasailable defense quite easily. If you use ECs, though, the cost-break inherent in it encourages all three at a more reasonable level, rather than skimping on one or two and going overboard on another.

That's not the only effect of ECs, though. Speciall effects are supposed to be basically nuetral in thier usefullness. Sometimes the special F/X of your attack will let you do more damage, sometimes it'll keep it from doing as much, sometimes it'll be useful in a non-combat way, sometimes you might have to refrain from using it. If you have a few powers with radically different F/X, though, you can use the one that the current situation favors, and ignore the others. If you have a magical attack power and TK flight, you can zap people who are vulnerable to magic, but when in an anti-magic zone or facing a foe heavily protected against magic by limitted defenses, do a move through with your flight. If you're a 'mage' with the same powers in an EC, the anti-magic zone or magic-protected foe can't be worked around so easily. The character who sticks with one F/X is easier for the GM to work into a story - easier to challenge, to counter, or to spotlight - than one who has a mixed bag of powers that incidentally cover eachother's weakness.

Super-strong characters are one of the mainstays of supers - and exceptionally strong ones not exactly underrepresented in many other genres, as well - so encouraging them by making STR + Figureds a good buy is hardly unreasonable. Similarly, Heroic genres in general tend to focus on physically capable characters, so making DEX or CON plus thier associated figured characteristics a good buy is also sensible. Heros also tend to be good-looking, and COM happens to be very cheap.

The game has tons of incentives and disincentives built into it to make it what is is: The Hero System, the best RPG out there.

I'm kinda tired of this discussion, which is probably evident from the shrinking size of my responses... so I'll just reply to the whole thing, rather than breaking it up. I might forget to reply to some points; I hope I don't. =/

"The game has cost breaks, so all cost breaks are good" is a lousy argument. Not all cost breaks are the same. Cost breaks stemming from character limitations are good; they reflect a limited usefulness of the ability being purchased; the lower ability cost is the result. Limitations (capital "L") and Multipowers are examples of these. Cost breaks stemming from player limitations are bad; they don't limit the character at all; the character is getting added usefulness (in the form of more points to spend) while having no balancing limitation. Elemental Controls (at least the old ones, w/o the "all powers drained simultaneously" deal) and Figured Characteristics are examples of these. Some cost breaks masquerade as one type while really being another. Skill Enhancers can be these... they offer no limitation to the character, but in effect, they might represent the diminishing returns from having many skills of the same type (when you can speak 10 languages, adding an extra one isn't as useful as when you can only speak 1).

A big problem with Player Restriction-based cost breaks is that they might not be a limitation at all, not even to the player. If I get bonus points for keeping my STR and CON at equal levels (a player restriction), I'm restricted only if I'd rather have them at different levels. If my choice would've always been to keep them at equal levels, I'm not restricted at all.

A big problem with concept-based cost breaks is tunnel vision. It discourages variety, creativity, and imagination. You seem to want to encourage people to play standard Bricks, Big Bad Barbarians, Agile Rogues, etc.; the standard archtypes. You also seem to want to discourage people from playing non-standard concepts. The possibility of HERO moving towards a system that does this appalls me, honestly. One of the things I've loved the most about HERO is precisely the freedom to create new and inventive character concepts, free from restrictive character classes and similar concepts.

The Main Man

Mar 19th, '08, 01:06 PM

So, how do I model a character who is more resistant to an energy special effect than a kinetic special effect if I only have one kind of defense? i.e., I want to reduce energy attacks by 20 and kinetic attacks by 10? And please don't tell me disadvantages, because that means I have to reinvent the wheel and clutter up a character sheet that I'm already trying to put into shorthand. It also means I end up with a notation for the different effects that looks suspiciously like what I already have.

I already posted this (the second paragraph is slightly corrected):

2) Vehicles and Bases already use a unified DEF CHAR, granted it is Resistant.

This is easily remedied by purchasing Damage Resistance or the Resistant (+1/2) Power Modifier idea which I also support.

Sometimes extra PD or ED is purchased to represent particular armor plating or shields; this can be done for Bases, Characters, and Vehicles by purchasing DEF with a Power Limitation called Physical/Energy Damage Only (-1)

10 PD (10 CP) and 20 ED (20 CP) Total Cost: 30 CP

10 DEF (20 CP) +10 DEF Only Versus Energy Damage (-1) (10 CP) Total Cost: 30 CP

Other systems and their players do not differentiate damage unless there is an observable mechanical effect.

A player purchases PD and ED in HERO because that is how it currently is.

I'm willing to bet that if DEF was utilized in 6e, players brought up in that would use examples of the latter for novel concepts, not accuracy.

It's only going to be figuratively cluttered up because in this one example the character just happens to want to be able to substantially defend against energy better than physical attacks.

I personally have not seen, read, or heard much fiction (remember: "dramatic reality") where the ability of a character to resist physical or energy attacks was a substantial dichotomy.

Opal

Mar 19th, '08, 01:38 PM

"The game has cost breaks, so all cost breaks are good" is a lousy argument.That would be an apeal to past practice, yes. But, that's not what I said. Even if I had, the fact that Steve has as one of his axioms for the 6E change the idea that Hero is already very good would support it, fallacious though it would technically have been. If a cost break like figureds or ECs were bad, the game would be terrible, because they have a very substantial impact on the charaters that use them.

Not all cost breaks are the same. If they were, we'd only need one. ;) I think I understand your opinion on this. You want a system where spending one point always gets you exactly one point of utility, no matter who you are, what you're spending it on, or what campaign or situation you're in. That is a lofty ideal, and one that no game will ever deliver, because it is, frankly, impossibe. RPGs are simply too complex, players and GMs too diverse for that.

A big problem with Player Restriction-based cost breaks is that they might not be a limitation at all, not even to the player. If I get bonus points for keeping my STR and CON at equal levels (a player restriction), I'm restricted only if I'd rather have them at different levels. If my choice would've always been to keep them at equal levels, I'm not restricted at all.There is that issue, yes. In economics, it's called consumer surplus - the difference between what you pay for something, and what youd've been willing to pay. If you have a cost break in a game that's meant to encourage tight character concepts, for instance, or discourage one-trick-ponies, and someone /likes/ playing characters with a variety of closely related powers, he recieves the same cost break as someone who would much rather play a less well rounded or more scattered concept who, none-the-less conforms for the encentive.

You seem to want to encourage people to play standard Bricks, Big Bad Barbarians, Agile Rogues, etc.; the standard archtypes.Because it's an heroic game, yes, I'd rather have heroic archetypes than, say, romantic-comedy archetypes. I'd also like to see a toolkit to let a GM craft things to provide different incentives, though.

You also seem to want to discourage people from playing non-standard concepts. The possibility of HERO moving towards a system that does this appalls me, honestly. It's already there. But, while it encourages some things and discourages others, by default, the DM can tinker with that, and a player /can/ go ahead and just eschew the bennies in return for building a unique character - and, really, uniquiness like that /is/ a benefit for the player.

One of the things I've loved the most about HERO is precisely the freedom to create new and inventive character concepts, free from restrictive character classes and similar concepts.And you have it. The point saving incentives are /only/ incentives. If you're willing to forgoe them, you can build any character your DM will tollerate - and, you'll be unique in that.

Twice I've built 22 DEX characters. It's inefficient, but, y'know, I went ahead of virtually everyone (they were Heroic level games), and I /never/ had to roll off... I've built some seriously strange characters, too, sometimes even played them without anoying the GM too much. They are - and, for the sake of everyone you're playing with, prettymuch have to be - thier own reward.

Tonio

Mar 19th, '08, 02:10 PM

I think I understand your opinion on this. You want a system where spending one point always gets you exactly one point of utility, no matter who you are, what you're spending it on, or what campaign or situation you're in. That is a lofty ideal, and one that no game will ever deliver, because it is, frankly, impossibe. RPGs are simply too complex, players and GMs too diverse for that.

Whether it's impossible or not, deliberately deviating from the ideal will hardly result in a better game.

Because it's an heroic game, yes, I'd rather have heroic archetypes than, say, romantic-comedy archetypes. I'd also like to see a toolkit to let a GM craft things to provide different incentives, though.

But you're not talking about heroic archetypes, but a specific subset of these. Moreover, you can have a system that neither encourages nor discourages any archtypes by default, and leave that decision to the GM, who should implement incentives that apply to his campaign

It's already there. But, while it encourages some things and discourages others, by default, the DM can tinker with that, and a player /can/ go ahead and just eschew the bennies in return for building a unique character - and, really, uniquiness like that /is/ a benefit for the player.

And you have it. The point saving incentives are /only/ incentives. If you're willing to forgoe them, you can build any character your DM will tollerate - and, you'll be unique in that.

But uniqueness is not a game-advantage, why should I pay game-points for it? Asking me to play a less efficient character for the sake of uniqueness is discouraging me from playing a unique character.

While you're correct in pointing out the system allows any sort of character to be built, it currently penalizes me for some of those concepts... and I dislike that. The changes you propose (or rather, express a desire for) would penalize me even more for those concepts.

Twice I've built 22 DEX characters. It's inefficient, but, y'know, I went ahead of virtually everyone (they were Heroic level games), and I /never/ had to roll off... I've built some seriously strange characters, too, sometimes even played them without anoying the GM too much. They are - and, for the sake of everyone you're playing with, prettymuch have to be - thier own reward.

My point, though, is that playing strange characters shouldn't be discouraged by the system. By the GM? That should be entirely up to him. For what it's worth, I also don't think the system should encourage playing strange characters. In fact, there shouldn't be a system-default concept of a "weird" character! A mutant who can shoot energy blasts from his eyes isn't weird in a Superhero campaign, but it's extremely weird in a Low Fantasy campaign.

If 22 DEX is (making numbers up here) 10 times as useful as having 20 DEX, it should cost 10 times as much, not 15 times (+5x premium for being weird).

CTaylor

Mar 19th, '08, 02:20 PM

The fundamental role of Con is in resisting damage; thus, having it give Rec/Stun is within its basic theme. The fundamental role of Str is in applying force; thus, having it give Rec/Stun is outside of its basic theme.

I never saw it that way. I always have seen the fundamental role of CON as being health, and thus it affects various things such as recovery and endurance. The fundamental role of strength is indeed applying force, but in real life, the stronger you are, the more you can resist damage and the hardier you'll be (you can take a better punch, you can deal with pain better). They are intertwined, but the principles of STR adding to PD and stun made perfect sense to me. Recovery is less easy to support, but it still works.

Strength's cost problem isn't the figured characteristics, but the freebies. Being strong shouldn't necessarily mean you can jump further, it ought to be stripped away. Being strong doesn't necessarily mean you can hit harder, either: it usually will but not by definition, you might even hit less hard because you become musclebound.

If you stripped damage and jumping away from strength and just made it lifting and figured stats, the cost problem goes away. It just makes bricks a lot more expensive to build.

The Main Man

Mar 19th, '08, 02:20 PM

Frankly the system should not know what a "weird" character is: that's SFX.

Tonio

Mar 19th, '08, 02:24 PM

Frankly the system should not know what a "weird" character is: that's SFX.

I just said that! Hehe. =)

The Main Man

Mar 19th, '08, 02:28 PM

I just said that! Hehe. =)

Thought I might try to simplify it.

ajackson

Mar 19th, '08, 03:13 PM

If you stripped damage and jumping away from strength and just made it lifting and figured stats, the cost problem goes away. It just makes bricks a lot more expensive to build.
Only if figured stats are repriced, and between 'tough' and 'hits hard', I think the second is by far the more intuitive link to strength. Lots of games don't link strength to toughness. Very few games don't link strength to damage. Admittedly, forcing bricks to buy damage separately puts bricks in with energy projectors in just taking a multipower of attack abilities, but it's not like you can't put strength in a multipower now.

The basic problem with figs on Str is that 5 points of Str provides about 5 points of value without any figured stats at all.

Kenn

Mar 19th, '08, 03:15 PM

I defend figured characteristics because for general use, I find someone who has a high CON, but none of the figureds associated with it strange and counterintuitive.

I'll add that I tend to find characters with high ENDurance, STUN, RECovery but are easy to stun and/or aren't able to lift much a little counter-intuitive as well.

CTaylor

Mar 19th, '08, 03:25 PM

The basic problem with figs on Str is that 5 points of Str provides about 5 points of value without any figured stats at all.

Which is only a problem because of the freebies strength gives. Reduce them, and the figured characteristics isn't a problem.

steamteck

Mar 19th, '08, 03:26 PM

Other systems and their players do not differentiate damage unless there is an observable mechanical effect.

A player purchases PD and ED in HERO because that is how it currently is.

I'm willing to bet that if DEF was utilized in 6e, players brought up in that would use examples of the latter for novel concepts, not accuracy.

It's only going to be figuratively cluttered up because in this one example the character just happens to want to be able to substantially defend against energy better than physical attacks.

I personally have not seen, read, or heard much fiction (remember: "dramatic reality") where the ability of a character to resist physical or energy attacks was a substantial dichotomy.

I disagree completely with your idea of PD/ED because that;s how it is . I use it because it works better than just DEF. I firmly believe even objects can be modeled way better with PD/Ed than just DEF. Another reason my grou prefers HERO to GURPS is the PD/ED setup

I'm not going to argue with you about characters different PD/ED but I guess I read/watch different things than you do because I see it constantly.

Rather than get rid of PD/ED, I think we should get rid of DEF. Better models both characters and real world objects

Opal

Mar 19th, '08, 03:42 PM

Only if figured stats are repriced, and between 'tough' and 'hits hard', I think the second is by far the more intuitive link to strength.Certainly, but a little of the former makes sense. I mean, if you hit hard enough to shatter concrete, but your fist is only as tough balsa wood...

it's not like you can't put strength in a multipower now.You can, but you do loose the figureds, and the limitation you get for it is unlikely to get aplied to the pool cost.

Kenn

Mar 19th, '08, 04:05 PM

Certainly, but a little of the former makes sense. I mean, if you hit hard enough to shatter concrete, but your fist is only as tough balsa wood...

Since the Hero System has no mechanic for the very realistic, but generally unheroic cicrumstance of hurting one's hand whilst a punch connects the logical disconnect of hitting hard enough to shatter concrete with a balsa wood hard fist is a good thing and should be encouraged.

Careful, don't slip in the puddle of sarcasm here.

M-3

Mar 19th, '08, 04:13 PM

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

Nope.
Most characters by far will have most of their attributes at or above average (ie 10). Requiring everybody to buy them up from 0 may seem consistent but will drastically increase the numbers of points we have to deal with with no real gain.

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

It's very appealing but it will make it even tougher to deal with creatures that are smaller than human scale.

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

I don't think the basic resolution scheme should be changed. However, I might suggest keeping skill bases at 9+CHA/5 but changing CHA rolls (where no skill is involved) to 8+CHA/3 making CHA rolls roughly comparable to skill rolls and making some of the points matter a bit more.
I thik it's important to not change the system to the point that it's no longer the 6th edition of the HERO system in any meaningful way but really the 1st edition of some other system altogether.

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

Absolutely not IMHO. The figureds give a good baseline and having to buy up everything from 0 will be a PITA. Under the current system, the figured characteristics can still be sold off with GM permission but having them figured gives a suggestion about roughly where the figureds should be at for any given character and it's my experience at least that most players generally leave all but PD and SPD alone (and possibly REC for characters who have high STR and good SPD).

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

I think they should to compensate for their new, lower worth. But then, I think the costs of everything should be reevaluated in any event.

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

Again, as above, I think the suggested points levels for different campaign power levels should be reevaluated under all circumstances to see if they make sense.

Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

If figured characteristics are left completely unchanged, then yes. But as I've already said, regardless of whether or not anything else is changed, I think the costs (and to some extent function) of every characteristic, skill, perk, power and what-have-you should be reevaluated.

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

Yes. Characters with high STR being able to leap substantially farther than characters with lower STR only really makes sense in superheroic campaigns and even then not for all characters.

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

No. Generally, I don't think decoupling any characteristic from what you'd expect any hero who's good at that thing to be good at is a good idea. It requires players to know the system too well in order to build a character and produces character sheet bloat. Look at all the things that needed to be bought separately in SAS (a system that sold itself as simpler than HERO) - the character stat blocks were actually bigger than Champions stat blocks because of all the stuff that needed to be purchased separately instead of being understood.
HERO, for all the rap it gets for being too complex, is actually pretty simple. When you buy an EB, you don't need to buy the range of the EB separately. You just get a basic range based on the AP and if you're not satisfied with that, you can change that with ads and limitations. But you can get a fully functional power with all that you'd expect that power to have simply by taking the basic power from the powers list and adding no options at all.
If my dude is very strong, I expect him to be able to throw a mean punch so it makes sense that, by default, a character with a STR of 25 does just that.
Making him buy "HTH damage# separately from that just makes the game more complex and adds things to write down on the character sheet and to remember to spend points on.

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

Either the cost of DEX or CSLs should be changed, or the way CV is determined should be. I prefer the latter option (I've already changed it to 1+DEX/5 in my own games). Prior to that, no combat oriented characters in my heroic games would have a DEX lower than 17 and often it would be 20. Because until you hit the CHA Maximum, buying CSL's is just not cost-efficient. Sure, they do have some uses other than improving OCV and DCV but of you're fighting someone who spent as much on improving DEX as you spent on buying CSL's, you won't get any benefit from that because you'll need to commit all of them to DCV and OCV just to have a chance to hit and to avoid getting slaughtered yourself.

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

No. I think this would move the game too far away from being HERO 6th and too far in the direction of being SOMETHING ENTIRELY NEW 1st. I generally feel that the group and range of Primary Characteristics should be left as close to unchanged as possible (or practical). However, I can see a justification for replacing COM with something else - see below.

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

No. For the same reason as STR shouldn't be decoupled from HTH damage. However, I think the rate should be 5 points of DEX to one point of CV which just happens to match how much other characteristics contribute to skills. Neat. :)

Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

I've always thought of it as being what it actually does anyway so that's probably not a bad idea.

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

Yes. Perceptiveness does not logically follow from intelligence and it's not something you'd really expect Conan the Rocket Scientist to be any better at than Conan the Barbarian*. I think it should instead be based on Empathy/Psyche/Intuition/whatever which I think should replace COM.

*I'm talking about the lunkhead Conan from the movies and not the generally superhuman Conan from the books here. ;)

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

Either that, or it should be made to do more things and be included in some figureds. I prefer the latter option.

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

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

This is the one primary characteristic that I think should be changed very dramatically - specifically, yes, I think it should go. It's a vanity stat that doesn't really do much and due to its weird cost can only really practically be bought at even levels. I suggest it be made a talent instead. (Poor COM could just be done with DF and "Causes prejudice or even Extreme reactions" in case of very low COM) Actually, I suppose some variant of DF in reverse could be used for determining the cost of the talent.

To replace it, I suggest a perception/awareness/intuition/empathy/whatever stat which would then also neatly solve the issue of what to do with PER.

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

I think PD and ED should be Physical Defense and Ego Defense. (Yeah, I know there's MD but since it's Ego Attack and Ego Combat Value, it just makes sense for the defense to be Ego Defense). The only times I don't match levels in PD and ED is when I make characters for campaigns where Normal Damage Energy Attacks are likely to be extremely rare. For the few characters that need to have Physical and Energy resistance separated for some logical reason, there's limitations (-1/4 to -1 depending on campaign setting, "Not against energy-based attacks)

I think PD should be (STR+CON)/5 and ED should be (INT+EGO)/5.

This also reduces the "STR is uunderpriced" problem somewhat.

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

Absolutely, but it should be renamed "Ego Defense" - see above. ;)

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Heavens, no! This is something that works well. It would be like throwing out the baby not with but instead of the bathwater!

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

Y'know what I really love in HERO? I love it when the big, muscly fighters need to stop and take a breather (recovery phase) from time to time because they're exhausted. I really love that in HERO combat, fatigue is a serious issue. I do, however, think long-term END should be handled differently. Specifically, I think certain types of activity (hiking, mountain climbing and such) should be defined as costing LTE rather than LTE simply being a function of how much regular END something costs. I also think "Costs LTE" could be a good limitation to customize powers systems where power use is limited strategically rather than just tactically.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

No. It works extremely poorly and provides headaches for me in every game that does it. Having some size categories, however, as in D&D or BESM3 (but done so that they actually make sense ;)) could be very useful.

Some more stuff that adresses stuff that you haven't explicitly asked about:

I'll just go through all the figureds one by one except for PD and ED that I've already talked about above:

SPD, I think, should be left as is.
REC should be changed to CON/5+EGO/5 - see END below.
END should be changed to CON+EGO. It powers mental as well as physical powers so it makes sense to have it based on the character's mental as well as physical fitness.
STUN could stay unchanged but, them again, as being attacked by EGO attacks causes STUN damage as well (rather than some special mental damage), it kind of makes sense to include EGO in it. I suggest changing it to BODY+CON/2+EGO/2. Together with my proposed changes to REC and PD, it would also have the beneficial side effect of reducing the oft-complained-about "STR is underpriced" syndrome.

My last thought is that stunning should be determined by BODY and not CON so big critters won't need to have such high CON scores since physical fitness and health don't logically follow size.

The Main Man

Mar 19th, '08, 04:21 PM

I disagree completely with your idea of PD/ED "because that's how it is."

Thought Experiment: HERO 6e is coming up, and Steph Short has heard the suggestion that DEF should be split into Physical and Energy categories, but is skeptical about it, pending a good argument.

How would you explain the reason why it's better?

I use it because it works better than just DEF. I firmly believe even objects can be modeled way better with PD/ED than just DEF. Another reason my group prefers HERO to GURPS is the PD/ED setup

How does it work "better" than DEF?

I'm not going to argue with you about characters different PD/ED but I guess I read/watch different things than you do because I see it constantly.

Bold for emphasis; If it's so constant I'd like some examples.

Can't be shootin' no blanks here.

Rather than get rid of PD/ED, I think we should get rid of DEF. Better models both characters and real world objects.

Do you ever wonder why HERO has the reputation that you have to "build everything?"

HERO system "constantly" alludes to "dramatic reality."

Every response thus far to my DEF proposition is illogical, unsupported disagreement.

I ain't getting off this soap box till I'm knocked off.

ajackson

Mar 19th, '08, 04:37 PM

How would you explain the reason why it's better?
Lots of objects resist impact differently from how they resist energy. To give two common examples, most ceramics are good at resisting heat (and corrosion) and poor at resisting impact, whereas many plastics are quite resistant to impact, and melt easily.

steamteck

Mar 19th, '08, 04:38 PM

How would you make a piece of wood with just DEF.? How about a rope easy to cut. Harder to burn but pretty much impossible to bash. With PD/ED resistant and non resistant defense easy. Look back through the posts This issue has been covered pretty throughly by others also. ( Susano was one of the better ones I think)

Lets see Just off the top of my hat.. Mr Incredible lots more PD than Ed. JLU Superman lots more PD than ED. Human Torch lots more ED even against non fire. Elastigirl and Reed Richards way way more PD than ED. Silver Surfer way more Ed than PD.

the only blanks I see is a unsupported preference which would make lots of characters more complex:D

James Gillen

Mar 19th, '08, 04:41 PM

Opal

Mar 19th, '08, 04:42 PM

The choice between PD/ED and DEF (perhaps with limitations) is prettymuch a nuetral one, on the surface. The system already uses both: PD/ED for characters, DEF for inanimate objects. Standardizing on one or the other would be nice for consistency.

PD/ED allows you to stat up a character or a defense that is more effective against one sort of damage than another. The physical/energy divide is pretty obvious and intuitive, especially in Hero's home genre of supers. It's also convenient since STR adds to PD, and not ED (if you're stronger and can hit harder, it makes sense that you'd be able to hit harder without shattering your fist; but it doesn't make much sense that you'd become fire or taser-resistant). CON also adds to ED, which is intuitive enough - if you're very healthy, you'll stand up to electric shocks better than someone who's in very poor condition (who might even die of a heart attack from a taser hit).

Fine, as far as it goes.

DEF, OTOH, has the virtue of being very straightforward. You don't have to balance or re-balance your FF or Force Wall or Amor. Your FW is 1 DEF/5; FF 1 DEF/2, Armor 1 DEF/3. For a character that wasn't what a different defesnse vs energy attacks in general compared to physical, it's simple and intuitive, only slightly more so than PD/ED, but most characters would probably go for it, and not even consider if they should be more or less vulnerable to a blaster than a club.

For a character that should be more resistant to one or another, you'd simply partially limit the power. You'd buy 8 DEF FW, with +4 DEF FW, not vs energy attacks for your Telekinetic FW, for instance. Setting the level of the limitation could even be based on relative frequency in the campaign. In a medieval campaign without magic, for instance, the only energy attack would be fire - and it's killing. Buying non-resistant Defense "vs Energy only" would get a very deep discount, while buying it "vs Physical only" would be a very minor limitation, if any at all. It's notably less intuitive than having PD/ED, but it's for a minority of characters. You'd want to make sure that the level of limitation you peg is sensible. If you gave too high a limitation for one or the other, a character could buy two deffenses, one 'vs energy,' one 'vs physical,' for less than buying non-limited DEF. A -1 lim for each could also be a standard default, since it would prevent that.

The only question then becomes stacking with other limitations. For instance, a 10 PD armor costs 15. Add OIF, and it costs 10. A 10 DEF armor, PD-only cost 15. Add OIF, and it costs 12. This is similar to issus with FF vs Armor 'costs END.'

It's been suggested that objects should have differential defenses, too. Wood for instance, stands up pretty well to a fist (Np), not so well to an ax (Kp), and very poorly to fire (Ke). That could be accomplished by using the same PD/ED and resistance as characters use, or by aplying limitations to DEF.

Kenn

Mar 19th, '08, 04:45 PM

Suit of mideval armour... way more PD than ED.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 19th, '08, 06:45 PM

The basic problem with figs on Str is that 5 points of Str provides about 5 points of value without any figured stats at all.

And 10 points of STR provides 13 points worth of figured characteristics on top of that value: +2 PD, +2 REC, +5 STUN, +2" Superleap.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 19th, '08, 07:08 PM

Suit of mideval armour... way more PD than ED.
Medieval armor would be good defense against electricity (works like a Faraday Cage) and versus fire (steel armor doesn't catch fire, reflects heat, and usually has an insulating padded undercovering). Medieval armor also offers very good protection from acid attacks and cold attacks. In fact. I'm hard put to find any kind of energy attack that medieval armor doesn't protect from as good as it does from physical attacks.

However, in most non-super setting, you don't encounter energy attacks anywhere near as often as physical attacks. Blades, arrows, guns, fists, night sticks, etc. all do physical damage. This suggests that in non-super campaigns, ED should cost much less than PD by the "you pay for what you get" philosophy.

For this reason, it might be better to have a single DEF characteristic, on which you can take a setting-specific limitation that it only works versus physical and/or energy damage (same as you now have to do to make ED that only works vs. fire).

In a modern non-super setting, I think "only versus energy" should be a -2 limitation and "only versus physical" be a -½ limitation. In a medieval setting without magic, "only versus physical" might not be a limitation at all.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Ganesh

Mar 19th, '08, 07:17 PM

One argument I've often heard is that bricks require figured characteristics to keep up with people who have power frameworks. Elemental controls are often cited.

We also have the notion of having a power be "characteristic-enhanced" -- namely, killing attacks can be up to doubled by underlying strength, pro-rate for advantages...basically translating to "AP is increased by (levels of/points in) Strength, up to double" for what basically looks like +1/2 advantage.

One (strange) possibility would be to define that advantage. Make it something only the GM can apply to powers (yeah, basically a "stop sign" advantage, but it's also assumed to be part of various powers if the GM says so and can't be removed without permission) for existing characteristics, and apply some version of it to the default levels of DEF (sorry, PD/ED), MD, Stun, Speed, etc., etc. If jiggered correctly, this would give obvious levels to buy your figured characteristics to to get the best point value, establishing defacto figured characteristics as a kind of self-contained power framework.

...

You could also, in theory, use this to replace an EC -- the player gets to buy a characteristic, "my unified power" and all the tricks and applications of it have "enhanced by ("my unified power" unique characteristic) +1/2" up to doubling their effectiveness. Make some decisions about what happens when adjustment powers are applied, and it works out fairly clearly.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 19th, '08, 08:19 PM

Changing the cost of figureds isn't a terrible idea, but I'd be concerned that GMs would have to start setting caps on more of them (currently, there are generally SPD guidelines and PD/ED caps, for instance). Very high REC, for instance, could be imbalancing, if you had REC equal to your STN & END for instance, you'd be starting every turn fresh as a daisy. That's very expensive at 2pt REC, but at 1 it'd be doable. If you're trying to balance STR such that selling back figureds is the same as taking a -1/2 no figureds lim, you basically have 1 pt to work with to pay for the current REC and STN it gives you (since you can hardly reduce the cost of PD). If you change the forumlas, you initiate character re-builds and change point costs for most characters. If you reduce REC and STN in value enough to fit that paradigm, they become very easy to buy up, and capping thier values would become prudent.

I see a lot of characters with 10 REC and 30 STUN. If he wants to spend 20 points to buy +20 REC, is that more harmful than if he buys +10 PD and +10 ED, or +4 DC with his main attack? Regardless of how anything and everything is priced, it's possible to create an abusive build.

My model (I think I posted it earlier in the thread) would have STR contribute less to Figured's. I can live with 5 STR, no figured costing 3.3333. +1d6 EB costs the same if you make it No Range, and STR can't be spread to fill a hex or enhance OCV, while EB's can't grab.

Rather than raise the cost of STR (and CON - both generate more figured char than they cost themselves), what about reducing the cost of END, STUN and REC so the benefits granted by STR and CON are less costly for a lower STR/CON character to purchase directly.

I'd like to see +15 STR grant +5 stats (and a -1/2 limit for "No Figured"), and +15 CON grant 22 points of figured (with "no figured" priced at -2 3/4). At this point, you could sever them without complications (leaving only BOD). No need to change DEX - it works already.

This would require lowering the price of REC, STUN and END. Changing PD and ED changes the dynamic between other defense powers, so it should be avoided. As a rough guideline, I would consider the following:

Reduce the price of STUN to 1/2 point, REC to 1 point and END to 1/3 point. Declare them "defensive powers" so that adjustment powers do not gain a huge advantage.

Grant figured as follows:

STR grants STR/5 in PD and STR/7.5 in REC.
10 STR grants 2 PD and 1 REC

15 STR grants 3 PD and 2 REC, which costs 5 points otherwise.
No Figured is a -1/2 limitation on STR.

CON grants CON/5 in ED, CON/3.75 in REC, 2/3 CON in STUN and 2x CON in END.
10 CON grants 2 ED, 3 REC, 7 STUN and 20 END.

15 CON grants 3 ED, 4 REC, 10 STUN and 30 END, which costs 22 points otherwise. 30/(30-22) = 3.75, so No Figured on CON is a -2 3/4 limitation (yes, I know, it's more than -2; utter blasphemy - break it down into separate limitations for each figured stat to get them each below -2 3/4 and stop whining).

BOD grants BOD x 1 1/3 STUN.
10 BOD grants 13 STUN

15 BOD grants 20 STUN, which is worth 10 points. No Figured is a -1/2 limitation on BOD.

RESULT: No Figured Char is now mathematically correct - someone might actually take CON - no figured! DEX and SPD are unchanged, so -1/2 works.

We can now eliminate the "can only sell back 1 figured" restriction, since there's no advantage to buying up a stat and selling the figured characteristics back.

A standard (10's across the board) guy has the same base figured's as before.

BOD and CON contribute more, and STR contributes less. Appropriate as STR gives considerably more other benefits.

End is 1:2. You want to reduce the price?
Stun is 1:1. I hate tracking fractions during creation. I like whole numbers.

We're changing the system. Multiply all the costs by 6. Now END in my model costs 2 and STUN costs 3, and starting Supers have 2,100 points. But you'll still get fractions with limitations anyway.