Characteristics Issues [Archive] - Page 8 - HERO Games Discussion Boards

The Main Man

Apr 14th, '08, 08:12 AM

Gak. I'm sorry, I really don't mean to be derisive, and it's certainly nothing personal, but... gak.
No offense taken. I'm just exploring a late-night concept that strangely took off slightly.

This completely hoses Adjustment Powers against the eliminated Characteristics, reduces the number of options for customizing (how do we spend points, for example, for increasing END or STUN?), and generally just takes us a long way from the Hero System we've all come to love.
Actually, as pointed out earlier, it makes Adjustment Powers more effective.

If I drained your STR, then you lose lifting capacity, HTH damage, and PD all in one.

We already buy HTH damage, OCV, DCV, PER Rolls, Reputation to add to things that come from the Base CHAR hence the "Defense" power suggestion that supplies PD and ED (and now that I think about it, such a model would make Mental Defense fit right in).

Based on such already existing concepts, REC, END, and STUN could all be bought as they are; they're just adjusted in packages.

The Main Man

Apr 14th, '08, 08:14 AM

Can't you adjust some Derived Characteristics with Change Environment?
therefor......

dam lost my thought.

Yes.

You can alter PER rolls, CHAR Rolls, and Combat Value.

Hope you find that thought.:)

The Main Man

Apr 14th, '08, 08:17 AM

That really doesn't add anything. The problem with figured characteristics isn't what they're named.

Nor did I raise the issue.

I called them "Derived" because it's synonymous with "Figured" but things like HTH damage, OCV, DCV, and PER rolls, etc are not "Figured" CHAR but they are still "Derived," thus they should be differentiated for context.

The Main Man

Apr 14th, '08, 08:18 AM

I started thinking about what COM measured, and I couldn't get a handle on it. 5e defines it as, "attractiveness or handsomeness," but those are subjective terms. Does my cat have a high COM? I think so, but another cat might not. What about orcs? They might think we're ugly because of our pale pink (or brown, depending) skin and lack of fangs. COM (as a characteristic) doesn't handle these relative judgments very well. Buying it as a Talent might work better.

Not to beat a dead horse but...

Exactly. A cute cat still has a 10 COM; it's all subjective.

The Main Man

Apr 14th, '08, 08:20 AM

Which is why I think it is a good idea to separate Perception or Awareness out as its own characteristic.

As I have argued before, a PER characteristic could be used in place of DEX for ranged attacks and possibly also for initiative.

- Klaus

However, what else would PER do point for point (or as close as it can)?

The Main Man

Apr 14th, '08, 08:22 AM

nexus

Apr 14th, '08, 08:43 AM

Not to beat a dead horse but...

Exactly. A cute cat still has a 10 COM; it's all subjective.

It is a dead horse at this point and likely a done deal besides.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 14th, '08, 08:44 AM

What would PER do on a point-for-point basis?
PER/3: +1 ranged attacks (~ 5 points; currently a part of DEX)
PER/5: +1 PER Rolls (~ 5 points; currently a part of INT)
PER/1: +1 initiative; perhaps only mental powers (?; currently a part of DEX)

Perhaps the PER Roll could be replaced with a number of PER Skills, e.g.:

Tracking
Alertness
Search
Recognition (recognizing places/people/styles; seeing through disguises/forgeries)
INT will be reduced to govern INT Rolls and INT skills (but there's a whole lot of those).

- Klaus

Mini-Nukette

Apr 14th, '08, 10:25 AM

StGrimblefig

Apr 14th, '08, 12:53 PM

PER as a figured characteristic could be used alongside DEX (hand-eye co-ordination, or whatever sense is used) for attacks.

SIZE, DEX and SPD (a figured characteristic perhaps, Agility?) could determine how difficult the target is to hit (SIZE being reduced by distance to target.)

I think INT could be used instead of EGO for determining Mental attack initiative. INT could also be used as a limitation on number of skills known, or spells.
Yeah, I have never been really happy with everything mental being based on EGO, especially when EGO is defined as "a character's mental strength and strength of will" (SK revised), and INT as "a characters ability to take in and process information quickly" (also SK revised). Right there, in the text, EGO is called mental strength, while INT is quickness. That, to me, strongly implies that a mental combat value should be based on INT, not EGO. That also implies that the damage done by a basic mental attack should probably be based on EGO (but then the EGO Attack Power would have to be redefined to be something similar to HtH Attack).

But then, I also think that SPD should be based on DEX and INT (or PER, if it exists), not just DEX. I say this because you cannot react quickly to something that you cannot perceive quickly.

If there is a SIZE characteristic, I think it would be structured so that the bonus to hit a larger sized character would naturally offset the existing range penalty. There should be no necessity for a separate table/calculation to reduce the SIZE bonus for longer ranges.

JmOz

Apr 14th, '08, 01:11 PM

Yeah, I have never been really happy with everything mental being based on EGO, especially when EGO is defined as "a character's mental strength and strength of will" (SK revised), and INT as "a characters ability to take in and process information quickly" (also SK revised). Right there, in the text, EGO is called mental strength, while INT is quickness. That, to me, strongly implies that a mental combat value should be based on INT, not EGO. That also implies that the damage done by a basic mental attack should probably be based on EGO (but then the EGO Attack Power would have to be redefined to be something similar to HtH Attack).

But then, I also think that SPD should be based on DEX and INT (or PER, if it exists), not just DEX. I say this because you cannot react quickly to something that you cannot perceive quickly.

If there is a SIZE characteristic, I think it would be structured so that the bonus to hit a larger sized character would naturally offset the existing range penalty. There should be no necessity for a separate table/calculation to reduce the SIZE bonus for longer ranges.

So what about, and totaly off the topic:

Int is used to generate ECV
Telepathy becomes a sense
If the character has TP he can use his ECV/Ego (10pts per d6)to do mental damage if he can get in range of TP (note sense modifiers will be extremly powerful here, I recomend a +1 advantage of Can be used for attacking on the TP sense)
Maybe a version of KA's, and MD should be a characteristic

Ego blast becomes a add on to Ego Damage. Also note that ANYONE, even one without the TP power who gets a mental connection CAN attack with ECV/Ego, the problem is getting to the fight.

Ex
Mind Slayer is a Super villain with telepathy, Dr Brain a gadgeteer

Mind Slayer "connects" with his telepathy, Dr Brain can still attack Mind Slayer with his ECV/Ego as damage

CTaylor

Apr 14th, '08, 02:01 PM

OK Here's my final thought on Comeliness for Steve Long to consider. He says he needs a good argument to keep Comeliness as a stat in Hero Games, so here's my attempt:

I argue the opposite: you need a good argument to lose comeliness, because it's been part of a successful, popular, and groundbreaking game for decades. You make changes to that kind of thing reluctantly, and with good reason. The approach to making changes, particularly deletions, should always be "sell me on doing this" not "sell me on not doing this.

There is the argument Comeliness doesn't do anything, which is not exactly accurate. It has no specified rules for how it works, nor are there any skills or figured characteristics that it affects (since it was removed from seduction) but that's different from arguing it does nothing. As was repeatedly pointed out earlier in the thread, comeliness is an interaction stat, a role playing stat, which means it has more nebulous and subjective qualities than a die roll or a skill, but it is part of the game nevertheless.

There is the argument that it should be turned into a talents (like GURPS) and then given definitive statistical rules, but in order for it to make sense, you'd have to have a variable level of attractiveness: this cost is cuter than this cost. Which is no real tangible change from just having a comeliness stat in the first place: pay more points, be more attractive. If you just put a section in that explains comeliness in terms of how it works interactively - the same sort of rules you would a talent - then you have the same effect without dropping a stat and changing character sheets, etc.

Ultimately, leaving Comeliness in the game harms nothing, but taking it out limits the toolkit and weakens role playing capacity. That sounds like a lose-lose to me, especially since I suspect many if not most GMs will keep it in their games even if it is removed. Take that stat out and 7th edition will just put it back in, I predict.

Mini-Nukette

Apr 14th, '08, 02:03 PM

My latest MASS/SIZE table. MASS matches the lifted maximum on STR, doubling/halving per +/-5. SIZE likewise doubles/halves per +/-5, but note that is +/- 15 for Shrinking/Growth Powers (which half in three dimensions) as does MASS in that case.

The typical standing adult human, for game purposes, is SIZE 10 (two 'stacked' size 5's, 1m wide by 2m tall), and MASS 10 (100kg.)

A 1" hex, Size 20, (2m wide and 2m tall) occupies roughly 5.2 x 1m^3, so if it was filled with water would weight about 5.2 metric tons.

Value - MASS Weight(Example) - SIZE (Width/height of single hex)
Zero - None - None (Note: Absolute Zero, distinguished from Value 0)
-100 - 0.25mg - 1/16,000,000 (75mm)
-95 - 0.5mg - 1/8,000,000 (1cm)
-90 - 1mg - 1/4,000,000 (1.25cm)
-85 - 2mg (mosquito) - 1/2,000,000 (1.5cm)
-80 - 4mg - 1/1,000,000 (2cm)
-75 - 8mg - 1/500,000 (2.5cm)
-70 - 15mg - 1/250,000 (3cm)
-65 - 30mg - 1/125.000 (4cm)
-60 - 6.25g - 1/64,000 (5cm)
-55 - 12.5g - 1/32,000 (6.25cm)
-50 - 25g (adult mouse) - 1/16,000 (8cm)
-45 - 50g - 1/8,000 (10cm)
-40 - 100g - 1/4,000 (12.5cm)
-35 - 200g - 1/2,000 (16cm)
-30 - 400g - 1/1,000 (20cm)
-25 - 800g - 1/500 (25cm)
-20 - 1.6kg (pineapple) - 1/200 (32cm)
-15 - 3.2kg - 1/125 (40cm)
-10 - 6.25kg (house cat) - 1/64 (50cm)
-5 - 12.5kg - 1/32 (62.5cm)
0 - 25kg (TV set) - 1/16 (80cm)
1 - 28.75kg - 9/128 (83cm)
2 - 32.5kg - 5/64 (86cm)
3 - 37.5kg - 3/32 (90cm)
4 - 43.75kg - 7/64 (95cm)
5 - 50kg - ⅛ (1m)
6 - 57.5kg - 9/64 (1.04m)
7 - 65kg - 5/32 (1.08m)
8 - 75kg - 3/16 (1.125m)
9 - 87.5kg - 7/32 (1.2m)
10 - 100kg (adult human) - ¼ (1.25m)
11 - 115kg - 9/32 (1.28m)
12 - 130kg - 5/16 (1.35m)
13 - 150kg - ⅜ (1.4m)
14 - 175kg - 7/16 (1.5m)
15 - 200kg (two men, piano) - ½ (1.6m)
16 - 230kg (mature male lion) - 9/16 (1.66m)
17 - 260kg - 5/8 (1.72m)
18 - 300kg - ¾ (1.8m)
19 - 350kg - ⅞ (1.9m)
20 - 400kg - 1 (2m)
21 - 460kg - 1⅛ (2.05m)
22 - 520kg - 1¼ (2.15m)
23 - 600kg - 1½ (2.25m)
24 - 700kg (dairy cow) - 1¾ (2.35m)
25 - 800kg (small car) - 2 (2.5m)
30 - 1600kg (large car) - 4 (3.25m)
35 - 3200kg - 8 (4m)
40 - 6400kg - 16 (5m)
45 - 12.5 tons - 32 (6.5m)
50 - 25 tons - 64 (8m)
55 - 50 tons (tank) - 125 (10m)
60 - 100 tons (space shuttle) - 250 (12.75m)
65 - 200 tons - 1,000 (16m)
70 - 400 tons - 2,000 (20m)
75 - 800 tons - 8,000 (25m)
80 - 1600 tons - 16,000 (32m)
85 - 3200 tons - 32,000 (40m)
90 - 6400 tons - 64,000 (50m)
95 - 12.5 ktons - 125,000 (64m)
100 -25 ktons - 500,000 (80m)

Chris Goodwin

Apr 14th, '08, 02:16 PM

OK Here's my final thought on Comeliness for Steve Long to consider. He says he needs a good argument to keep Comeliness as a stat in Hero Games, so here's my attempt:

Here's mine:

We obviously have a need for some kind of game mechanical representation of a character's looks. We already have a Characteristic to represent this. The argument has been made that it doesn't do anything; that is at least partly false, because there are some (few) game mechanical things for it to do, and because there are a few things that Characteristics generally do (such as CHA rolls) that Comeliness can be used for as well. If we're going to come up with a way to represent looks in game mechanics, it's better to use a tool that's already there for the purpose (Comeliness) and to expand its mechanical utility. It's also better to keep Comeliness as part of the existing stat block; while "because we've had it for years" may not be a great argument by itself for keeping Comeliness, it's a good reason given the other arguments in favor.

The Main Man

Apr 14th, '08, 02:35 PM

I'm all for keeping COM if it does something.

Even BODY has a CHAR roll... why?

CTaylor

Apr 14th, '08, 02:49 PM

Even BODY has a CHAR roll... why?

Sure, the rolls are there for a reason and they are useful, but it would be good if the book spent a few lines on each one explaining situations to use them in, ideas for GMs to understand the concept.

The Main Man

Apr 14th, '08, 02:56 PM

Sure, the rolls are there for a reason and they are useful, but it would be good if the book spent a few lines on each one explaining situations to use them in, ideas for GMs to understand the concept.

Yes, that would be a good idea.

James Gillen

Apr 15th, '08, 12:20 AM

I'm all for keeping COM if it does something.

Even BODY has a CHAR roll... why?

So you can flex in front of the fireworks to look good before going in the ring.

JG

Kenn

Apr 15th, '08, 09:10 AM

Adjustment powers cannot be used against skills, perks, or talents without special permission.

Removing the comeliness characteristic and making a talent that represents essentially the same thing makes attractiveness static, since it would be officially immune to adjustment powers.

I do not consider this a good thing.

ajackson

Apr 15th, '08, 09:29 AM

Removing the comeliness characteristic and making a talent that represents essentially the same thing makes attractiveness static, since it would be officially immune to adjustment powers.

I do not consider this a good thing.
Having never seen the Ugly Stick used outside of a silly game, I can't say it would cause many problems for me, but you can always use Cosmetic Transform.

Marcus Impudite

Apr 15th, '08, 11:19 PM

It is a dead horse at this point and likely a done deal besides.
Exactly. I frankly get the distinct impression that Steve has made up his mind and nothing anyone says to him on the subject will make one bit of difference to him. Not that this matters all that much to me, as it's very unlikely I'll be buying into 6e when it comes out anyway.

JmOz

Apr 16th, '08, 03:55 AM

Doc Democracy

Apr 16th, '08, 05:20 AM

Yeah, I have never been really happy with everything mental being based on EGO, especially when EGO is defined as "a character's mental strength and strength of will" (SK revised), and INT as "a characters ability to take in and process information quickly" (also SK revised). Right there, in the text, EGO is called mental strength, while INT is quickness. That, to me, strongly implies that a mental combat value should be based on INT, not EGO. That also implies that the damage done by a basic mental attack should probably be based on EGO (but then the EGO Attack Power would have to be redefined to be something similar to HtH Attack).

Ooh! I've never really been happy with mental powers in Hero.

Might there be some mileage in looking at this closely and making mental powers something more akin to martial arts?

I mean the problem with mental powers as they currently exist is that they use a completely different system of effect than the rest of the system - if it was more akin to physical combat then it might be a more elegant addition/expansion of the system.

The main mental powers are Ego blast, Mental Illusions, Telepathy and Mind Control.

Could these effects be accomplished thought mental arts using INT as an ECV base and EGO as STR? Might you use other stats?

Hmm. This is something, I think, that Steve Long could make big changes in and really improve the elegance and playability of the game - would need a whole new Ultimate Mentalist book though....

Doc

steamteck

Apr 16th, '08, 05:23 AM

Hugh Neilson

Apr 16th, '08, 06:03 AM

Exactly. I frankly get the distinct impression that Steve has made up his mind and nothing anyone says to him on the subject will make one bit of difference to him. Not that this matters all that much to me, as it's very unlikely I'll be buying into 6e when it comes out anyway.

I think it's premature to conclude that Steve's mind is made up from a single post asking for feedback, especially when he has noted he's not even reading these threads until he's ready to start work on 6e.

I can't speak for Steve, but if MY mind were made up about something, I wouldn't publicly ask for feedback a year in advance. I'd wait a year, quietly, then go ahead and do what I had already made up my mind to do. I'm not sure whether Steve will be persuaded by any of the comments, but I'm not ready to conclude he's already made up his mind, and I'm not going to decry 6th Ed before I know what will actually be in it.

Paragon

Apr 16th, '08, 09:13 AM

ajackson

Apr 16th, '08, 09:34 AM

Exactly. I frankly get the distinct impression that Steve has made up his mind and nothing anyone says to him on the subject will make one bit of difference to him.
I get the distinct impression that he's not reading this forum at the moment. However, I suspect he's more likely to change his mind about a point where there are multiple people arguing the other side and few or none arguing his proposed side. If there are multiple people arguing both sides, or more people arguing his side, there's little reason to change.

Paragon

Apr 16th, '08, 09:45 AM

I get the distinct impression that he's not reading this forum at the moment. However, I suspect he's more likely to change his mind about a point where there are multiple people arguing the other side and few or none arguing his proposed side. If there are multiple people arguing both sides, or more people arguing his side, there's little reason to change.

I'm not sure I've seen anything he's indicated he was prone, or strongly prone to do that didn't have at least some signficant body of defenders, so that would tend to suggest that if you're correct, those are all going through.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 16th, '08, 10:03 AM

Ooh! I've never really been happy with mental powers in Hero.

Might there be some mileage in looking at this closely and making mental powers something more akin to martial arts?

I'm working on making Telepathy, Mind Link, and Mind Scan into Enhanced Senses, and trying to figure out how to make the others into Skills. Thread is here, (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64260) if you're interested.

ajackson

Apr 16th, '08, 10:22 AM

I'm not sure I've seen anything he's indicated he was prone, or strongly prone to do that didn't have at least some signficant body of defenders, so that would tend to suggest that if you're correct, those are all going through.
Not necessarily, but when an argument boils down to "I hate it!" vs "I like it!", this board doesn't provide much more than an opinion poll (and a horribly unreliable one, at that; there's a lot of selection bias).

If you want to do more than just be a vote in a poll, raise points that Steve hasn't already thought of.

nexus

Apr 16th, '08, 10:41 AM

I think it's premature to conclude that Steve's mind is made up from a single post asking for feedback, especially when he has noted he's not even reading these threads until he's ready to start work on 6e.

I can't speak for Steve, but if MY mind were made up about something, I wouldn't publicly ask for feedback a year in advance. I'd wait a year, quietly, then go ahead and do what I had already made up my mind to do. I'm not sure whether Steve will be persuaded by any of the comments, but I'm not ready to conclude he's already made up his mind, and I'm not going to decry 6th Ed before I know what will actually be in it.

The impression I've gotten (through this admittedly limited medium) is that on some issues, Steve Long as pretty much made up his mind "unless there is a convincing argument". That is a pretty vague matter. I'm sure everyone considers their arguments convincing or they wouldn't present them.

Other issues, he's seems less certain about but some of these changes boil to taste or are otherwise highly subjective with allot of anecdotal evidence being passed around. So it is difficult to come up with an objective "logical" argument. Comeliness is, to me, one of those areas and one Steve Long seems pretty set on.

Personally, I'm not going to start saying 6th Edition sucks until I see it but judging from the things Steve Long seems to have firmly set his mind on and the course of the discussions it doesn't look like I'll be investing in it.

As it stands now. Time will tell.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 16th, '08, 10:58 AM

The impression I've gotten (through this admittedly limited medium) is that on some issues, Steve Long as pretty much made up his mind "unless there is a convincing argument". That is a pretty vague matter. I'm sure everyone considers their arguments convincing or they wouldn't present them.

I want COM to stay. I've given my best arguments for it. I want Figured Characteristics to be decoupled; I've given my best arguments for that as well.

If you want either of those to stay or go, by all means make an argument for them.

I'm willing to fight for my favorite system, damn it! Are you?

Paragon

Apr 16th, '08, 11:05 AM

Not necessarily, but when an argument boils down to "I hate it!" vs "I like it!", this board doesn't provide much more than an opinion poll (and a horribly unreliable one, at that; there's a lot of selection bias).

If you want to do more than just be a vote in a poll, raise points that Steve hasn't already thought of.

The problem is, a lot of these issues are judgement calls and weighting of what actually happens out among gamers. I don't see that as likely subject to anything but ancedotal claims at best.

Or put another way, I don't see my issues on some of them as being particularly possible to argue on any sort of grounds that isn't fundamentally subjective.

Paragon

Apr 16th, '08, 11:06 AM

I'm willing to fight for my favorite system, damn it! Are you?

Where I'm convinced an argument has traction, I have. I'm simply not convinced for a lot of these that any argument does.

nexus

Apr 16th, '08, 11:14 AM

I'm willing to fight for my favorite system, damn it! Are you?

I've made many posts across a couple of threads in support of Comeliness, including a proposed alternate write up and mechanical function for it that included an optional Talent build to keep both "sides" happy.

But at this point, it's repeating the same arguments over and over again and, for me, that falls under beating a dead horse and I'm not really sure it matters at this point, frankly

StGrimblefig

Apr 16th, '08, 11:37 AM

So what about, and totaly off the topic:
This is a kind of grey area that overlaps the powers and characteristics discussions, so it is not totally off-topic.

Int is used to generate ECV
Of course, if we are no longer using EGO for generating the combat value, the name Ego Combat Value (ECV) no longer makes sense. It should become Mental Combat Value (MCV)

Telepathy becomes a sense
I would say that Mind Scan becomes a sense, but Telepathy has always seemed to me to be more active -- requiring more effort than most senses usually use. Also, Telepathy can be resisted (I think). Can any other senses be resisted in the same way?

If the character has TP he can use his ECV/Ego (10pts per d6)to do mental damage if he can get in range of TP (note sense modifiers will be extremly powerful here, I recomend a +1 advantage of Can be used for attacking on the TP sense)
Maybe a version of KA's, and MD should be a characteristic
My preference would be to swap Mind Scan for Telepathy in the above, but YMMV.
Whether MD should be a characteristic is still open to some debate. It seems, to me, to be very campaign dependent. In campaigns that have little or no mental powers, it could be seen as being useless, and a waste of character sheet geography. In a mentalist-heavy campaign, it is a necessity.

Ego blast becomes a add on to Ego Damage. Also note that ANYONE, even one without the TP power who gets a mental connection CAN attack with ECV/Ego, the problem is getting to the fight.
Interesting ideas. I would say that a person not trained in mentalism would still be at a disadvantage in a fight. At the least, he should suffer some kind of MCV penalty for being untrained (his attacks are simplistic at best, and easier for a trained mentalist to deflect or avoid). Kind of like melee combat with a weapon for which you do not have a WF.

Why wouldn't Ego Blast just be Mental Attack (adds to EGO damage, just as Hand Attack adds to STR damage)? Or even take the next step and have a unified Improved Attack power that can be used for either physical (DEX-based attack/STR-based damage) or mental (INT-based attack/EGO-based damage), and adds its dice of damage to the base.

StGrimblefig

Apr 16th, '08, 12:26 PM

Ooh! I've never really been happy with mental powers in Hero.

Might there be some mileage in looking at this closely and making mental powers something more akin to martial arts?
If you implement JmOz's suggestions (here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1584960&postcount=1763)) , then I would think that a mentalist martial art for that kind of mental combat would be feasible.
However, I am not sure that implementing ALL mental powers as a martial art would make sense.

I mean the problem with mental powers as they currently exist is that they use a completely different system of effect than the rest of the system - if it was more akin to physical combat then it might be a more elegant addition/expansion of the system.
That is because changing something in someone's brain is quite different than just hacking off pieces of flesh. If you want a better analogy, it would be like a sculptor trying to re-mold a clay golem into a different shape while it is fighting back.

That being said, the initial act of "gaining access" to the mind could be done more like a physical combat action (but based on INT and EGO, rather than DEX and STR).

The main mental powers are Ego blast, Mental Illusions, Telepathy and Mind Control.

Could these effects be accomplished thought mental arts using INT as an ECV base and EGO as STR? Might you use other stats?
In as much as all of the mentioned powers require an attack roll, I think they can (and should) use a mental attack roll based upon a Mental Combat Value (MCV) derived from INT. Beyond that, each of these powers have quite different effects. Only EGO Attack is truly just an attack. Mental Illusions attempts to add sensory information directly into the mind of the target. Telepathy attempts to read and write thoughts. Mind Control actually modifies the actions of the target. Other than the EGO Attack, these are much more complex than just doing damage, and they can be resisted or negated by the target, even after the initial attack.

I do not know if the mental effect system needs changing, although it is somewhat cumbersome to use. I do think that the effects involved are different enough from normal combat effects, that it should be separate.

Hmm. This is something, I think, that Steve Long could make big changes in and really improve the elegance and playability of the game - would need a whole new Ultimate Mentalist book though....
Heh. Some people think that's what 6ed is all about.

Doc Democracy

Apr 16th, '08, 12:40 PM

That is because changing something in someone's brain is quite different than just hacking off pieces of flesh. If you want a better analogy, it would be like a sculptor trying to re-mold a clay golem into a different shape while it is fighting back.

Yeah, but is that much different from wrestling, trying to gain a hold by which you can cause pain or immobility or, in the case of mental powers, force someone to do something they didn't want.

I think it is close enough to that to make this worth considering.

I'm going to read Chris' thread carefully because I think we're walking similar parallel paths.

I do not know if the mental effect system needs changing, although it is somewhat cumbersome to use. I do think that the effects involved are different enough from normal combat effects, that it should be separate.

The bolded comment indicates that it is something Steve should really consider when looking at changes he can make. Mental powers and their use do not flow particularly well in the game as they stand. I would like to see them improved and the mechanics look as if they belonged with the rest of the system rather than some other game entirely....

Heh. Some people think that's what 6ed is all about.

Well. It is to make the system more elegant and it has to be about revenue (else there is no reason to continue).

I think that a level of compatability is desirable due to the nature of Hero - people do tend to construct their own versions of things and so a complete break is a much bigger barrier for continued following.

However, I think that the way the publications have been set up lend themselves to a goodly amount of change - even if older followers of the system do not buy into the new one they should be able to continue to buy Ultimate books and stuff - they are pretty much system-free.

Doc

steamteck

Apr 16th, '08, 12:52 PM

I want COM to stay. I've given my best arguments for it. I want Figured Characteristics to be decoupled; I've given my best arguments for that as well.

If you want either of those to stay or go, by all means make an argument for them.

I'm willing to fight for my favorite system, damn it! Are you?

I think those you're talking to if you look over this thread have definitely given it their best shot.

CTaylor

Apr 16th, '08, 01:41 PM

Doc Democracy

Apr 16th, '08, 01:56 PM

That is an interesting point about Comeliness, the economic argument: how many people have stated they might not buy the new edition at all or at least reluctantly, hesitantly if COM is deleted? Is there anyone, anywhere who would say the same if it is left in?

There has been a lot of people who have said that if the new edition is not a radical upgrade then they will be unlikely to purchase it. It could be said that it would be a cumulation of not making brave decisions (removing COM could be described that way) would lead to lots of people not seeing the incentive to purchase another rulebook.

I did not buy 5ER for that reason - it was so similar to FRED that I had other things more demanding of my gaming cash.

Doc

nexus

Apr 16th, '08, 02:10 PM

and there have been a corresponding number of people that have said they won't be 6th if its too radical a change. And many on both sides will probably change their minds once the "heat of the moment" passes or when the books are released and that strange "peer pressure" kicks in.

That said, I don't see what keeping Comeliness hurts. It doesn't take up that much space in the books. Unless there is going to be no means of mechanically representing Appearance some space will have to be devoted to a Talent/Perk or whatever.

But the tools to build that ability are already in the system. A description of how to use them could be included in Comeliness (something I proposed earlier) or Comeliness moved to an optional characteristic.

CTaylor

Apr 16th, '08, 04:53 PM

That could be a factor, although I seriously doubt anyone would consider the removal of Comeliness sufficiently radical to prompt them to buy a new edition if they didn't bother with 5th edition.

nexus

Apr 16th, '08, 04:58 PM

That could be a factor, although I seriously doubt anyone would consider the removal of Comeliness sufficiently radical to prompt them to buy a new edition if they didn't bother with 5th edition.

That wasn't my point. That some people have said they won't bother with 6th edition if it isn't a radical change isn't really evidence that keeping Comeliness will dissuade (or that removing it will prompt them to) in and of itself. In other words, it doesn't seem to answer the question posed.

"Has anyone said they won't be buy 6th Edition is Comeliness is maintained."

At least in more than tangential way.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 16th, '08, 05:08 PM

I do not know if the mental effect system needs changing, although it is somewhat cumbersome to use. I do think that the effects involved are different enough from normal combat effects, that it should be separate.

Heh. Some people think that's what 6ed is all about.

Let's be realistic - 6th Ed is as much about economics as anything else. DoJ is running a business - they need to make money. This isn't somehow morally wrong - it's simple reality.

A thought on changing mental powers - given Steve has authored both Ultimate Mentalists (4e and 5e), do you think he would be inclined to radically change the manner in which mental powers work?

I'm not opposed to a radical change, but I wonder how likely it is.

Doc Democracy

Apr 17th, '08, 12:35 AM

A thought on changing mental powers - given Steve has authored both Ultimate Mentalists (4e and 5e), do you think he would be inclined to radically change the manner in which mental powers work?

He wrote both of those within the context of the rules as written.

As a game designer I'll bet he has ideas about how to do things better firing through his brain all the time. I am not a game designer and get that when I really think about the system.

Removing the boundaries of the rules as written, I can see Steve considering all kinds of options, especially ones where he can be seen to make radical changes to the system that would not only improve the system in his eyes but in enough other people's eyes to make the new edition worth picking up.

As you say, there is an economic factor in new editions and this would provide not only a feature for the core rules but a compelling reason to pick up a 6th Edition Ultimate Mentalist even if you own the 4th and 5th edition versions.

Doc

James Gillen

Apr 17th, '08, 03:36 AM

Let's be realistic - 6th Ed is as much about economics as anything else. DoJ is running a business - they need to make money. This isn't somehow morally wrong - it's simple reality.

A thought on changing mental powers - given Steve has authored both Ultimate Mentalists (4e and 5e), do you think he would be inclined to radically change the manner in which mental powers work?

I'm not opposed to a radical change, but I wonder how likely it is.

I'm not sure he'd cotton to what Chris is doing, but he also came up with stuff like Mental Maneuvers and (in the new version) Mental Martial Arts, so that indicates a possibility of building Mental Powers on a different "paradigm."

JG

Hugh Neilson

Apr 17th, '08, 05:37 AM

I'm not sure he'd cotton to what Chris is doing, but he also came up with stuff like Mental Maneuvers and (in the new version) Mental Martial Arts, so that indicates a possibility of building Mental Powers on a different "paradigm."

I'd like to see some changes to the mental powers. They're obviously a source of much consternation from threads on the Boards, and they tend to vary from "massively overpowered" to "virtually useless" depending on GM interpretations.

I'm not sure what the right answer is - Chris' approach doesn't sit right for reasons I can't fully recognize myself, other than "too different from other mechanics" - but I think it's time to look at some options. 6e is definitely an opportunity to do so, and I think a radical reworking of this major sub-area could attract a lot of existing Hero-Ites if they can see it as a real improvement.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 17th, '08, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by CTaylor
That is an interesting point about Comeliness, the economic argument: how many people have stated they might not buy the new edition at all or at least reluctantly, hesitantly if COM is deleted? Is there anyone, anywhere who would say the same if it is left in?
There has been a lot of people who have said that if the new edition is not a radical upgrade then they will be unlikely to purchase it.
Let's face it: The people on this list aren't representative of the potential buyers of Hero 6th. A poll of will-buy, won't-buy here will not be indicative of what the general public will do.

My guess is that the general public (and typical game reviewers as well) will focus more on whether the new edition is playable than on how small or great the changes are.

- Klaus

Paragon

Apr 17th, '08, 10:10 AM

I'd like to see some changes to the mental powers. They're obviously a source of much consternation from threads on the Boards, and they tend to vary from "massively overpowered" to "virtually useless" depending on GM interpretations.

I'm not sure what the right answer is - Chris' approach doesn't sit right for reasons I can't fully recognize myself, other than "too different from other mechanics" - but I think it's time to look at some options. 6e is definitely an opportunity to do so, and I think a radical reworking of this major sub-area could attract a lot of existing Hero-Ites if they can see it as a real improvement.

To some extent, mental powers are an intrinsic problem no matter how you mechanic them; they tend to be scenario killers, take over control of characters from players to one extent or another, or both. I can't see them doing what they're avowedly supposed to do without to some degree creating those problems, honestly.

Paragon

Apr 17th, '08, 10:12 AM

Let's face it: The people on this list aren't representative of the potential buyers of Hero 6th. A poll of will-buy, won't-buy here will not be indicative of what the general public will do.

My guess is that the general public (and typical game reviewers as well) will focus more on whether the new edition is playable than on how small or great the changes are.

- Klaus

Well, as noted before, part of the question here is how much the extent player base is an issue when deciding on design. If Steve is primarily trying to fish in new ponds, then what we think is irrelevant; if he's also trying to sell to as much of the old guard as he can, its far more so (though that doesn't necessarily mean we're representative of the old guard, but my suspicion is that, viewed collectively, we aren't too far off).

The Main Man

Apr 17th, '08, 10:13 AM

While I don't have a big problem with the way that Mental Powers currently work, I do agree that they either give the PC's a slice of the GM's power or the GM becomes that much more omnipotent with them.

Perhaps a "Mental STUN" CHAR or something like it?

With a stat like that, you have to "Knock Out" this CHAR before you take effect.

Granted this doesn't really graduate Mental Effect.

Just throwing it out there.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 17th, '08, 11:15 AM

The Main Man

Apr 17th, '08, 11:42 AM

I'd like to see mental powers lose that "all or nothing" aspect as a default. Transform is the only other ability to have had that "it works or it fails, no attrition" aspect to it, and it was changed to default to cumulative.

That sounds like a good idea, with EGO acting as the "BODY" that must be "Killed."

In similar fashion (this should be in the Powers discussion) if you did enough damage to "kill their mind" you might as well be able to manipulate it.

They could also fade like Adjustment powers, or maybe they fade instantly like Succor or Suppress.

I think I'll post these ideas in the Powers section.

Mini-Nukette

Apr 17th, '08, 11:50 AM

Whilst looking at the Mental Powers, I thought that, based on the 1d6 per x character points, they pretty much have a DC value, which is compared to a set value of EGO Stun of sorts to determine the strength of the Powers effect.

Following through with that, a quick few idea's...

INT should be used to determine Mental SPD, Mental Combat Value, and Initiative order.

EGO has a Mental Strength, a base Damage Class determined as per STR, and Mental Powers acting as a kind of variety of 'weapons' that add to the Mental EGO strength. Using EGO would cost similarly to STR, 1 END per 10 EGO used in the attack.

Like BODY on the dice rolled, you could count ones as 0 MIND, two to five as 1 MIND, and sixes as 2 MIND. Breaking out of a Mental Attack then becomes equivalent to breaking out of a STR Grab, but with EGO. Mental Defense here I think would give the character trying to escape a straight bonus to their roll.

EGO used on a Mental Attack, if ongoing, could be temporarily assigned by the attacker (after an initial attack hits), so they can choose to keep reinforcing that Mental Power with it, but thereby reducing their own Mental Defense until they recover the EGO.

The Main Man

Apr 17th, '08, 11:53 AM

The problem I have with the idea of new "Mental Stats" is their utterly esoteric nature.

These are stats that could be potentially useless in numerous campaigns.

To me, CHAR should all be counted on to be used during any given adventure.

CTaylor

Apr 17th, '08, 12:24 PM

Let's face it: The people on this list aren't representative of the potential buyers of Hero 6th.

There's no way of knowing if that is true or not, but it is interesting to see how the people here say they will turn on deleting a characteristic; and something to be considered.

James Gillen

Apr 17th, '08, 12:24 PM

Mini-Nukette

Apr 17th, '08, 02:25 PM

Mental stats have possible uses in campaign settings with Psionic effects and Magic (where mental Powers may well be imitated by spells) - which includes a higher percentage of the majority of backgrounds, I would guess. If the campaign setting doesn't need them, of course, a player won't need to record them.

Though, a Mental Stun/Body could possibly be used for such game mechanics as inventions (taxing the brain over long duration of time), addictions, emotional shock, staying awake for long periods without proper sleep, lack of oxygen (resulting in brain death), and the like.

PhilFleischmann

Apr 17th, '08, 07:01 PM

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I've just read this entire thread, and boy are my eyes tired. Whew!

But seriously, folks...

I'd like to address an issue that keeps being raised here, which I mention many, many pages ago - the "every point of each characteristic should matter" issue.

May I point out, once again, that with only two exceptions, this is already the case:

Every point of STR matters, each 1 STR multiplies lifting capacity by about 1.15. And you can use the fractional damage dice as presented in TUB.
Every point of DEX matters for initiative order.
Every point of CON matters to prevent Stunning.
Every point of BODY matters to prevent death.
Every point of EGO matters to resist Mental Powers (and PRE Attacks)
Every point of PRE matters to resist Presence Attacks.
Every point of all of the Figured Characteristics matters: PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, STUN.

And I didn't even have to invoke the effect of Primaries on Figureds, or the effect of Adjustment Powers. The only two characteristics where not every point matters are INT and COM. And even in those cases, being very subjective characteristics, the comparative scale is still useful for role-playing purposes: Alice with 16 COM is prettier than Betty with 14 COM, Carla is gorgeous at 20 COM, and Darla is a goddess at 30 COM. Ed at 17 INT is smarter than Fred at 16 INT, who in turn is smarter than Greg at 15 INT, and Harry is a super-genius at 25 INT.

Mechanics-wise, *none* of the points of COM matter. So it's not an issue of "efficient breakpoints" causing everyone to want to buy a 13 or 18 COM.

In the case of INT, I have already posted (somewhere in this massive thread, as well as in the "regular" threads) a proposal to allow INT rolls (particularly INT-based Skill Rolls) to have less "fixed" breakpoints at 13, 18, 23, 28, etc. I'll see if I can find it and post it again - or at least a link.

Edit: Here it is, from post #736, way back on page 50:
One way I have used to make every point of INT matter is to not assume that every INT-based skill (particularly Background Skills) must be 9+INT/5. Sometimes raw intelligence has a greater importance than the average case, and the roll could be 8+INT/4, or 7+INT/3, or even 6+INT/2. And sometimes raw intelligence is less imortant, and the specific skill-related knowledge is more important than the average case, and the roll could be 9+INT/6, or 10+INT/7, or even 10+INT/8. If a GM frequently uses rolls like these, the 3 and 8 breakpoints won't be as useful.

Here's a table of examples of the above types of rolls for INT values of 8-12 (which normally are indistinguishable).

Roll \ INT: 8 9 10 11 12
6+INT/2 10- 11- 11- 12- 12-
7+INT/3 10- 10- 10- 11- 11-
8+INT/4 10- 10- 11- 11- 11-
9+INT/5 11- 11- 11- 11- 11-
9+INT/6 10- 11- 11- 11- 11-
10+INT/7 11- 11- 11- 12- 12-
10+INT/8 11- 11- 11- 11- 12-

Mini-Nukette

Apr 18th, '08, 04:13 AM

Another thought for Mental Stun/Mind uses outside of psi/magic campaigns:

Psychological Disadvantages (damaging yourself by trying to overcome them, even if successful), Fear, Terror, Insanity... could provide a backbone for Horror campaign background mechanics (harking to CoC).

Lost all your Mind? Time for a trip to the asylum... :hush:

Hugh Neilson

Apr 18th, '08, 05:24 AM

Following through with that, a quick few idea's...

INT should be used to determine Mental SPD, Mental Combat Value, and Initiative order.

EGO has a Mental Strength, a base Damage Class determined as per STR, and Mental Powers acting as a kind of variety of 'weapons' that add to the Mental EGO strength. Using EGO would cost similarly to STR, 1 END per 10 EGO used in the attack.

Like BODY on the dice rolled, you could count ones as 0 MIND, two to five as 1 MIND, and sixes as 2 MIND. Breaking out of a Mental Attack then becomes equivalent to breaking out of a STR Grab, but with EGO. Mental Defense here I think would give the character trying to escape a straight bonus to their roll.

EGO used on a Mental Attack, if ongoing, could be temporarily assigned by the attacker (after an initial attack hits), so they can choose to keep reinforcing that Mental Power with it, but thereby reducing their own Mental Defense until they recover the EGO.

The problem I have with the idea of new "Mental Stats" is their utterly esoteric nature.

These are stats that could be potentially useless in numerous campaigns.

To me, CHAR should all be counted on to be used during any given adventure.

It looks to me like the suggestion is that these be derived from the existing INT and EGO stats. In a game that does not use mental powers, or uses them only rarely, these would not be bought up. In games that use them frequently, or for characters who use them frequently in games where they are otherwise rare, levels with these abilities might be purchased.

No new stats, just new uses for existing stats. However, I would not change SPD, simply because a separate mental SPD would quickly become problematic when characters are operating simultaneously on the physical and mental planes.

BobGreenwade

Apr 18th, '08, 07:50 AM

I'd like to see mental powers lose that "all or nothing" aspect as a default. Transform is the only other ability to have had that "it works or it fails, no attrition" aspect to it, and it was changed to default to cumulative.The first version of The Ultimate Mentalist (the one created for 4th Ed) had versions of most of the Mental Powers that had a more "influential" kind of effect. When the newer version was under way I recommended that these be included, with a rule that the Power must be defined as either gradual or all-or-nothing when it was purchased, or a +1/4 Advantage applied to allow the character to switch. (As we all know, this recommendation was not taken. I'm sure Steve has his reasons.) I'd still like to see that rule, but if not then I'd prefer the 4th Ed TUM options to become the default and the all-or-nothing version to be revived only in the 6th Ed "Book Of Mental Powers" (or whatever it's called).

nexus

Apr 18th, '08, 07:57 AM

Mechanics-wise, *none* of the points of COM matter. So it's not an issue of "efficient breakpoints" causing everyone to want to buy a 13 or 18 COM.

nitpick: There is a Comeliness char roll and it does have mechanical function so there are "breakpoints" for Comeliness just like for other Char rolls. Not that this undoes your overall argument but I felt it needed to be pointed out.

Paragon

Apr 18th, '08, 12:10 PM

nitpick: There is a Comeliness char roll and it does have mechanical function so there are "breakpoints" for Comeliness just like for other Char rolls. Not that this undoes your overall argument but I felt it needed to be pointed out.

I also have to point out that some of the non-breakpoint value benefits are pretty trivial; the Presence resistance comes to mind here, as the situations where you get Presence attacked and miss or hit a category exactly by the difference are liable to be mostly invisble to most people, and therefor not in practice effect their design choices. For all the fact its more frequent, the Stun value of interim Con runs much the same. There are also points in the Strength cycle where no one ever bothers to figure out the fiddling lift distinction, even if it actually comes up.

GloryFox

Apr 22nd, '08, 10:10 AM

I'm sure it has been spoken of earlier, but if you remove the figured characteristics and lower all stats to 0 to start won't you fundamentally change the power of Multiform?

The Main Man

Apr 22nd, '08, 10:27 AM

I'm sure it has been spoken of earlier, but if you remove the figured characteristics and lower all stats to 0 to start won't you fundamentally change the power of Multiform?
I'm not sure what you mean unless you are saying that it would be a lot more expensive.

If the figured aspect is removed I also suggest that Normal Characteristic Maxima be removed as well.

There once was a discussion about the in-game purpose of NCM, and in the opposite direction of my usual arguments, NCM does not present any role-playing effect.

Gary

Apr 22nd, '08, 11:24 AM

If we're going to stick with figured characteristics (which I don't recommend), I would go with gradual figureds:

For Str:

1 +1 stun
2 +1 PD
3 +1 stun
4 +1 Rec
5 +1 stun
6 +1 PD
7 +1 stun
8 +1 Rec
9 +1 stun
10 no bonus (except for the +1D6 damage)

For Con:

1 +1 stun +2 end
2 +1 ED +2 end
3 +1 stun +2 end
4 +1 Rec +2 end
5 +1 stun +2 end
6 +1 ED +2 end
7 +1 stun +2 end
8 +1 Rec +2 end
9 +1 stun +2 end
10 +2 end

For Dex:

1 +1 Dex rolls
2 +1 OCV or DCV
3 +1 OCV or DCV (must be the opposite of 2)
4 +1 Dex skill rolls
5 +1 OCV or DCV
6 +1 OCV or DCV (must be the opposite of 5)
7 +1 Dex rolls
8 +1 OCV or DCV
9 +1 OCV or DCV (must be the opposite of 8)
10 +1 Dex skill rolls

For Int:

1 +1 Perception with 1 sense
2 +1 Int skill rolls with up to 3 skills
3 +1 Int rolls (non skills or perception)
4 +1 Perception with all senses (not cumulative with 1)
5 +1 Int skill rolls with all int skills (not cumulative with 2)

Str damage can also go as follows:

1 1 pip
2 1d2
3 1/2d6
4 1d6-1
5 1d6

This way, you can have efficient characters with 21 con or 17 int or 22 dex instead of most characters having 23 con, 18 int, and 23 dex.

CTaylor

Apr 22nd, '08, 12:34 PM

I can't see where making it vastly more complex involving complicated charts is going to make figured characteristics any better.

Gary

Apr 22nd, '08, 01:49 PM

I can't see where making it vastly more complex involving complicated charts is going to make figured characteristics any better.

Because then each point of a characteristic becomes roughly equally valuable. Going from 12 Con to 13 Con would'nt give an overwhelming advantage compared to going from 11 Con to 12 Con. A 13 Int wouldn't be roughly equal to 17 Int. You'd actually start seeing more people with 17 Int or 22 Dex or 22 Cons during character creation.

Mini-Nukette

Apr 22nd, '08, 02:11 PM

Gary

Apr 22nd, '08, 04:16 PM

Interesting idea, but I think much too complicated to put into place, especially when you consider having to keep track of Figured Characteristics when such Powers as Aid, Drain, and Suppress come into play.

Adjustment powers that change Primary characteristics don't affect Figured Characteristics.

Gary

Apr 22nd, '08, 08:07 PM

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 23rd, '08, 02:01 AM

An interesting idea for SPD might be to allow fractional speed. If you have a 3.4 SPD, you roll a d10 each Turn. A 1-4 or less means you act on 4 Spd and a 5-10 means you act on a 3 Spd for that Turn. A 4.9 SPD means on a 1-9 you act at a 5 Spd and a 10 means you would act on a 4 SPD for that Turn.

This would allow FAR greater granularity in Spd between characters, especially at the lower end of the Spd chart.
For greater granularity in SPD, see this action point system (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1569074&postcount=382) I posted a while back. It has 3-4 times the granularity* of the current system and allows greater flexibility in that you can pay extra action points to act more quickly, at the expense of future actions.

* The post doesn't say this explicitly, but acting 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 times per turn requires 2, 5, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 AP, respectively. Intermediate numbers doesn't allow more actions per turn (except sometimes in the first turn of action), but allows doing the actions earlier in the turn.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Apr 23rd, '08, 05:08 AM

Doc Democracy

Apr 23rd, '08, 06:00 AM

I can't see where making it vastly more complex involving complicated charts is going to make figured characteristics any better.

As Gary said, it takes away the break points and the pressure for everyone to be on a similar stat number (which is a common criticism of the system).

As for the complexity - it would only be during character creation where a huge amount of calculations are already taking place. A much better place to introduce positive bureaucracy than, for example, during combat which would impact on gameplay rather than pre-game administration.

I like it, though my preference is to remove characteristics completely as they totally skew the costs of skills and powers. I realise however that this will not happen in the 6th Edition. :)

Doc

Gary

Apr 23rd, '08, 06:48 AM

I have a character buying up SPD starting with +1 SPD on 8- and working his way through the activation chart. We could extrapolate this to provide a roll for any fraction of 1 - 9 points. This would avoid the non-cube dice issue.

Since we're going to 6th Ed anyway, we might as well explore using non-d6 when it makes sense to do so. The d10 makes it simple and intuitive while making sure that each point spent on SPD is worth exactly the same. With activation rolls, some SPD break points would still be better than others, although probably not to an extreme extent.

The Main Man

Apr 23rd, '08, 06:54 AM

While I like the idea of greater granularity in Figured CHAR, I do admit that it does become rather complicated, but it isn't a totally bad idea.

OTOH, I think that the fact that the HERO Systems is d6-based should remain, but maybe alternate rules can be provided for alternate dice methods.

Gary

Apr 23rd, '08, 06:55 AM

For greater granularity in SPD, see this action point system (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1569074&postcount=382) I posted a while back. It has 3-4 times the granularity* of the current system and allows greater flexibility in that you can pay extra action points to act more quickly, at the expense of future actions.

* The post doesn't say this explicitly, but acting 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 times per turn requires 2, 5, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 AP, respectively. Intermediate numbers doesn't allow more actions per turn (except sometimes in the first turn of action), but allows doing the actions earlier in the turn.

- Klaus

I'm going to look at it later, but one thing I can see at first glance is buying say 8 AP, and then using a 3d6 NND (+1), 1 AP (+1.5) Area Effect Accurate (+.5) attack for 60 pts repeatedly. You can hammer an opponent again and again at a far cheaper cost than someone who spends 8 AP to attack 3 times per turn.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 23rd, '08, 08:12 AM

I'm going to look at it later, but one thing I can see at first glance is buying say 8 AP, and then using a 3d6 NND (+1), 1 AP (+1.5) Area Effect Accurate (+.5) attack for 60 pts repeatedly. You can hammer an opponent again and again at a far cheaper cost than someone who spends 8 AP to attack 3 times per turn.
I'm not sure I follow you. How does buying that attack allow you to hammer someone repeatedly?

At any rate, 8 AP allows 4 full-phase actions per turn, not 3. Though by spending the 8 AP differently, you could get 3 actions in the first two segments, and 0 in the last two. (4 actions: 2 AP per segment for four segments. 3 actions: 6 AP the first segment, 2 AP the second segment).

- Klaus

Gary

Apr 23rd, '08, 08:22 AM

I'm not sure I follow you. How does buying that attack allow you to hammer someone repeatedly?

At any rate, 8 AP allows 4 full-phase actions per turn, not 3. Though by spending the 8 AP differently, you could get 3 actions in the first two segments, and 0 in the last two. (4 actions: 2 AP per segment for four segments. 3 actions: 6 AP the first segment, 2 AP the second segment).

- Klaus

I'm using the quick advantage that you listed to reduce the AP cost to 1 for the attack. That's a +1.5 advantage according to your post.

That means I can go twice on each of the 4 segments using that attack at the cost of 1 AP per attack.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 23rd, '08, 12:07 PM

I'm using the quick advantage that you listed to reduce the AP cost to 1 for the attack. That's a +1.5 advantage according to your post. That means I can go twice on each of the 4 segments using that attack at the cost of 1 AP per attack.
Ah, of course. I read the "AP" as armor-piercing. Silly me.

However, consider: You pay 22.5 points on the power to be able to make two attacks per phase with that power, four phases per round, with an AP expenditure of 8 AP per turn for 8 specialized actions per turn. For 24 points, you can increase your AP total to 16 per turn, which allows any 6 actions per turn. That doesn't seem too bad. If your very specialized attack is drained or the target has the special defense against it, you're pretty much hosed.

Still, I'll admit this could get unbalancing in low-powered campaigns. It may be safer to make "Quick" an Adder: 2 points for +1 AP that only can be used for one specific power or maneuver. Or drop the entire idea of "Quick", which was just introduced to add versatility.

- Klaus

PhilFleischmann

Apr 23rd, '08, 06:17 PM

Something I came up with to improve the granularity of SPD (which I haven't yet needed to implement in my games), is to use a minute-long Speed Chart, instead of the 12-second one. Then let SPD be the number of actions a character gets in a Minute, rather than a turn, and SPD would be (roughly) 5x what it is now. Base SPD would be 5+DEX/2 instead of 1+DEX/10. A base character would then have a 10 SPD, acting 10 times in a minute, same as he does now. This also brings SPD values into line with all the base characteristics (which all starat 10). And additional points of SPD cost 2 points each (for each one additional action per minute). So someone with a 4 SPD currently, would have a 20 SPD in this proposal. Someone with a 5 SPD would have a 25, of course. But now you'd have the possibility of values in between.

The minute-long Speed Chart is easy to set up. I made an Excel Spreadsheet that I'll try to post. With the top row numbered 0-60 for the Segments in a minute and column A numbered 1-60 for the possible values of SPD, the formula for each cell starting at B2, and copying left and down is:

IF(INT($A2*B$1/60)>INT($A2*B$0/60),"X","")

This will put an X to indicate when a character of the given SPD has a phase.

If you like, you can then modify the chart for SPDs slower than 5 (or 1), as the current Speed Chart does.

Netzilla

Apr 24th, '08, 03:12 AM

Something I came up with to improve the granularity of SPD (which I haven't yet needed to implement in my games), is to use a minute-long Speed Chart, instead of the 12-second one.
{snip description}

One question: What happens to Post Phase 12?

Chris Goodwin

Apr 24th, '08, 07:59 AM

One question: What happens to Post Phase 12?

Considering there's been a big push to eliminate it anyway... it probably turns into post-60.

Beast

Apr 24th, '08, 09:18 AM

a 60 segment impulse chart
people cried over the 32 impulse chart in star fleet battles
you are going to need to add 5 to the base speed so peopel can recover

Netzilla

Apr 24th, '08, 09:44 AM

Considering there's been a big push to eliminate it anyway... it probably turns into post-60.

For PS12 Recoveries, yes, but there are other effects tied to PS12: the default rules for SPD Adjustments, a few Extra Time modifiers & taking Extra Time on skills, KOed Recoveries, etc.

Besides, how many Hero combats has anyone had that lasted over a minute of in-game time? Most of the combats for my group last 2-3 turns in Champions and less at the Heroic level where defenses are lower.

PhilFleischmann

Apr 24th, '08, 05:38 PM

One question: What happens to Post Phase 12?
Forgot to mention that. Just let the characters get a free recovery every 12 seconds, which would keep everything else the same. Post-12, Post-24, Post-36, Post-48, and Post-60.

And re: keeping track of SPD changes, there's an easy (and fairer) way to do that on the fly. I know I (and others) have mentioned it before, but here it is again:

Keep a running total of "Speed Points" (or whatever you want to call them). Each Segment, a character gains Speed Points equal to his SPD. Whenever that total reaches the length of a turn (12 in the rules as-is, or 60 in the proposed modification), the character gets a Phase and subtracts that number of Speed Points. That way, any Adjustments to SPD can be tracked from exactly when they occur.

For example (using the standard 12-second Turn):
Character has 5 SPD
Segment 1 - 5 Speed Points
Segment 2 - 10 Speed Points
Segment 3 - 15 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 3 Speed points
Segment 4 - 8 Speed Points
Segment 5 - 13 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 1 Speed point
Segment 6 - 6 Speed Points
Segment 7 - 11 Speed Points
Segment 8 - 16 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 4 Speed points
Segment 9 - 9 Speed Points
Segment 10 - 14 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 2 Speed points
Segment 11 - 7 Speed Points
Segment 12 - 12 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 0 Speed points
Segment 1 - 5 Speed Points
etc.

Now let's try it with some Adjustments:
Segment 1 - 5 Speed Points
Segment 2 - 10 Speed Points
Character takes a 6d6 Drain for 21 pips of effect - down to 3 SPD
Segment 3 - 13 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 1 Speed point
Segment 4 - 4 Speed Points
Segment 5 - 7 Speed Points
Segment 6 - 10 Speed Points
Segment 7 - 13 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 1 Speed point
Segment 8 - 4 Speed Points
Segment 9 - 7 Speed Points
Segment 10 - 10 Speed Points
Segment 11 - 13 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 1 Speed point
Segment 12 - 4 Speed Points
Post-12 5 points of the Drain fade - still at 3 SPD, and will be for two more turns, in which the character will get phases on Segments 3, 7, and 11. Then the Drain will fade a bit more and the character will be up to 4 SPD:
Segment 1 - 8 Speed Points
Segment 2 - 12 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 0 Speed points
Segment 3 - 4 Speed Points
Segment 4 - 8 Speed Points
Segment 5 - 12 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 0 Speed points
Segment 6 - 4 Speed Points
Segment 7 - 8 Speed Points
Segment 8 - 12 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 0 Speed points
Segment 9 - 4 Speed Points
Segment 10 - 8 Speed Points
Segment 11 - 12 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 0 Speed points
Segment 12 - 4 Speed Points
This will continue for another turn, with the character getting phases on 2, 5, 8, and 11. Then the Drain will have faded sufficiently for the character to be back up to his original 5 SPD:
Segment 1 - 9 Speed Points
Segment 2 - 14 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 2 Speed points
Segment 3 - 7 Speed Points
Segment 4 - 12 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 0 Speed points
Segment 5 - 5 Speed Points
Segment 6 - 10 Speed Points
Segment 7 - 15 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 3 Speed points
Segment 8 - 8 Speed Points
Segment 9 - 13 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 1 Speed point
Segment 10 - 6 Speed Points
Segment 11 - 11 Speed Points
Segment 12 - 16 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 4 Speed points
And this will continue with the character getting phases on 2, 4, 7, 9, and 12 for the rest of the combat. But let's see what happens when he get's Aided:
Segment 1 - 9 Speed Points
Character gets Aided up to 7 SPD
Segment 2 - 16 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 4 Speed points
Segment 3 - 11 Speed Points
Segment 4 - 18 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 6 Speed points
Segment 5 - 13 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 1 Speed point
Segment 6 - 8 Speed Points
Segment 7 - 15 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 3 Speed points
Segment 8 - 10 Speed Points
Segment 9 - 17 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 5 Speed points
Segment 10 - 12 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 0 Speed points
Segment 11 - 7 Speed Points
Segment 12 - 14 Speed Points - Phase! -12 = 2 Speed points
etc.

And if a minute speed chart is too long, you could always use a shorter speed chart, such as 24 seconds (SPDs would be twice what they are now, with Post-12 and Post-24 recoveries - Base SPD would be 2+DEX/5, and SPD would cost 5 points for each additional), or a 30-second speed chart (base SPD would be 2.5+DEX/4, and SPD would cost 4 points per), etc. It depends on how much granularity you want.

AnotherSkip

Apr 25th, '08, 05:43 AM

dmoonfire

Apr 25th, '08, 07:10 AM

I'm in favor of changing COM to something else, mainly because it is too generic for most of my games and doesn't really seem to come up in play, other than "I'm so pretty". As for the generic, I run a high fantasy game, so the idea of universal appeal isn't... that great. Ditto for sci-fi games. In single culture games, on the other hand, I think it is perfectly fine metric.

SPD is annoying to new players, I can tell you that much with the group I'm currently running. Of course, I'm in favor of tick-based or action point systems so I am fairly biased in that regard. Plus, I hate look up charts and while the SPD chart is fairly easy to understand and remember, it is a lookup when you have 10-15 people in battle; plus I think SPD is too cheap for the system as it stands. It is too easy to spam attack when you have a SPD 3 points higher than your opponents.

ideasmith

Apr 25th, '08, 07:28 AM

besides what happens when you buy megascale growth effect?

That depends on whether you apply it to range or area. (Growth cannot be modified to provide movement.) If you apply it to the range of a ranged growth, it increases the range. If you apply it to the area of an area effect growth, in increases the area. If the Growth effect has neither range nor area effect, then megascale cannot be applied.

CTaylor

Apr 25th, '08, 07:31 AM

As for the generic, I run a high fantasy game, so the idea of universal appeal isn't... that great. Ditto for sci-fi games. In single culture games, on the other hand, I think it is perfectly fine metric.

Although I think you can make an argument for absolute standards of beauty that cross all cultures and even species, I'd rather just say that you can ignore Comeliness for games you want to and leave it in the rules more successfully than adding it back in for the games you want it in.

How does removing figured characteristics make any difference one way or another for growth and density increase?

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 25th, '08, 07:55 AM

If the Growth effect has neither range nor area effect, then megascale cannot be applied.
IIRC (I don't have the book at hand), sufficient Growth allows you to do area attacks with your hands. It also increases the range of HTH attacks.

- Klaus

BobGreenwade

Apr 25th, '08, 07:56 AM

Here is an arguement for removing Figureds, it eliminates Growth and DI as powers. then you can build them as you see them/want to without being constrained by artificalilities.

good job, it removes something i don't really like but feel like I have to use anyways for certain builds. it also should cut down on Steve's writing though hew may have to increase his examples by a tad to get the base point across. besides what happens when you buy megascale growth effect?CTaylor brings up a good point here. How would removing Figured Characteristics (or, more accurately, removing the formulae and just giving them flat base values) eliminate Growth and Density Increase as Powers?

And if you don't like to use Growth and Density Increase to represent characters who can increase their size and density, how do you represent those abilities?

EDIT: AnotherSkip has requested twice that I edit this post to give him credit. Therefore he gets credit for a lack of understanding of the Hero System rules, and possibly for general stupidity as well, since those of us familiar with the system know that removing Figured Characteristics would have absolutely no effect on the presence of Growth and Density Increase as Powers.

dmoonfire

Apr 25th, '08, 08:15 AM

Although I think you can make an argument for absolute standards of beauty that cross all cultures and even species, I'd rather just say that you can ignore Comeliness for games you want to and leave it in the rules more successfully than adding it back in for the games you want it in.

For most of the games I'm in, it seems to be either a dump stat or one that is bought up with limitations ("Elves only") which makes it even cheaper than it is. The subject of beauty really doesn't come up in play that often, at least in my games or at the ones I play in at GenCon (my two sources for Hero). I'm also coming from my experiences with other games (the original Unearthed, Exalted, White Wolf) in that COM, Appearance, what-have-you is typically more of a descriptive trait than a mechanically useful one. Yeah, COM can be used as a complementary check or negative COM can add to PRE attacks, but overall, there isn't that much which is specifically a COM mechanic.

If you go with the idea that characteristics should be useful, what is the difference between a COM 10 and 11 character? Or a COM 10 and 20 person? Just saying "they look better"? How much better? There aren't a lot of rules for effects of COM, from what I recall.

In my games, I just went with the Distinct Features drawback for "really, really good looking". In that aspect, I prefer it used as a Distinct Feature and give it a bonus or drawback there, instead of making it an integral characteristic. Either that or make it a skill (since it takes time, effort, and skill to look that good all the time) which can be limited by culture (I won't go into that too far, but I don't think Rubens would care for most girls in Hollywood).

I'd also consider it part of PRE, with maybe a disadvantage ("Looks only"), that way it integrates into the PRE attack system (which hopefully will increase into more social manipulations).

I'm also coming from different game systems, which I know isn't really
that much of a deal, but in the years I have played Hero, I've seen COM used just like Unearthed COM attribute or Exalted's Appearance. Its a difficult characteristic to really integrate into gameplay (which I think characteristics should be).

ideasmith

Apr 25th, '08, 08:40 AM

IIRC (I don't have the book at hand), sufficient Growth allows you to do area attacks with your hands. It also increases the range of HTH attacks.

- Klaus

None of which involves applying the Power Advantage Megascale.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 25th, '08, 09:14 AM

None of which involves applying the Power Advantage Megascale.
"Characters can buy Megascale for [...] Powers which already affect an area [or] Powers which work at range."

You could easily argue that both of these apply to Growth (which increases the area a character takes up and how far he can reach). Not saying that you should, mind you...

- Klaus

palaskar

Apr 25th, '08, 10:47 AM

Gaaah. I don't have time to read through all the 100+ posts I missed, but here are my 2 cents:

Allow "limited stats". Frex, when statting up Kim Possible, I gave her a 30 DEX and 15 INT. I made all her skills default to the DEX roll, and her schoolwork covered under a blanket skill called "Academics." EDIT: By "limited stats", I mean she didn't have any other stats -- the DEX and INT were the only ones listed.

Later, when writing her "I can do anything," I gave her +4 Overall skills. This later was modified DOWN with the Limitation: Well, almost anything (-1/4): GM's call that she isn't good at some stuff -- cooking, videogames, etc.

This brings up the interesting point that there should be a version of Radioactive Incident that decrease's a character's point totals, but I believe I mentioned that.

There should also be a "Ow!" rule for games that never use BODY vs. characters -- frex, TOON derived, or Kim Possible style. Obviously, this should be a "setting limitation."

Speaking of which, there should probably be "free limitations" by setting. Then you could work out the cost of Extradimensional Travel by looking how much the limitations/advantages you get from a dimension cost.

BTW, there's the interesting idea that Reality Warpers can't use their powers in a dimension without, well, reality/stuff to mess with. The cyborg Fury took down the godlike Mad James Jaspers in Excalibur...and JJ obviously had a ridiculous amount of Cosmic Power Pool points. (At one point, he created another Silver Surfer character, putting his powers apparently on the level of Galactus or more.)

How many points of XDim Travel did THAT take? I mean, if you can zap a person into a dimension where the powers don't work right due to a limitation on the powers, that's just asking for trouble. I have no idea how to handle that, but maybe someone else does.

ajackson

Apr 25th, '08, 11:40 AM

How many points of XDim Travel did THAT take?
Not very many. This is one of the reasons that XDim movement with usable on others or extra mass is a problem power.

JmOz

Apr 25th, '08, 12:57 PM

CTaylor brings up a good point here. How would removing Figured Characteristics (or, more accurately, removing the formulae and just giving them flat base values) eliminate Growth and Density Increase as Powers?

And if you don't like to use Growth and Density Increase to represent characters who can increase their size and density, how do you represent those abilities?

You would buy the certain elements you want in a linked mess

For instance

Tall as atower

all slots have a -1/4 Side effect (When power is in use character stands 20' tall and suffers a -3 PER/DCV penalty)

20 +25 Growth
Stretching 2"
Running +5"
Armor 10/10

etc,,,

Tonio

Apr 25th, '08, 01:02 PM

"Characters can buy Megascale for [...] Powers which already affect an area [or] Powers which work at range."

You could easily argue that both of these apply to Growth (which increases the area a character takes up and how far he can reach). Not saying that you should, mind you...

- Klaus

I disagree. Growth does not affect an area (unless it's bought UAO or UBO and AoE) nor does it work at range (unless bought UAO or UBO and Ranged). The fact that it gives the recipient the ability to convert his own attacks into AoE and gives him more range is irrelevant. That'd be like applying Megascale to an Aid to a ranged or AoE power on the grounds that it's increasing the power's range or area.

(Not sure how serious you were, especially given the last line of your post... but just in case!)

CTaylor

Apr 25th, '08, 01:26 PM

You would buy the certain elements you want in a linked mess

OK but how is that better than just having the powers as is right now?

ajackson

Apr 25th, '08, 01:47 PM

OK but how is that better than just having the powers as is right now?
The big problem with DI and Growth right now are that, because they don't provide figured stats, you're a fool to buy them outside of a multipower or other structure where you wouldn't get figured stats anyway.

Mini-Nukette

Apr 25th, '08, 02:16 PM

The big problem with DI and Growth right now are that, because they don't provide figured stats, you're a fool to buy them outside of a multipower or other structure where you wouldn't get figured stats anyway.

One of the things my idea for Size and Mass characteristics address, by letting those directly effect damage dice that are being dealt (see my thread on Hero System Discussion if interested.)

CTaylor

Apr 25th, '08, 02:37 PM

The big problem with DI and Growth right now are that, because they don't provide figured stats, you're a fool to buy them outside of a multipower or other structure where you wouldn't get figured stats anyway.

Why do you say that? Do you think they are too expensive, too cheap, what?

Growth gives you (each 5 point level)
5 STR (3 points)
1 Body (1 1/2 points)
1 STN (1 point)
- KB resistance (3 points)
1/3rd of an inch stretching (about 1 1/2 point)
+1 PER to be seen (-2 points?)
Increased size (-1 point?)
Increased weight (-1 point?)

All this costs END, so the total cost of 12 points is reduced by a -1/2 limitation to around 8 points... too cheap, perhaps but why is it foolish to buy them outside a power framework?

ajackson

Apr 25th, '08, 02:49 PM

Why do you say that? Do you think they are too expensive, too cheap, what?
Too expensive, because they're forcing you to buy Str (no figs), which is a foolish choice.
All this costs END, so the total cost of 12 points is reduced by a -1/2 limitation to around 8 points... too cheap, perhaps but why is it foolish to buy them outside a power framework?
Your costing is off. Going with 3 levels to avoid roundoffs:
Growth 3 (15 points; 20 points if Persistent, Always On)
Str +15, No Figs (10, but as noted, this is a bad deal)
Bod +3, Stun +3 (6; bought as Bod +3, no modifiers)
Knockback Resistance +3 (6)
5" Reach (5)
+2 to be seen (-2?)
-2 DCV (-6)
Cannot fit in many buildings (-15)
Total Value: 4 points.

PhilFleischmann

Apr 25th, '08, 04:03 PM

SPD is annoying to new players, I can tell you that much with the group I'm currently running. Of course, I'm in favor of tick-based or action point systems so I am fairly biased in that regard. Plus, I hate look up charts and while the SPD chart is fairly easy to understand and remember, it is a lookup when you have 10-15 people in battle; ...
Why do you have to look up the SPD Chart in battle? Just write down each character's phases on his character sheet. You look it up at character-creation time. (And of course, using the "speed point" method descibed above, you also never have to look up on the SPD chart.)

CTaylor

Apr 25th, '08, 06:46 PM

3 Body at no figured characteristics is 4, not 3 points (6 at 1/2). 5" reach is 25 points (stretching is 5 pts per inch). On the other hand -3 DCV is probably worth -15, because it works on all attacks.

So the cost ends up closer to 19 points (28 at a 1/2 limitation costs END). I'm not sure "can't fit into many buildings or objects" is worth 15 points, but I gave it that because you also have increased weight.

ajackson

Apr 25th, '08, 07:18 PM

3 Body at no figured characteristics is 4, not 3 points (6 at 1/2)
I chose to buy '3 bod, no figs, +3 stun' as '3 bod', which gives 3 stun as figs.

I mean 1" reach, I was flipping into d20 mode for a moment.

So the cost ends up closer to 19 points (28 at a 1/2 limitation costs END). I'm not sure "can't fit into many buildings or objects" is worth 15 points, but I gave it that because you also have increased weight.
Well, let's see. It's a physical limitation. Being indoors is a frequent situation. Being unable to move about without crawling sounds like it's greatly impairing.

Gary

Apr 25th, '08, 09:16 PM

Let's see. 22.5 pts of Str vs 15 pts of Growth 0 End. Both cost 22.5 pts and are a fair basis for comparison.

The Str gives you the following that isn't given by Growth:

7.5 Str (5 pts)
4.5 PD (4.5 pts)
4.5 Rec (9 pts)
11.25 Stun (11.25 pts)
4.5" Leap (4.5 pt)

Total 34.25 extra pts.

The Growth gives:

+3 Body +3 Stun (6 pts)
3" KB resistance (6 pts)
+1" Reach (5 pts) (Every 15 pts doubles reach, so the first 15 means 2" total reach)
-2 DCV (-10 pts)
+2 to be seen (-2 pts) (I'm only valuing this at -1 instead of -2 since the person with Growth probably won't be using it in a stealth situation).

Net total of 5 extra points. And this isn't even counting the physical limitation.

Str clearly is a better deal unless LOTS of Growth is bought since eventually the doubling of reach will create a breakeven point. For the vast majority of characters, Str is by far a better deal unless the Growth is placed in a EC.

Density is the same. 15 pts 0 End provides:
+3 PD (3 pts)
+3 ED (3 pts)
3" KB resistance (6 pts)

12 pts before considering physical limitations. Unlike Growth, Density will never catch up to Str and will never be a better deal unless it's in a EC.

However, if you get rid of Figured Characteristics from Str, then Growth and Density becomes competitive again. But then they may become too good of a deal if you place them in a EC under those circumstances.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 26th, '08, 05:13 AM

For most of the games I'm in, it seems to be either a dump stat or one that is bought up with limitations ("Elves only") which makes it even cheaper than it is. The subject of beauty really doesn't come up in play that often, at least in my games or at the ones I play in at GenCon (my two sources for Hero). I'm also coming from my experiences with other games (the original Unearthed, Exalted, White Wolf) in that COM, Appearance, what-have-you is typically more of a descriptive trait than a mechanically useful one. Yeah, COM can be used as a complementary check or negative COM can add to PRE attacks, but overall, there isn't that much which is specifically a COM mechanic.

If you go with the idea that characteristics should be useful, what is the difference between a COM 10 and 11 character?

Much the same as the difference between STR 10 and 11, Int 10 ands 11, and PRE 10 and 11. Including COM, that's half the primary stats that should go, on that basis.

Or a COM 10 and 20 person? Just saying "they look better"? How much better? There aren't a lot of rules for effects of COM, from what I recall.

Using the complementary skill rolls, that should be an average of +2 to intereaction skills logically affected by physical appearance, which is the same cost as +2 levels with that -1 limitation, but mechanically allows for variations to the bonus. There's your mechanic.

I'm also coming from different game systems, which I know isn't really
that much of a deal, but in the years I have played Hero, I've seen COM used just like Unearthed COM attribute or Exalted's Appearance. Its a difficult characteristic to really integrate into gameplay (which I think characteristics should be).

This depends on the game. If characters are treated like living, breathing entities, and not just stat blocks of combat effects, the physical appearance of themselves and those they interact with becomes quite relevant.

CTaylor

Apr 26th, '08, 07:19 AM

However, if you get rid of Figured Characteristics from Str, then Growth and Density becomes competitive again

Yeah, but Strength isn't the only stat you get from these powers, so comparing strength alone is a bit misleading. Again: stats aren't powers, you cannot draw a direct equivalence between the two in terms of cost, which makes comparisons difficult.

dmoonfire

Apr 26th, '08, 09:07 AM

Using the complementary skill rolls, that should be an average of +2 to intereaction skills logically affected by physical appearance, which is the same cost as +2 levels with that -1 limitation, but mechanically allows for variations to the bonus. There's your mechanic.

But, isn't that a mechanic that all characteristics and skills share? You can pretty much use any primary characteristic as a complementary check on social interaction. I don't consider that really to be beyond normal things. I'm talking specific rules related to COM only. STR affects HTH damage, PD, and carrying capacity. DEX obviously affects order of combat and a ton of skills, not to mention SPD. CON handles the stunning and the ED. PRE handles presence attacks and social skills, BODY handles the damage capabilities. INT isn't really used in figured values, but there a lot of skills based on it. That leaves COM. Looking at the list of skills (5R, p. 47) , COM isn't the base for any skills. Except for the negative COM rules on PRE (p. 38), I don't think there is anything else that uses it. Excluding the "chose your characteristic" stuff, of course.

It has the least mechanical aspect of all the primary characteristics. For something EVERY character has, it is still basically a descriptive attribute. While, I think appearance is important in social interaction, I think primary characteristics should be more efficiently used and mechanically important. Which is why they are primary characteristics instead of skills. That means, either make COM more important or make it not a primary. In my opinion, attempts to make COM/Appearance/Looks a primary mechanical effect are typically cumbersome, but I'll leave that up to the crunch gods to figure that out if that happens. I'd rather see it as a advantage or disadvantage, or a skill like GURP's Sex Appeal.

Much of this comes from my belief that appearance isn't universal. That could lead up to a lot of discussions, but what the people around me consider beautiful in the USA is different than what people I talked to in Africa. Not entirely, but just enough to see a difference. Actually, even the difference between Iowa (where I live) and New York is pretty obvious if you pay attention. That is because culture has a great impact on what we see is beautiful. Art, which doesn't really have COM as an item, is actually a pretty good example when you look at Jackson Pollock; without the history or culture behind his stuff, its just a bunch of paint drizzled on canvas. When you bring that difference into a game were you have difference species (aliens, fantasy realms, changlings/fey), the idea of beauty gets pretty starkly different. Not unlike the quote from the Two Towers where Gimili is talking about dwarf women and Aragorn talks about the females having beards. Not entirely sure that the refined tastes of a New York socialite would consider a dwarf female attractive and visa versa.

But, COM is a primary characteristic, which means who gets short shafted? The dwarf or the socialite? Now, probably the most obvious answer is: the person running the game determines penalties or advantages for the COM complementary skill or even if it can be used by a complementary. That is fine and all, but I'd rather it not require a skill check each and every time for complementary. I'd rather see it as an advantage on PRE (the main social interaction characteristics, Elves only +1/4), a skill that is specifically chosen by the character to be above or beyond average, or a perk/drawback.

Now, for the most part Hero is based on a genre where those issues were really involved. Look at comics, beauty is pretty much universal because the comics are written for a culture (a rather wide one though). If COM stays in, it isn't a breaker for me, I'm going to get 6E regardless but I like Hero. :) I'd just rather see COM as something other than a primary characteristic.

AnotherSkip

Apr 27th, '08, 08:41 AM

CTaylor brings up a good point here. How would removing Figured Characteristics (or, more accurately, removing the formulae and just giving them flat base values) eliminate Growth and Density Increase as Powers?

And if you don't like to use Growth and Density Increase to represent characters who can increase their size and density, how do you represent those abilities?

You guys wanna edit this and give me credit where it is due?

ill also take rep....

BobGreenwade

Apr 27th, '08, 10:41 AM

CTaylor brings up a good point here. How would removing Figured Characteristics (or, more accurately, removing the formulae and just giving them flat base values) eliminate Growth and Density Increase as Powers?

And if you don't like to use Growth and Density Increase to represent characters who can increase their size and density, how do you represent those abilities?

You guys wanna edit this and give me credit where it is due?

ill also take rep....I just checked, and CTaylor was indeed the one who raised the point, which others have tried to answer but not really. And you haven't at all.

AnotherSkip

Apr 28th, '08, 07:24 AM

Re: Characteristics Issues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherSkip
Here is an arguement for removing Figureds, it eliminates Growth and DI as powers. then you can build them as you see them/want to without being constrained by artificalilities.

good job, it removes something i don't really like but feel like I have to use anyways for certain builds. it also should cut down on Steve's writing though hew may have to increase his examples by a tad to get the base point across. besides what happens when you buy megascale growth effect?

CTaylor brings up a good point here. How would removing Figured Characteristics (or, more accurately, removing the formulae and just giving them flat base values) eliminate Growth and Density Increase as Powers?

And if you don't like to use Growth and Density Increase to represent characters who can increase their size and density, how do you represent those abilities?
__________________
Fight Spam!

PLEASE HELP CATCH THIS TORTURER OF CHILDREN!

Here I am at MySpace!

not to be an arse but above is your post number 1846, the quotes indicate me (i posted #1841) but you credit CTaylor and still reference my suggestion, please edit to correct.

Also I am in favor of Chunking them both and noting that in conversions/purchases you buy what you need and just place it under the same SFX. You may want resistant defenses for your DI, I may not have a character as tall but I may buy an AOE for my HTh attack to repersent really big fists or even +ocv if i want to rather than needing the full size 60 growth. (A la the Hanna-Barbera Meteor Man)

AnotherSkip

Apr 28th, '08, 07:31 AM

But, isn't that a mechanic that all characteristics and skills share? You can pretty much use any primary characteristic as a complementary check on social interaction.

Hunh??????

So i can use a STR/DEX/CON roll to complement my Oratory skill?

Or a Pre Roll to complement my Seduction roll?

isn't that double dippin there pardner?

Besides I could see someone rolling all Primes for complimentary bonuses to their Social interactions (something like 6+ rolls iirc). Sorry, but until that is on some page I can ref, it's not in my GM's book simply because it is too easy to abuse.

CTaylor

Apr 28th, '08, 08:09 AM

not to be an arse but above is your post number 1846, the quotes indicate me (i posted #1841) but you credit CTaylor and still reference my suggestion, please edit to correct.

Actually you suggested that it would somehow eliminate growth and density increase as a power, and I asked how on earth that would be true.

dmoonfire

Apr 28th, '08, 04:22 PM

Hunh??????

So i can use a STR/DEX/CON roll to complement my Oratory skill?

Or a Pre Roll to complement my Seduction roll?

isn't that double dippin there pardner?

Besides I could see someone rolling all Primes for complimentary bonuses to their Social interactions (something like 6+ rolls iirc). Sorry, but until that is on some page I can ref, it's not in my GM's book simply because it is too easy to abuse.

Well, in the first, if you can come up with a good reason for it, why not? I mean, you might listen to someone is holding a car over his head after saving a kid, "Now, see, boys and girls, this is why you don't piss off villians..." From that, it is STR basically enhancing people's attention to you, at least for special effects, so I'd give it.

Now, PRE to complement Seduction, that is double-dipping since Seduction is based on PRE. So it is already complementing the Seduction by the virtue of the PRE/5; so I wouldn't allow that. But, flexing your mighty muscles in some manner, yeah I'd give a complementary roll to Seduction for that. At least for those who like the type. Or getting hit by a truck, somehow managing to stay standing, and then hitting on someone, yeah, I'd probably give a CON complentary on that one. :)

After a certain point, it gets pointless to roll more complementaries, so in our group, I rarely get more than 1 complementary request per character involved. I also ask for justification, which does wonders for useless complementary rolls.

BobGreenwade

Apr 28th, '08, 04:45 PM

not to be an arse but above is your post number 1846, the quotes indicate me (i posted #1841) but you credit CTaylor and still reference my suggestion, please edit to correct.Very well, I've edited as requested.

AnotherSkip

Apr 29th, '08, 05:55 AM

thanks, BG.

And I do believe that DI and Growth should be eliminated from the powers pile if we get rid of figureds. From my POV All Growth and DI is are Strength with differing figureds. People may not like them because compared to Str they don't rock for some people.

However I would rather build Growth and DI for my own perception of how it interacts with the world rather than based upon someones elses guesses.
since we can have physical limitations derived from Growth concepts and DI concepts just make them Infrequent, weight doubles for every five active points of Strength from Growth and or DI, buy KBR, Dr, ect... with how about Steves notes about how growth gives you several other abilities realistically (running & Pre for instance) but you have to buy them separately and linked? Just build it how you want to rather than dealing with what you don't want.

BobGreenwade

Apr 29th, '08, 07:43 AM

And I do believe that DI and Growth should be eliminated from the powers pile if we get rid of figureds. From my POV All Growth and DI is are Strength with differing figureds. People may not like them because compared to Str they don't rock for some people.That's a far cry from saying that eliminating Figured Characteristics would eliminate those Powers. Saying that they should be eliminated, and on this basis, is a whole different ball of wax (and one that really should be discussed in a different thread). But at least you finally answered the question that CTaylor and I were trying to get you to address.However I would rather build Growth and DI for my own perception of how it interacts with the world rather than based upon someones elses guesses.
since we can have physical limitations derived from Growth concepts and DI concepts just make them Infrequent, weight doubles for every five active points of Strength from Growth and or DI, buy KBR, Dr, ect... with how about Steves notes about how growth gives you several other abilities realistically (running & Pre for instance) but you have to buy them separately and linked? Just build it how you want to rather than dealing with what you don't want.Again, maybe you could go into the appropriate Powers threads and discuss what attributes you think Growth and Density Increase should have.

Again, thanks for finally getting around to answering the questions.