Characteristics Issues

[Steve Long]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Characteristics that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about Characteristics that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

I’ve organized these questions into general issues first, then issues for various Characteristics going in the order the Characteristics are listed on the character sheet.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Steve’s Thoughts: My feeling on this is no, they should not. I think regardless of the side benefit of getting Figureds, each Primary Characteristic provides one or more valuable functions that justify its current cost. Some argument could perhaps be made for CON, since Skills aren’t based on it, but I think that “resistance to being Stunned” is worth 2 Character Points per point — if I change it I have to re-examine every character built in terms of offense and defense, and so do players.

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the same character with no Figureds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now with no Figureds:

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

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

That’s a cost increase of 52 points.

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

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

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

Now without Figureds:

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

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

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

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


Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

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


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

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


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

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


Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

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


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

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


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

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

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


Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

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


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

Steve’s Thoughts: The arguments here are much the same as those for CV and DEX. Logically intelligence and being observant don’t necessarily have any close connection; many highly intelligent people are forgetful and unobservant, while many “stupid” people are keen observers. Since PER is so important in every genre and campaign, converting it to a separate Characteristic (which could then be Adjusted and the like) makes some sense.

On the other hand, there are drawbacks — cluttering the character sheet, possible “PER inflation,” more points required for Characteristics, and so on — much like those for DEX and CV. Additionally, PER as a Characteristic would be sort of an odd duck, in that you’d be buying a Characteristic that was structured like a Skill (or whose sole purpose would be to determine a roll, effectively the same thing).

Making PER a Skill is another possibility, though it would be a bit of an odd duck too. It would start as an Everyman Skill at 11-, costing +2 points per +1 for one Sense Group, +3 points per +1 for all Sense Groups — a structure not quite like any other Skill (though it would allow me to remove Enhanced Perception from the Enhanced Senses list). This makes more sense to me than making PER a Characteristic.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: This is an interesting issue. On the one hand, it’s hard to argue that EGO is somehow twice as valuable as STR, INT, or PRE. Furthermore, many, many heroes are supposed to be “strong-willed,” but at 2 Character Points per point of EGO few of them can really afford to be.

On the other hand, changing EGO to +1 point per point would make it veeeeerrrry easy for characters with Mental Powers to obtain outrageously high ECVs (though the counterbalance to that is that, in theory at least, many more characters would have higher ECVs than 3 because EGO’s now cheaper). The cost of EGO is really part of the way that Mental Powers are balanced in the HERO System, and my inclination is to keep things as they are. But perhaps adding a ‘Strong-Willed” Talent through which characters buy EGO only to make EGO Rolls would be a worthy addition to the rules.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: See the “CV and DEX” question, above, for a general take on this issue; the benefits and problems are largely the same. However, I think that (a) tying ECV to EGO has even more “gaming logic” than tying CV to DEX, and (b) the clutter caused by an ECV Characteristic is even more cumbersome, since most characters use CV constantly but rarely use ECV. Even if CV gets split off from DEX my inclination at present is to keep ECV a part of EGO.


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

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

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

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


Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t really think this is necessary, especially since it means adding one more Characteristic to HERO’s already long list, but it’s not beyond consideration.


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

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


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

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


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

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

[JmOz]

Okay, read through the list of possibilities, while I am not in favor of the removal of Figured characteristics, as I feel it is one of the important flavors of Hero I can see your point in it.

As per cost changes, I would like to speak up in favor of as a standard (see below) of at least reducing CON's cost to 1 if you are droping the figured Characteristics, In my opinion Con's primarily a form of framework for figured characteristics, while the help vs stunning is nice I can just plop down points for defences at about the same cost to prevent stunning and prevent me from taking stun damage, just not seeing the 2 point value if it does not have it's figured.

One idea I have pushed in the past and I would like to mention here if you don't mind is the idea of, and I am sure I am saying this teribly, but for more pages dedicated to modifying costs in general, but characteristics in specific.

Taking Ego as an example, in a pulp style game a cost of 1:1 is probably okay, but in an ESPianage it might be worth as much as 3:1, and maybe 2:1 in a clasic champions game

This is touched on in the main book (not revised, don't own it so not sure how much you talk about it there), and in almost every genre book gets a page or two on it, so I guess i am asking for it to be expanded on alot, and for a, I don't know how to say this, but an official permision, a this is one of the features like the hit location chart or bleeding rules, or default Normal Character Maxima, instead of a "If you want to house rule it here are some considerations" feel to it...

A bit scatter brained, but as for the characteristic breakpoints, we have in my gaming group used a if your characteristic based on the roll ties the higher characteristic wins

Regarding COM, consider merging it with positive Reputation Perk

Regarding MD, I personly like it as a characteristic, but this goes back to the idea of modifing characteristics, in some games, like champions or ESPianage it would make sense to have it, in others it is a extra cost that is not needed, I would prefer if it is one or the other to have it as a characteristic, but the whole Idea of more permisive to change things would have this as a good example

that's all for now

[SAVeira]

Remove Figured Characteristics and I am done with the HERO System. To me it is a core part of the game since the beginning.

[CourtFool]

As I mentioned on General Rules, I would like to see Hero move further down the 'reason from effect' path. You could do away with all of the characteristics. I know this is pretty radical and likely not something you would consider.

Honestly, Characteristics are only important when they provide some sort of advantage or when they are some sort of limitation. Do we really care what a characters STR is? We want to know how much they can lift. Then have a Power or whatever you decide to call it that determines how much you can lift beyond 'normal'. How much damage does the character do. Again, you just need an attack Power. Should someone who is stronger be tougher? Then buy some kind of defense.

Realistically, a higher DEX means someone is more agile and, arguably, has better hand-eye coordination, so they should be better in combat, right? But you said yourself you are not looking to create 'reality'. I think combat ability should be its own ball of wax (ala Mutants & Masterminds). Then if you want to be a combat monster, you buy combat abilities. If you want to be a ballet dancer AND a combat monster, you buy both. It is left up to the player exactly what they want.

And I think this goes for all of the Characteristics and Figured Characteristics. They should all be abilities just like attack power and flight.

[pawsplay]

If we just say that 0 is as low as a Characteristic can go and define that as “no function at all” (can’t lift anything, can’t think for one’s self, can’t resist being controlled/influenced, whatever), it simplifies a lot of things, cuts text out of the book, and is I think more logical. It would require reworking the STR 1-5 lifting scale,


Well, one thought I have is that you could introduce a Physical Limitation (or some new Disadvantage) called Microscale STR. Your STR is effecticely zero for most purposes, but your actual score defines how much you can lift on your size scale, as well as opposed actions against other very small characters.

[nexus]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Characteristics that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about Characteristics that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

I’ve organized these questions into general issues first, then issues for various Characteristics going in the order the Characteristics are listed on the character sheet.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


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

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

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


I think starting at 0 is a good idea. It fits with the "system logic" of Hero, could lead to more variation in low point game and cut back on the "arms" race with some characteristics



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

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

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


This hasn't come up enough in my games for me to have a definite opinion but your reasoning sounds solid.



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

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

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

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

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


I would love to see at least somewhat more granularity added to Hero, perhaps by changing the way skill rolls are calculated?



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

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

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

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

Steve’s Thoughts: My feeling on this is no, they should not. I think regardless of the side benefit of getting Figureds, each Primary Characteristic provides one or more valuable functions that justify its current cost. Some argument could perhaps be made for CON, since Skills aren’t based on it, but I think that “resistance to being Stunned” is worth 2 Character Points per point — if I change it I have to re-examine every character built in terms of offense and defense, and so do players.

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the same character with no Figureds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now with no Figureds:

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

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

That’s a cost increase of 52 points.

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

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

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

Now without Figureds:

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

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

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

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


Overall, this seems beneficial. It would also reduce some of the math involved involved in character generation which might finally silence some outstanding complaints about Hero.



Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

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


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

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


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

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


Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

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


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

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


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

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

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


Personally, I'd like to see Dex split up and possibly divorced from CV. Dex inflation, particularly for warriors is something that bugs me and sometimes leads to add situations like agile types (thieves, acrobats, etc) being the best combatants CV wise. This makes more sense in comic settings (martial artists, speedster, etc) but in Heroic settings it can lead to some disconnect.



Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

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


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

Steve’s Thoughts: The arguments here are much the same as those for CV and DEX. Logically intelligence and being observant don’t necessarily have any close connection; many highly intelligent people are forgetful and unobservant, while many “stupid” people are keen observers. Since PER is so important in every genre and campaign, converting it to a separate Characteristic (which could then be Adjusted and the like) makes some sense.

On the other hand, there are drawbacks — cluttering the character sheet, possible “PER inflation,” more points required for Characteristics, and so on — much like those for DEX and CV. Additionally, PER as a Characteristic would be sort of an odd duck, in that you’d be buying a Characteristic that was structured like a Skill (or whose sole purpose would be to determine a roll, effectively the same thing).

Making PER a Skill is another possibility, though it would be a bit of an odd duck too. It would start as an Everyman Skill at 11-, costing +2 points per +1 for one Sense Group, +3 points per +1 for all Sense Groups — a structure not quite like any other Skill (though it would allow me to remove Enhanced Perception from the Enhanced Senses list). This makes more sense to me than making PER a Characteristic.


Agreed on making Per a characteristic. I've been thinking of making that a House rules for awhile.



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

Steve’s Thoughts: This is an interesting issue. On the one hand, it’s hard to argue that EGO is somehow twice as valuable as STR, INT, or PRE. Furthermore, many, many heroes are supposed to be “strong-willed,” but at 2 Character Points per point of EGO few of them can really afford to be.

On the other hand, changing EGO to +1 point per point would make it veeeeerrrry easy for characters with Mental Powers to obtain outrageously high ECVs (though the counterbalance to that is that, in theory at least, many more characters would have higher ECVs than 3 because EGO’s now cheaper). The cost of EGO is really part of the way that Mental Powers are balanced in the HERO System, and my inclination is to keep things as they are. But perhaps adding a ‘Strong-Willed” Talent through which characters buy EGO only to make EGO Rolls would be a worthy addition to the rules.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: See the “CV and DEX” question, above, for a general take on this issue; the benefits and problems are largely the same. However, I think that (a) tying ECV to EGO has even more “gaming logic” than tying CV to DEX, and (b) the clutter caused by an ECV Characteristic is even more cumbersome, since most characters use CV constantly but rarely use ECV. Even if CV gets split off from DEX my inclination at present is to keep ECV a part of EGO.


No strong opinion as of yet



Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

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


Personally, I like Com and I'd prefer to see it remain and gain more use.



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

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


Physical and Energy Defense should remain separate and I all in favor of objects having PD/ED as well. In fact, I'd like to see more unified "Things" rules for vehicles, bases, automatons and foci as well ordinary objects.



Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t really think this is necessary, especially since it means adding one more Characteristic to HERO’s already long list, but it’s not beyond consideration.


I can see this either way



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

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


Definitely keep Endurance with options to eliminate it.



Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

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

Wouldn't Size granting benefits be similar to figured characteristics and Strength granting Leaping?

[Lord Mhoram]

Remove Figured Characteristics and I am done with the HERO System. To me it is a core part of the game since the beginning.

I agree, and furthermore add that adding or removing any characteristic puts me in that boat.

[eternal_sage]

my Char block setup as CHAR, BASE, COST


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

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

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

RUN 6" 2x
SWIM 2" 1x
LEAP 2" 1x

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

[Andrew Cermak]

Remove Figured Characteristics and I am done with the HERO System. To me it is a core part of the game since the beginning.

"It's always been that way" isn't much of an argument for keeping it that way.

Since it will reduce math, reduce char. sell-backs, and perhaps eliminate the Str-cost controversy, I'm all in favor of getting rid of Figuring.

[wayneligon]

I would be very much in favor of eliminating Endurance. Almost nothing about the HERO system bothers me more than keeping track of END. END for STR used, END for a power used, etc etc etc. It gets a bit much; I routinely forget to correctly track END, and at the end of the day it's just more bookkeeping than I want to bother with. It also enhances the 'HERO is all about math!' perception.

Hero Points or something similar could be used for the 'Pushing' of powers.

Really, I could do without tracking STUN as well. I'd be much happier with some other, simpler, damage mechanic that didn't remind me of having to keep track of encumberance or arrows in D&D.

[nexus]

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

I would not want to get rid of Combat Skill levels. To me they add a nice tactical element to combat where fixed "accuracy" doesn't. I can decide to be defensive, offensive, boost damage, etc.

[incrdbil]

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

Well, this impacts certain types of characters more than others--those that were 'stat' driven. but that just involves adjusting points, but just thinking in Champiosn Terms, and looking at the example, it certainly undermined 'brick' type characters. To maintain their style, they have to have a good CON, STUN, Body, and PD and ED. A more skill based character just splurges on Dex, and increases the other stats a little.

But this is perhaps more fittingly addressed in genre, and indeed, some may argue that'brick' type characters have had it too good for 5 editions already.




I think that “resistance to being Stunned” is worth 2 Character Points per point — if I change it I have to re-examine every character built in terms of offense and defense, and so do players.

Without the boost to figured states, buying a high Con just isnt as appealing as increasing defenses, or DCV, to avoid taking damage.

Body, at 2 per, is effectively resisting dying. Being stunned isnt quite as annoying as being dead, so I'd keep it at 1 point.

As noted from the sample characters, bricks will now pay through the nose for what they get, so a little break on CON is helpful.



To make the list of characteristics shorter

Comliness could be done away with. If you want to be beautiful, but it has no game effect, you just simply say you are pretty. If you want to be so beautiful it affects how others treat you, that is a perk. And apply the same process to being ugly.



Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

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

Agreed. Without all of those figured characteristics, STRdoes nto seem to me to be worth more than one poin



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

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

And without that..STR becomes fairly meaningless.



Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

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

I'd rather not see Cv moved away from DEx. the Sheet, in my opinion, needs fewer entries, not more. HERO has enough characteristics, adding more for combat value, perception, and so on isn't needed. Call me a heretic, but I'd favor combining PD and ED to just Defense. If someone wants to be tougher to just one type of attack, but defense with a limitation.



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

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

What you have there is a wonderful option. keep Dex as it is, and leave that in the book. Im a fan of 'basic' core sets with abundant plug and play optional rules.



Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?
see above in relation to the answer to that.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: The arguments here are much the same as those for CV and DEX. Logically intelligence and being observant don’t necessarily have any close connection; many highly intelligent people are forgetful and unobservant, while many “stupid” people are keen observers. Since PER is so important in every genre and campaign, converting it to a separate Characteristic (which could then be Adjusted and the like) makes some sense.

I'm against a PER stat. more characteristics to track. Stupi peopel wanting to be keen observers just buy perception modifiers, Unobservant highly intelligent people, well, in the first place, may not have as much a high INT stat as lots of skills, but even so, they coudl always tak e'absetn minded' or a inor limitation to show how oblivious they are to going on.






Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

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

And the judges scores..10! Perfect.




Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

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

Eliminating SPD is, to me, a dealbreaker--too much of a change for no apprent benefit. Ever game has some form of combat regualting system, and this is really no difficult than others, even the 'everyone moves at the same time' systems, which then have to go through arcane procedures and rules to handle those who attack more often than others.

[Michael Hopcroft]

How would removing Figured Characteristics affect powers like Damage Reduction? Would having that power negate some of the need to buy up PD and ED?

[SAVeira]

"It's always been that way" isn't much of an argument for keeping it that way.

Since it will reduce math, reduce char. sell-backs, and perhaps eliminate the Str-cost controversy, I'm all in favor of getting rid of Figuring.
When it is a strength of the game system, "it's always been that way" is a HUGE reason for keeping that way.

[Andrew Cermak]

When it is a strength of the game system, "it's always been that way" is a HUGE reason for keeping that way.

Then you need to put forth an argument showing that it actually is a strength of the system, and not just an aritfact of the system. I haven't seen one yet.

EDIT: And that's not meant as disrespect. I seriously haven't seen anyone elaborate on why the Figured Characteristics are so important, but I've seen a few people state it as if it were a self-evident fact. I'm not getting it.

[incrdbil]

Here's a thought--to justify keeping CON at two points, eliminate Recovery, and simply state characters recovery is based off CON. They recover their CON, split between END and sTUN per recovery. That could make recovery to quick, so perhaps the effect could be limited to 1/2 of CON. (ok, thats more rounding problems, and you would never see an even CON score.)

I say that to eliminate another stat. Get rid of COM, combine PD/ED to Defense.


Another thought: make all speed a baseline of tw--and any increase in speed is purchased as a talent or power. Move it out of the stat block, and now it looks even shorter.


Or, for a real twist, get rid of END and STUN. Just make one Stat called Personal Energy. Make it equal to STR + CON + BODY. You get rid of recovery, and now just recover your CON score when you take a recovery. Thsi replaces the burning stun for end rules. Pushing for those withhuge end reserves or some other ways to avoid END problems END no longer becomes a free 10 points of power for every attack. For games with no endurance rules just remove oone of the stats from the figured score from the score, half the reocvery effect of CON, and move along.

Now the stat block woudl look like this
STR
DEX
CON
BOD
INT
EGO
PRE
DEF
PE

Another way to shorten this--remove Presnece. Evenry uses EGO to defende from PRe atatcks--thoise who are more impressive buy a perk, impressive, and those who are just resistant to it by a related perk, or EGO with a big modifier. This would make EGO feel more worth its cost.

that block would just be
STR
DEX
CON
BOD
INT
EGO
DEF
PE

[Lord Mhoram]

that block would just be
STR
DEX
CON
BOD
INT
EGO
DEF
PE

My views. Ick.

We don't need that few stats. I want PD and ED (I have them different on many a character) and stun and end don't do the same thing, and should not be combined. Losing Comliness is bad enough, but I can live with that one. Everything else has a use, let's keep them.

[Chris Goodwin]

Put me down as not wanting to see Figured Characteristics go away.

Though, I'd really like to see a section on toolkitting Characteristics. How to create new ones, how to remove old ones, how to change them up, how and when and why to change the costs or the base values. I'd at least like to see Figured Characteristics kept as an optional rule a la Impairing and Disabling Wounds, though the footprint it leaves on the character is pretty intense and would probably be pretty headachey to make optional.

I wouldn't mind seeing PD and ED combined. In almost 23 years of playing Hero, the characters that had different PD and ED scores are the ones that stood out. I don't mind keeping the Physical and Energy distinction, but don't see a problem with buying DEF, Only Vs. Physical or DEF, Only Vs. Energy.

I could see combining CON and BODY, and even combining STR in as well. Especially if Size becomes a Characteristic. Or else break them down as Health and Hit Points; generally a more healthy man is stronger, and if you want more lift buy Health, Only For Lifting.

[CourtFool]

How to create new ones, how to remove old ones, how to change them up, how and when and why to change the costs or the base values.

Exactly why I am saying do away with them altogether. Roll Characteristics, Perks, Powers, Skills and Talents into one beast.

[incrdbil]

We don't need that few stats.

Well, if you want to take away from some of the stuff that has been said to repel players from hero, simplificatiosn in things like the stat block are a place to start. Of the stats, PD&ED are among the easiest to combine.

I like PD&ED myself, but when I look at the vast majority of my characters, PD&ED are the same, or very close to each other. Buying a small amount of DEF with a limitation of physical or energy damage only works pretty well, and matches up with objects. That retaisn the same flexibility, but adds a bit of streamlining. Its a compromise, but it does have an upside.


I want PD and ED (I have them different on many a character) and stun and end don't do the same thing, and should not be combined.

Thats the harder sell, I freely admit. I'll note that Stun does start working like END in a wayonce you run out of END. However, the combination does give characters a stronger 'STUN' amount stat to start out a fight, and reduces earlier knockouts--though running into end problems puts you in a combat vulnerable position. Again, just brainstorming on stat block reduction ideas. It also would give players one pool of points to keep track of, instead of two.

IMO, the ones I mentioned are the only feasible ones, the other stats have to be left alone. Adding stats is completely out, I think.

[voodoo54]

Get rid of COM and replace it with a Perception(PER) characteristic and I'll be happy. I think perception is important enough in the game(and in real life) to define it as a seperate characteristic.

[gojira]

I just wanted to add one idea before I hit the hay:


If we eliminate them and just use the standard starting values and costs (PD 2, ED 2, SPD 2, REC 4, END 20, STUN 20),

If there are no figured characteristics, then giving these the above default values makes little sense to me.

Consider starting PD, ED, SPD, and REC at 1. And STUN and END at 10, just like the other characteristics. For one, Bricks tend to be a little slower, and starting at SPD 1 will even the point difference between Bricks and others by 10 points.

Also, some normals (children, elderly, infirm) will now naturally have SPD 1.

[Enforcer84]

I like COM make it go away and I'll be sad.
DEF, SIZE, MD, meh. I've added characteristics to fantasy games I don't have a problem with this.

The De-Linking of Figured CHA: Wow my characters are going to become expensive.

So, no I don't think that the Characteristics need to be changed. At all. Ever. One of the reasons I kept playing Champions is that it allows you to more narrowly define your character.

[James Gillen]

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

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

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

These are all somewhat related, IMO. It may be that from a human scale (which is where we're going to start a character) a 0 INT or 0 EGO is effectively non-sentient and there's no point in measuring "less than zero." But the carrying capacity of a Chihuahua, however puny, is still measurable. So there is at least a need for negative STR, at least in relation to human base.

With regard to the other two points you can't change the system much unless you're going to say "0 is the new 10" and effectively make it a different system the way M&M and True20 diverge from D&D 3rd Edition. In those cases you have clear examples of what a stat means; 10-11 Strength is the base, with 9 Str being -1 on Str-based rolls, 7 being -2, and so on. True20 goes to the next logical step, where the modifier IS the characteristic (much like Ars Magica) - so the base human Strength would be 0 (equivalent to 10 STR in HERO or D&D), and -1, -2 and so on are below average from there, each with definable effects.

So if you're going to "make every point count" you actually have to make the scale LESS granular.



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

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

These are good points, but the examples you post just make me wonder how many of our Figured Characteristics are really necessary. Like, why do we need Physical AND Energy Defense when most inanimate objects just have "DEF"? Why do we need extra SPD? (see below on the Speed Chart issue)



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

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

Steve’s Thoughts: My feeling on this is no, they should not. I think regardless of the side benefit of getting Figureds, each Primary Characteristic provides one or more valuable functions that justify its current cost. Some argument could perhaps be made for CON, since Skills aren’t based on it, but I think that “resistance to being Stunned” is worth 2 Character Points per point — if I change it I have to re-examine every character built in terms of offense and defense, and so do players.

This gets into the "STR should cost more if it's gonna give you all those Figureds" so that makes sense.




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

In addition to costing more points (which I don't like already) there's the point I raised above about how many of these we really need.





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

NO.




Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

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

Steve’s Thoughts: The arguments here are much the same as those for CV and DEX. Logically intelligence and being observant don’t necessarily have any close connection; many highly intelligent people are forgetful and unobservant, while many “stupid” people are keen observers. Since PER is so important in every genre and campaign, converting it to a separate Characteristic (which could then be Adjusted and the like) makes some sense.

On the other hand, there are drawbacks — cluttering the character sheet, possible “PER inflation,” more points required for Characteristics, and so on — much like those for DEX and CV. Additionally, PER as a Characteristic would be sort of an odd duck, in that you’d be buying a Characteristic that was structured like a Skill (or whose sole purpose would be to determine a roll, effectively the same thing).

Making PER a Skill is another possibility, though it would be a bit of an odd duck too. It would start as an Everyman Skill at 11-, costing +2 points per +1 for one Sense Group, +3 points per +1 for all Sense Groups — a structure not quite like any other Skill (though it would allow me to remove Enhanced Perception from the Enhanced Senses list). This makes more sense to me than making PER a Characteristic.

I suppose this would make sense, although it doesn't account for the willfully oblivious (except maybe as a Disad). I've noticed that other games (like D&D) seem to define Perception as a Wisdom-based ability, which goes along with the intuitive "right brain" model of thought as opposed to the "left brain" thinking that HERO and most games describe as INT. If I were to design my own game, I'd define these as Intuition and Intellect, respectively, although HERO's use of the term "EGO" defines certain factors of self-assertion and mental power that aren't really conveyed by "wisdom" or "intuition".



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

Steve’s Thoughts: This is an interesting issue. On the one hand, it’s hard to argue that EGO is somehow twice as valuable as STR, INT, or PRE. Furthermore, many, many heroes are supposed to be “strong-willed,” but at 2 Character Points per point of EGO few of them can really afford to be.

On the other hand, changing EGO to +1 point per point would make it veeeeerrrry easy for characters with Mental Powers to obtain outrageously high ECVs (though the counterbalance to that is that, in theory at least, many more characters would have higher ECVs than 3 because EGO’s now cheaper). The cost of EGO is really part of the way that Mental Powers are balanced in the HERO System, and my inclination is to keep things as they are. But perhaps adding a ‘Strong-Willed” Talent through which characters buy EGO only to make EGO Rolls would be a worthy addition to the rules.

This is already similar to how Resistance Talent works.



Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

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

Fine with me. I and several other people thought this could be modeled in 5th with the Reputation rules for exactly those Interaction Skills; say 2 points for a "large group" and 0 for 11- roll (beauty only goes so far) gives +1 Attractiveness modifier for 2 points. Spending 4 points gives +2 to rolls that can be modified by looks, and is equivalent to buying an 18 COM... except it actually matters. :D



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

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

I already said I vote for combining them. If we're actually gonna split object DEF like character DEF then you have to account for special effects like how flame-retardant suits, insulation, etc. have different ED for different objects and different effects, and as much as I liked The Ultimate Energy Projector, that may be a bit too much detail for a basic rule system to contain.



Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

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

I personally vote for removing it. Among other things, I've noticed that my "talented normal" characters develop better sprints than Olympic record holders just because I buy them 9" Running and 4 SPD, which is within Normal Characteristic Maxima. There's also a phenomenon I refer to as "The Hero System Combat Time-Inversion Principle": High SPD is supposed to simulate the ability to do more things in a given time-space, but because the actual time required to adjudicate these actions in the real world does not change, the faster a character is the slower combat moves. ;)

If one wants to simulate super-speed attacks (and if one also wants to eliminate the Figured base of SPD) then we should start with base attacks per 12-second Turn (say 2 or 3 SPD) and define extra SPD above that as a "Multiple Attacks" power for 10 points per, with these extra attacks going after everyone else's, much like SHADOWRUN 4th Edition "multiple passes."



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

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea is attractive in that it eliminates a big chunk of combat book-keeping — but I think it also removes a lot of ability to customize powers, magic systems, and the like.

For instance if you, like me, are trying to build a conversion of World of Warcraft. :D



Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

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

This is intriguing and would solve a lot of the problems associated with buying characters of a certain size.

JG

[devlin1]

As for CV, it occurs to me that while DEX is arguably important for melee, what's really important for ranged combat is INT -- or, if you're going to have a PER stat, base it on PER. Mental combat is still all about EGO.

So couldn't you have a CV that starts out as a standard value for everyone, with a separate MCV (Melee CV), RCV (Ranged CV), and ECV, with those values determined by the relevant characteristics? I realize that goes against the "no figureds" concept, but it does make sense to me.

[Jhamin]

Making PER a Skill is another possibility, though it would be a bit of an odd duck too. It would start as an Everyman Skill at 11-, costing +2 points per +1 for one Sense Group, +3 points per +1 for all Sense Groups — a structure not quite like any other Skill (though it would allow me to remove Enhanced Perception from the Enhanced Senses list). This makes more sense to me than making PER a Characteristic.

I'm a big fan of making it a skill. The current attachment to a characteristic doesn't seem to work well in simulating many archtypes. As it's main interaction with other parts of the rules at the moment is with skills like concealment or stealth it also tends to streamline things. Skill vs. Skill contests and Characteristic vs. Characteristic contests come up all the time, but where else in the system do we have people roll a skill vs someone's characteristic?

While Perception as an everyman skill would be a *bit* different, many rules account for an 11- everyman skill in your chosen profession, so an 11- perception skill is not that unusual.

[ngross]

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

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


I actually like the idea of COM. I actually use it here and there in my game. Being the overweight, short, and balding man that I am, I have run into issues of prejudice (especially from women). However, as far as the game goes, this is not a big deal to me.

I just think that our society places heavy emphasis on our looks and should not really be ignored in a gaming situation.

[Acid_Crash]

As for Comliness, as it stands now there is no use for it. Making it a Perk just makes sense. If you are attractive, you are attractive, it's a Perk. If you are ugly, then you are ugly, and it should be a Disadvantage.

I am so for putting ED and PD together into one stat called Defense. Then, if you want to purchase up some Defense and have it be against one, apply that appropriate modifier to it. I've very rarely have had characters with them being different, and it only complicates things.

So, you'd have a Def score, which works against all physical type of attacks, and in my mind energy is physical for simplicity.

Add Mental Defense, it makes no sense to have a base 0 MD when I have mental based characteristics.

In a more radical way of thinking, I think combincing Body and Constitution would be better, and have it cost 2:1. Same for Ego and Presence, combine them and have it be 2:1. In my way of thinking, Body and Con do the same thing, and so does Ego and Presence. Having them seperated complicates things a bit.

I'm also in favor of getting rid of Figured Characteristics. It's a hassle trying to deal with spending points on non-figured ones, then seeing what my figured ones are at, and then choose to spend more points on them if I want to, which I always do. I can understand the reason as to why there are figured characteristics in the game, and I do like them, but for ease of play and for an easier learning curve, I'd do away with them.

OR --

Have Basic Rules and Advanced Rules, and put non-figured characteristics into basic rules and then have rules for figured characteristics into advanced rules. This way people can choose which option they'd prefer for their games. Not enough games have these kinds of options.

As for the Speed chart, I'm ok either way.

As for Endurance and Stun, I'd also split the rules options into Basic and Advanced... No Endurance for Basic rules, have Endurance in Advanced. Have Stun Only in Basic rules, but have both Stun and Body damage for Advanced.

Personally, I think that having it be a base of 0 Endurance costs for everything would make things easier at first.

I really think that having two options for rules details, basic and advanced, is one way to consider doing 6th edition. It would give people who want the streamlined rules their game, and it would give people who wants the glorious details of the current game what they want.

Dexterity and Combat Values... I support having CV be a part of Dexterity, just about every other roleplaying game out there has their combat modified by their core characteristics, MnM2e being one of the few that doesn't, and I hate that.

I do support divorcing Speed from Dexterity, and still keeping the cost 3:1.

Strength, based on the genre, should be 2:1 Heroic, and 1:1 Superheroic.

My characteristics would be:
Str
Dex
Body
Pre
Int
Per

Def
M.Def
Rec
SPD
Stun
End

Run
Leap
Swim

All this is just my opinion, but I think keeping PD and ED seperate doesn't make much sense, and then adding both PD and ED to all equipment and objects in the game just adds an added complication that doesn't make any sense at all logically.

No matter what, though, I'm buying this game. Hero is still my favorite overall game system, and nothing will change that.

[Enforcer84]

Personally, as someone who regularly creates PD/ED differentiated characters, I'd rather keep them separate.

and I agree with that Enforcer84 guy who likes COM.
He's a smarty.





oh yea, and a SIZE characteristic intrigues me. But if you negated negative characteristics, how would you make shrinking work?

[Toadmaster]

I'm jumping in with some of the others, I am very wary of fooling around with characteristics. Change them to much and I might as well play GURPS.

As far as seperating figured characteristics and keeping the same costs makes absolutely no sense. If I buy a 20 dex for 30 pts, I'm getting +1 speed (10 pts), +3 CV (+24 pts if you consider them skill levels in all combat) and it effects the order in which I can act, take away speed then why and I paying so much, that was 1/3 the cost right there, take away CV and why am I even buying DEX? Str, Con, Body have similar issues.

Change figured charactaristics very carefully because the wrong change and many current players won't be changing. It is an integral part of the system and changes are there might as well go with a change in the name because it won't be the same game anymore.

Sure it might make the game easier, but finding a good balance between buying extra figured characteristics, getting them through the purchase of primary characteristics or getting them through powers has always been a big part of character design. You see characters designed around powers and characters designed around characteristics, they may have similar abilities but they are very different in concept.

I'm open to new ideas, but tread lightly because this area more than almost any other will make or break 6th for me.


As far as granularity with stats being an issue, this has always been a mystery to me, so I buy an int of 15, so what, I'm closer to getting an 18 and that +1 to INT skills, so a 13 or an 18 is more cost effective, 15 is smarter than a 13 and fits my character concept and the character is closer to being smart enough to get an extra bonus.

I suppose you could always change the cost and value so an Stats are 1/5 their value, so an INT of 1 costs 3 pts, an INT 2 costs 8, 3 costs 13 etc but then again why? Also you are entering territory of is this still HERO.

[Xotl]

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

I don't see this as necessary or adding any benefit.


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

I think so IF it's not too much effort. Negative characteristics are quite clunky. I would prefer to see base stat numbers increased (for example, STR starting at 20 or 30) which fixes both the need for negative characteristics and provides the granularity that you and others such as myself want.


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

Agreed. No one is going to have trouble with this concept: it's negative Hit Points, which D&D has handled for years without making people wonder about negative Dex or whatever.


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

Strongly agree. As it currently exists it's a clunky element that provides inconsistent, unneeded math for absolutely no benefit. Worse yet, figureds force you to have a certain aspects to your character - when I have high STR and CON I have high other stats, and I can't fix this - the very opposite of the Hero ethos. There is no reason why you cannot have these perform as the rest of the stats, though granted getting the balance right is going to be tricky. I think the effort is worth it, however.


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

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

There's only one particular stat area I see that could be revised; I think this is a very good opportunity to fold CON into BODY. CON is "health and hardiness", while BODY is merely the mechanistic "how much damage a character can take before dying": the rules-equivalent of health and hardiness. They fit together so well, and each stat would be greatly reduced in scope following the removal of figureds (CON is already rather low-profile in 5th, and would essentially be a one-trick pony when figureds are tossed). Most importantly, this cleanup could be done for no real loss of Hero system ability at all. I can convert any character to this change without difficulty, and can make anything with CON/BODY merged that I could make when they were separate, and so I'm aware of no reason not to make the change. Now is the perfect opportunity to toss relics.


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

This seems necessary.


Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

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

With the base assumption that figureds are out, completely agree with your rationale.


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

Yes. This is logical, and at the same time drops STR a peg.


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

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

Agreed.


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

Limited Powers and skill levels already cover this just fine.


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

I think so, but am not dedicated - you can't have a stat for everything after all, and if PER is going to be in anything, it would be in INT. I would prefer it as a stat on its own (if you remove CON and COM there's certainlyl room). I don't like the idea of PER as a skill, however.


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

A Strong-Willed Talent is very much a base-game concept. I like that solution, while leaving the old cost as is.


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Strongly agree. Very illogical for a universal system, as universal attractiveness is not really possible in a base physical-appearance-type manner. There's no reason Joe Crusher should find that female Lizard Queen attractive because she has a COM of 15. An Attractive Talent and various Disadvantages covers COM more logically, and you free up a stat. Hero is supposed to be a universal system, but you simply can't have a universal value for attractiveness/aesthetic value even for humans, let alone all the monsters, aliens etc that Hero regularly deals with. COM as it stands now is both limiting and unrealistic.

As the COM issue turned into a colossal debate, I'm just going to link to my summary post on the issue, which handles my views on a lot of the main arguments for and against COM:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1714722&postcount=3450


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

I think the cleanup in defense should be as a reduction in the number of defense powers, not defense stats. The PD/ED separation is quite useful in supers, sci-fi, and fantasy settings.


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Strongly disagree. Some elements of Hero, even if they've been around forever, can be tossed and the game will still be Hero. The Speed Chart, while it has its issues, also has its strengths, and is quintessentially Hero. I see no real reason to do this, unless someone has a system that has all the Chart's strengths, advantages of its own, and doesn't require a massive rewrite.


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

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

Completely agree with your rationale.


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

I believe so, as I find it helps other games a lot in making simple, instantly understood comparisons, as well as allowing valuable rules mechanics, and could provide the same benefit to Hero. I'd use numbers instead of words though, as it's much easier to remember if 5 is larger than 4 than it is to recall if Stupendous beats Gargantuan or whatever. This best works with an accompanying size guide illustration.

[nexus]

The Speed Chart should be kept. It's one of the defining elements of Hero, present some optional ways to do away with it maybe but it shouldn't be dropped.

I'm in favor of keeping Com. I use it in my games and there are ways to make it "useful" (some are presented in the Ultimate Skill). As was mentioned up thread, appearance is important. As for "unrealistic" results like Buck Rocket finding the Lizard Queen attractive because she has a 16 Com that more of a gming mistake. If the Lizard people aren't supposed to be ugly, don't give her a high Com.

Yes its "humanocentric" but humans are playing the game and exact same thing would happen if the Gm got her the "Attractive Perk" with express mechanical enforcement (unless it was handwaved or assumed to be/or explicitly to be species based which you can do with Com just as easily). And universal beauty is possible in some genres and settings. Hero doesn't model reality.

[Sean Waters]

You can't please everyone all of the time, but I am pretty astonished at the strenght of feeling here.

Anyway, my take:

0 Characteristics - I'm in favour. It is a more logical starting point and it doesn't stop you having templates for normals and starting characters. I think it might positively encourage more interesting charatcers with a number of lower characteristics.

Figured characteristics - I would like to see them removed, at least as figured, as they enormously complicate costiong and balancing characters, but I'll still be here if you leave them as they are.

NCM - you didn't mention this, but I think it needs looking at. IMO it makes 'nonstandard' characters very difficult to build - for example if elves have a +3 dex, fine, but if they have a max DEX of 23 that is 9 points you have to spend to counter the POTENTIAL for upping characteristics into NCM, making them far less effective overall. I think campaign guidelines are more than enough and a hard and fast rule is not needed.

Negative characteristics - I like 'em! It is nice to have a system for reducing characteristics to start to become unreliable before failing completely. Of course strength doesn't follow that pattern because of the way we calculate it, so it we either need to recalculate lifting capacity some other way or resign ourselves tot eh concept of negative strength.

[Sean Waters]

Personally I'd favour removing COM and INT in favour of talents like 'Ugly as sin (+10 PRE only for intimidation and fear checks, reduced effect on non-humans)' or 'Scientific Genius (+2 SL with science skills)' or 'Hawkeye (+2 with visual PER checks)'.

I do think that the SPD chart is a really useful bit of Hero. If it does bug anyone, wellt hey can just build all their characters with the same speed.

[yamamura]

General Comment:

RPMiller's comment about an increased range for rolling made me think of 3d8. It keeps the bell curve and gives a range of 21. Not that I am for it, just that if we want an increased range, I want my bell curve.

As for the INT/PER argument, I would like to see when designing children a way to allow for them to keep a normal perception. On some note, children are even more perceptive then adults.

Now this is just an idea banging around in my head and I personally have found problems with it but here I go. Divorce Movement from the Speed chart. All characters will have a base amount of movement they can do in a turn. Of course speedsters and others will buy this up while some will keep it at the base. As I said this is a raw idea but to me it avoids the illusion of moving and then stopping.

Anyway just my 2 cents.

[Sean Waters]

PD and ED - whilst it makes sense to have them as a single characteristic, because it is one area where sfx are very much enshrined in the mechanics, I think it would cause more practical problems than it would solve in that it could cause AP problems for characters that did not want to have similar PD and ED values, thus encouraging LESS character customisation.

[Jagged]

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

If we reduced characteristics to 0 wouldn't we lose the ability to represent normal and frail people within the same system? I see no benefit.



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

These changes are starting to sound less and less like Champions and more and more like something completely different.

I don't accept that there is a problem with buying back points or attributes giving too much benefit. Players can always go to extremes but thats where its the refs job to go "nah!"

If you remove figured characteristics you will create an imbalance between character costs and power costs IMO.

[Susano]

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

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

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


I'd say no, as the game needes a recognizable starting point as a baseline. If that base-line is "average hero" than so much the better.



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

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

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


Negative Characteristics have their use if you see a lot of drains and the like in your games. I never have. The useful Negative Characteristics are (IMO) STR, BODY, and STUN. STR as it allows a fairly granulated STR scale. BODY as it lets you know how far you are from dying (and I've seen plenty of PCs saved while at -BODY). STUN is it shows how out of the fight you are.



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

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

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

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

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


It would be nice... but I see your arguement.



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

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

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

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

Steve’s Thoughts: My feeling on this is no, they should not. I think regardless of the side benefit of getting Figureds, each Primary Characteristic provides one or more valuable functions that justify its current cost. Some argument could perhaps be made for CON, since Skills aren’t based on it, but I think that “resistance to being Stunned” is worth 2 Character Points per point — if I change it I have to re-examine every character built in terms of offense and defense, and so do players.

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

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


My gut reaction is "no," but that is mainly due to 20 years of using them. I like Figured Characteristics, as it gives me a sense of what my PC is like as I build him. Once I'm done with the Primaries, then I can adjusted the Figured to taste. Removing Figured in some ways makes it a little harder to build a PC as it adds on more stats you need to think about adding to.




Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

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


I've seen arguments either way. With Figured Characteristics STR = 2 points does seem to make sense, as you get an awful lot for 5 points of STR. Without Figured, STR being 1 for 1 is just fine.



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

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


This works for me. And not all high-str supers are incredible leapers either.



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

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


I agree for the reasons you state. Besides, if you remove damage from STR you sort of eliminate most of the desire to have a high STR.



Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

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


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

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


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

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

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


My reaction to all of this is "no, DEX is fine as it." It seems to be perfectly priced for what it does and is used for.



Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

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


This works for me. I've gotten used to INT = "how fast you think" not INT = IQ. "Thining Power" strikes me as a good way to describe it.



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

Steve’s Thoughts: The arguments here are much the same as those for CV and DEX. Logically intelligence and being observant don’t necessarily have any close connection; many highly intelligent people are forgetful and unobservant, while many “stupid” people are keen observers. Since PER is so important in every genre and campaign, converting it to a separate Characteristic (which could then be Adjusted and the like) makes some sense.

On the other hand, there are drawbacks — cluttering the character sheet, possible “PER inflation,” more points required for Characteristics, and so on — much like those for DEX and CV. Additionally, PER as a Characteristic would be sort of an odd duck, in that you’d be buying a Characteristic that was structured like a Skill (or whose sole purpose would be to determine a roll, effectively the same thing).

Making PER a Skill is another possibility, though it would be a bit of an odd duck too. It would start as an Everyman Skill at 11-, costing +2 points per +1 for one Sense Group, +3 points per +1 for all Sense Groups — a structure not quite like any other Skill (though it would allow me to remove Enhanced Perception from the Enhanced Senses list). This makes more sense to me than making PER a Characteristic.


For comics, high INT = good PER seems to be a given. Not always the case elsewhere. I'd rather not see more Characteristics (aside from Mental Defense -- see below), but making it a Skill reminds me of GURPS (isn't that a GURPS skill?). All characters should have a default PER ability, however (which INT = PER gives us).



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

Steve’s Thoughts: This is an interesting issue. On the one hand, it’s hard to argue that EGO is somehow twice as valuable as STR, INT, or PRE. Furthermore, many, many heroes are supposed to be “strong-willed,” but at 2 Character Points per point of EGO few of them can really afford to be.

On the other hand, changing EGO to +1 point per point would make it veeeeerrrry easy for characters with Mental Powers to obtain outrageously high ECVs (though the counterbalance to that is that, in theory at least, many more characters would have higher ECVs than 3 because EGO’s now cheaper). The cost of EGO is really part of the way that Mental Powers are balanced in the HERO System, and my inclination is to keep things as they are. But perhaps adding a ‘Strong-Willed” Talent through which characters buy EGO only to make EGO Rolls would be a worthy addition to the rules.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: See the “CV and DEX” question, above, for a general take on this issue; the benefits and problems are largely the same. However, I think that (a) tying ECV to EGO has even more “gaming logic” than tying CV to DEX, and (b) the clutter caused by an ECV Characteristic is even more cumbersome, since most characters use CV constantly but rarely use ECV. Even if CV gets split off from DEX my inclination at present is to keep ECV a part of EGO.


Once again, I think EGO works well for what it is and does. Reducing the price might encourage a high-EGO characters "just because" and reduce the penalties/effect of Psych Lims. Right now there's a happy balance.



Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

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


I like COM. It gives a nice realtive value to characters. The biggest problem is it needs more to do. Allowing COM to influence Interaction Skills is a start. As well as some PRE Attacks.



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

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


I like this ruling myself. The split stat allows one to better define certain aspects of a character.



Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t really think this is necessary, especially since it means adding one more Characteristic to HERO’s already long list, but it’s not beyond consideration.


Personally, I like the idea. If everyone is a little resistent to fire (ED), why not to mental attacks? It would also remove "Mental Defense" as a power, place it in the other characteristics and would be bought just like ED and PD. Realize that Mental Defense has no real granularity. Either you have none, or a lot (since Mental Defense is EGO/5+ points in MD).



Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

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


I like the SPD chart.



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

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


I'm currently in a game where END has become a big factor in many ways. So say "no."

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

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

Could "Size" simply be a power? That would eliminate Growth and Shrinking.

[steamteck]

Personally, as someone who regularly creates PD/ED differentiated characters, I'd rather keep them separate.

and I agree with that Enforcer84 guy who likes COM.
He's a smarty.





oh yea, and a SIZE characteristic intrigues me. But if you negated negative characteristics, how would you make shrinking work?


I agree having PD and ED separate allows a greater range of characters.Most of my characters have a different PD and ED

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

figured characteristics are just so logical, elegant and cool to me. Please don't get rid of them. Don't decouple anything logical from characteristics that will confuse a newbie unneedfully.

Dexterity and Combat Values... I support having CV be a part of Dexterity, just about every other roleplaying game out there has their combat modified by their core characteristics and that makes sense to me.

Like many others have posted I like the core characteristics as they stand pretty well, any changes would have to be pretty good and not violate the current spirit to keep my dollar.

[Susano]

NCM - you didn't mention this, but I think it needs looking at. IMO it makes 'nonstandard' characters very difficult to build - for example if elves have a +3 dex, fine, but if they have a max DEX of 23 that is 9 points you have to spend to counter the POTENTIAL for upping characteristics into NCM, making them far less effective overall. I think campaign guidelines are more than enough and a hard and fast rule is not needed.

I thought they did away with that?

[Susano]

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

Actually, I forgot to say that if COM became a Perk, I'd ask for several levels both up and down, much like GURPS.

[yamamura]

Actually, I forgot to say that if COM became a Perk, I'd ask for several levels both up and down, much like GURPS.

Agreed. While Beauty is subjective, I would like to see some indication of level.

[Log-Man]

Wow, this is all very exciting!

I'm very strongly in the camp of eliminating the figured aspect of characteristics and I have been for a very long time. It would smooth things out so much in terms of calculations when buying stats as powers (no more 'No Figured Characteristics', when dealing with adj. powers, when changing size, etc. I give this idea a big thumbs up. :thumbup:

I also would like to see END eliminated or made much less of a hassle. I am of the mind that END and STUN are somewhat redundant. They both reflect stamina; one drains internally, one externally. If powers are non-taxing as a base, then they could be tiring as a limitation. Have it drain STUN rather than END. I believe that reflects the heroic struggle better than having two separate stats.

Ditch COM as a paid stat. I think there's still room for it as a defining trait, but perks better reflect that, if it's needed at all. This is one of those things that I'm not sure even needs to be defined by points at all.

Mental DEF as a stat does make sense to me. If normal DEF is a stat, then having the other DEF nearby as a stat just seems logical. When we look at powers such as transform which require defining a realm of change, physical, spiritual or mental, then it really fits for me. On the other hand, Mental Defense is often SFX limited, so I can see the argument for keep it separate.

Eliminating INT is an intriguing proposition, one that I have considered for a long time. The character's INT has always been reflected in the breadth of skills and actual skill rolls much more than the INT score itself. As it is now, I don't know that INT is necessary.

A SIZE stat is very interesting to me, but it really depends upon how it works with Growth and Shrinking. I can see it making things a heck of a lot easier.

I like a single DEF score to bring it more in line with the real world objects. I see no problem with using limitations to define portions of defense, much like what is done now with certain SFX. However, I like the idea of giving real world objects (and Entangles) differentiating scores, too. I just want synchronization.

I see the argument for eliminating the STR/Leaping connection, and I agree.

[Querysphinx]

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

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

I already do this in my games. Basically Beauty acts like skill levels in certain situations and Ugly doesthe opposite.


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

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


Actually I have a much better idea. The way ordinary defenses work in Hero always bothered me for a variety of reasons.

1. No matter how much ordinary PD / ED you have you're still just as vulnerable to "killing attacks" as a normal.

2. Conversely, in a standard superhero type setting it is frequently impossible to actually hurt someone (i.e. do Body) with a 10D6 Punch/EB. Someone with a 50 STR can juggle cars for Peet's sake, his punches ought to carry some threat of physical harm.

3. Sometimes the difference between energy attacks and physical attacks is not clear. Sonic Attacks? Shockwaves? A flaming chunk of lava?

This bothered me so much that I sat down and did some math. After running the numbers it occurred to me that from a mathematical perspective, the only reason to have a distinction between PD and ED is to make defenses slightly more expensive than attacks.

1 D6 of most attacks costs 5 Pts and gets you on average 3.5 ST and 1 BDY
3pts of PD and 3pts of ED together costs 6 points. You logically have to have both because you don't know if the attack thats going to hit you is coming from the physical or energy side.

So 5 pts of attack versus 6 points of defense results in an average damage of .5 STUN per D6 and (this is important) no chance whatsoever of doing Body

It was right about then that I realized why Champions had killing attacks in the first place. It's the fact that under most even-point circumstances there's no chance whatsoever of doing Body. From a math perspective , killing attacks are nothing more than an ad hoc kludge designed to get around this problem.

So how to fix it?

I came up with the house rule.

Instead of the artificial PD/ED distinction (which is based on special effects) we use Stun Defense (SD) and Body Defense (BD) (which are based on game mechanics.)

Stun Defense (SD) costs 1 point per def and defends against the STUN of attacks.

Body Defense (BD) costs 2 points per def and defends against the BODY of attacks.

Now 5 points of Def (3 SD/1 BD) vs. 5 pts of Attack (1D6) yields an average stun of .5 per d6 with a 1/6 chance of actually doing Body.

I've been playtesting this rule for years and have found no significant problems with it. It's even allowed me to get rid of killing attacks in my game.

Instead of having killing attacks per se, characters who want to use guns and swords and other traditional killing attacks can take advantage (so to speak) of the following advantages.

Armor Piercing: just like in the books

Killing (+1/2): This attack is designed to hurt living things. Any BDY that gets by the defender's BD is doubled.

Black-Hat shoots White-Hat with a pistol. The 6D6 pistol does 7 Body vs. White-Hat's 5 BD. 7-5=2 Body, but because the attack is killing that 2 is doubled to 4. Ouch!
Penetrating (+1/4): (I admit I stole this idea from another game system but it works well in this context.) When an attack power with this advantage rolls a 6 for damage, the attacker gets to roll an extra D6 and add the damage. If these extra penetrating attacks also roll 6's there is no additional effect.

Overload shoots his 8D6 penetrating zap at Megaman. He hits and rolls 8D6 scoring, 1,1,2,3,4,4,6,6. Because he rolled 2 6's he get to roll two more penetrating dice. He gets a 3,6. He does not get to roll again for this extra 6. His total damage is 1,1,2,3,3,4,4,6,6,6 for 36 STN and 11 BDY

Whew!

[Andrew Cermak]

Change figured charactaristics very carefully because the wrong change and many current players won't be changing. It is an integral part of the system

How so? I see people saying this, but no one says why. Other than saving some points in character creation, what does figuring actually do for the system that's so important? Why can't they be treated the same as primary characteristics?

[JakSpade]

Man. I'm really not a numbers guy, and I'd really like to contribute to 6th edition... at least somehow.

Personally, I think characteristics need to stay the same values that they always have. One of the reasons I feel this way is that Hero does a good job of merging the mundane with the fantastic. Regular humans can play with aliens, superheros, or supernatural creatures. If you change the baseline for normal characteristics, you run the risk of alienating normal characters, and reducing them to story elements, unless that is the true intent. Reducing NPCs to story elements might be better on the GM, it might be worse. But it keeps those NPCs grounded in comparison to how they relate to the PCs. And, yes, it probably keeps the GM in tons of bookkeeping.

I've never had much use for negative characteristics. The only problems I've had with low characteristics is with character interaction, presence attacks and the like. I'd vote to get rid of negative characteristics and revisit, perhaps strengthen, rules and suggestions with character interaction.

I've never thought of figured stats as being a big hindrance on the system. Figured stats, in my opinion, should stay, mostly because they are a finality to defining what the character can do, how well he resists the environment, or how he performs in certain situations. Rolling PD and ED into Defense is a good idea, because it streamlines figures stats a bit, but can be altered easily to fit the situation. Adding base Perception and Mental Defense/Willpower into figured stats is a good idea as well, mostly because it goes with the theme of the character.

And here's where I deviate from the norm just slightly. I think BODY should be moved to the Figured Characteristics category. To me, it doesn't fit the "raw" element that most base characteristics do, and I believe it should be calculated based on Strength and Constitution (i.e. physique and health). This will add a bit of granularity to the general health of the character, and can even be set to a base plus the calculated base characteristic (10+(STR/5+CON/5)). That might not work too well.

Adding Size to figured characteristics gets a big thumbs up from me. Building a size chart with all the modifiers in it is a big help for growth powers as well as players. Being able to pick your size maximum from a chart is a big help, plus it helps players with variable growth to be able to recalc their stats at different levels of growth.

In my opinion, the Speed Chart is a whole other issue. Based on the genre and cinematic level of the game in question, the speed chart can be a help or a hindrance. In a pulp game, there's not much variance between character speeds, so I wouldn't want to use a speed chart to handle all the action. I've removed the speed chart in cases like this, and have asked for anyone who wants to be able to act more spend 20pts on an extra action, which allows them a second (plus) action per turn. Of course, I try to keep it limited to one or two extra actions. The speed chart works well in the superheroic genre, where you have speedsters and the like, or maybe science fiction where you can have very fast alien races, but as you scale down, I think it starts to become a hindrance. So, I think the speed chart needs to be optional, based on what genre is being simulated. It won't work well in all situations.

That's it for now from me. I hope I haven't been too big of a problem... :D

jak

[Susano]

How so? I see people saying this, but no one says why. Other than saving some points in character creation, what do figureds actually do for the system that's so important?

I find them a huge help in character generation. They don't affect game play any, but when building a character they save steps in deciding what the next set of values would be. Not a big deal, but considering how involved creating a Hero character can be, I think every little bit helps. It's a built-in assist to the player. Sort of "you did X, now let me do y for you." A little thing, but useful.

[voodoo54]

Actually, I forgot to say that if COM became a Perk, I'd ask for several levels both up and down, much like GURPS.

I agree 100%. Make COM a perk with levels that have a tangible effect in the game.

[Balok]

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

I think a key goal should be to simplify *running* characters even if it makes *generating* them more complicated, because generating happens once (per character) while running is ongoing. Like the incorrect opinion of some software designers that simplifying their job is the only worthwhile goal even if it means the end user must work harder. For that reason math during character generation never really bothered me.

Should "Normal Characteristic Maxima" become more complex? For example, should it become "Normal Physical Maxima" that affects STR, DEX, CON, etc but not INT, EGO - and along side of that would be "Normal Mental Maxima" which is analgous? It could even be separated out by specific characteristic, and it could have stepped values (x1 cost, then x2 cost, then x5 cost, and so on. Another approach would be... I hesistate to say a sidebar because I think it's too complicated for that... some kind of discussion for GMs who simply wish to impose such variable costs as part of their genre. The discussion would cover the broad mechanical implications of such changes. I have long believed that a big advantage of Hero over D&D [1] is that we get to look under the hood more easily here, whereas for D&D you must reverse engineer the metaconcepts or rely on someone you trust who has done so.

[1] Not trying to start any kind of flame war. I like D&D fine, but there are some things it simply doesn't do well, IMO, and one of them is support mechanical changes by the inexperienced.

[Andrew Cermak]

I find them a huge help in character generation. They don't affect game play any, but when building a character they save steps in deciding what the next set of values would be. Not a big deal, but considering how involved creating a Hero character can be, I think every little bit helps. It's a built-in assist to the player. Sort of "you did X, now let me do y for you." A little thing, but useful.


Do you usually leave them at the figured values?

[Susano]

Do you usually leave them at the figured values?

Depends. Sometimes times yes, sometimes no. But even if I end up adding to them, I have a preset value to work from. And with REC, END, STUN, and answer is often "no." The Figured values are usually fine "as is" with no need to alter them -- especially for Heroic-level characters.

EDIT: Uhm.. answer is "no."

That will teach me to drink two Sols with lunch and then post.... :drink:

[Hugh Neilson]

Only posting detailed answers where the others haven't covered it and/or your comments aren't dead on, I hope.


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

No - keep a baseline. I like the current "a bit better than Joe Normal" baseline. Adding 200 points to all characters and making "normals" 200 point characters serves no purpose.


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

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

Yes and no. I think we can keep negative characteristics for purposes of adjustment powers, but once you hit 0, that's it. All the negative does is lengthen the period for recovery. Practically, needing to roll 9- every time you want to do something with the stat is getting pretty close to useless anyway. It would be better to have a mechanic to "push" a nil stat to heroically overcome the reduced ability briefly.

The negative characteristic rules could be retained as optional rules, but should not be in the core rules - they are of limited use, so they should be added only if and when they serve a purpose for a type of character or type of game. The fact I cannot envision one leads me to believe eliminating negative stats is the way to go.


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

Perhaps these need their own category - "health characteristics", perhaps. Perhaps that's splitting hairs. Under my approach, these stats would be the only ones where negative stats have implications beyond "you need longer to get them back to positive".


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

Philosophically, yes. Practically, it needs to be worth the effort. I would suggest (core rule or optional rule) the following:

- adopt the more granular damage chart from TuB for both STR and PRE.

- When making a characteristic-based roll, if you fail by one, roll a d6. If that number is equal or less than your stats over the breakpoint, you succeed. EXAMPLE: You have a 15 INT, and make an INT roll of 13. Normally, this fails. You get to roll a d6. If it's 1-2 (since you have 2 points over the 13 breakpoint), you succeed. Practically, you would roll 4d6 (3d6 of one colour for normal success and 1d6 of another for this purpose).

I'm not convinced the added granularity is worth the added effort, so I would place this as an optional rule in the core book.

This has no impact on combat. There are enough rolls in combat already.


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

Like many others, I am not in favour of this approach. I do not find characters are unbalanced due to figured characteristics now, and I fear their removal will create imbalances.

I am in favour of changing the price of REC, STUN and END, and the price of No Figured. Why?

- I think the fact STR and CON grant more in Figured than they cost is an issues.
- I rarely/never see a character buy up REC and STUN, rather than defenses. Same for buying END/REC rather than Reduced END. This implies, to me, that the option less (never) taken is comparatively overpriced.

My draft is as follows:


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

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

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

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

Grant figured as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potentially, this will cause other changes to the dynamic. For example, since there is no longer a "figured' advantage to high STR and CON, do we need to allow EC's of characteristics for Bricks and other stat-based characters to stay balanced with, say, blasters and others more reliant on frameworks?


I also think CV is a form of "figured characteristic", but we discuss that later.


then there’s no more worry about Limited SPD, no more concern about STR (or any other Characteristic) giving you too much benefit for its cost, no more No Figured Characteristics Limitation, and no need to dictate how many “Figureds” a character can sell back.

We'll still fight over limited SPD (I use activation rolls; what is "mental powers only"; which phases are which) and whether something gives you too much, or too little, for its cost. My approach above allows unlimited sellbacks. Of course, there's more math. You could follow the WoTC approach of a chart for those incapable of math (10-11: +0; 12-13; +1;), I suppose.


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

I feel they should. CON has lost a lot of utility. If it costs 2 points per, I can buy +1 PD and +1 ED instead, avoiding the damage from many attacks entirely, but taking my chances with exotic attacks. I see a huge drawback in this - players will be trying to reduce damage taken to their 10 (or less) CON score, making STUN (and combat) last forever.

BOD should cost 1 under the "no fig" model. Yeah, not dying is important, but I return to my "buy up defenses" theory. And not getting KO'd wins more fights in most games. hmmm...+8 BOD or 2 BOD Regeneration?

I think a lot of the "sub-parts" of characteristics are overpriced (koffLightningReflexeskoff), and the better fix is to reduce those costs, not raise (directly or indirectly by removal of what they grant) the cost of characteristics.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: This one’s a little trickier.

Your examples highlight this, but they miss a piece. I'd like to compare that Brick to a less stat-based option, such as a Mentalist or EP. Similarly, compare a Warrior to an old Wizard. How many of those extra points the STR/CON character needs just to stay the same becomes available to the low STR/CON character for added powers and abilities? I don't find them unbalanced now.

Steve, I'd suggest rebuilding some character groups (eg. Superteams) who are presently based on the same or similar points under the new model to assess its effectiveness, and impact on balance.

The impact depends a lot on genre. Are there Pulp archetypes with minimal STR/CON? I think they're all two fisted adventurers to some extent, so the change will impact them similarly.


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

Absolutely. Even in Supers, this doesn't connect well. The Hulk and Superman leap, but the Thing and the Juggernaut don't. The link is tenuous at best. There's a case that the stronger guy is better able to leap from rooftop to rooftop, but maybe we can make a STR roll complementary to leaping in some cases to keep the connection, but water it down significantly.



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

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

I agree with all comments above. CV is a Figured in all but name anyway, and impacting it with adjustment powers would be a worthy goal. The inability to create a wily rogue without a huge OCV is also often commented on.

I'd like to see OCV and DCV priced as a Figured such that DEX - no OCV (whether a limitation or a sellback) would be a viable (not overpriced) approach to building such a character. Also, most characters who are accurate end up great dodgers, which aren't necessarily linked.

While I see the challenges, I think OCV and DCV at 5 points each is consistent with current skill level structures. That requires a review of the cost of DEX, or a reduction to the cost of CV, however.


Normal Characteristic Maxima

Steve, I think a lot of skill level pricing issues are exacerbated by NCM. Paying 5 points for +1 to all interaction skills when paying 5 for +5 PRE gets you so much more is unreasonable. But lower the cost, and they're huge bargains once you hit NCM. I think NCM needs to be refigured either as:

- something to ditch entirely, or
- something broader, such that it would apply to skill levels boosting abilities beyond NCM's, and to stats with limitations

Example: Samson, with "not if hair cut, -1/4" buys a 35 STR for 25 points. Hercules, with no limitation, pays 40 points. That -1/4 has become much more valuable. Even a -0 limitation technically means the characteristic becomes a power.

Sure, the GM can vet abuses, but the real abuse is that the guy with limitations gets a bigger bang for his buck. -1/4 for IIF seems very reasonable for a magic item, until it bumps STR 20 to STR 30 for 8 points instead of 20 points, amking it equivalent to a -1.5 limitation.



Should STR be repriced?

I agree it should not. However, I think more attention should be paid to using STR to get other benefits for free. Picking up a large object should not convert STR into an AoE with range at no cost. Let's impose some limitations, like:

- stressing that Grab is one attack action and Throw at Someone is a second.

- imposing OCV penalties - we have aerodynamics and balance, but perhaps we should have bulk, mass and non-proficiency penalties.

- no automatic AoE - grant OCV bonuses for size. In Hero, Hulk throws a bus at Spiderman and Spidey goes Squish. In the comics, Spidey leaps over, rolls under or jumps in one window and sails out another. The latter is better suited for genre emulation AND game balance.



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

Steve’s Thoughts: The arguments here are much the same as those for CV and DEX. Logically intelligence and being observant don’t necessarily have any close connection; many highly intelligent people are forgetful and unobservant, while many “stupid” people are keen observers. Since PER is so important in every genre and campaign, converting it to a separate Characteristic (which could then be Adjusted and the like) makes some sense.

I agree with this. I note that INT is also a characteristic whose sole purpose is skills (presently including PER). The difficulty in building a low-Per high Int character should be resolved. All characters could have a base 11- PER roll or buy enhanced PER. Or maybe we start them with a 8- roll to raise the bar a little. Then we have no stat added.

Adjustment powers? Yes and no. Should a character easily be rendered blind, deaf and otherwise unable to perceive by a 3d6 PER Drain? If so, why should anyone buy Flash?



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

Steve’s Thoughts: This is an interesting issue. On the one hand, it’s hard to argue that EGO is somehow twice as valuable as STR, INT, or PRE. Furthermore, many, many heroes are supposed to be “strong-willed,” but at 2 Character Points per point of EGO few of them can really afford to be.

On the other hand, changing EGO to +1 point per point would make it veeeeerrrry easy for characters with Mental Powers to obtain outrageously high ECVs (though the counterbalance to that is that, in theory at least, many more characters would have higher ECVs than 3 because EGO’s now cheaper). The cost of EGO is really part of the way that Mental Powers are balanced in the HERO System, and my inclination is to keep things as they are. But perhaps adding a ‘Strong-Willed” Talent through which characters buy EGO only to make EGO Rolls would be a worthy addition to the rules.

If we made ECV a figured stat, we could have a -1 "No Figured/No ECV" limitation. That seems to match up with "strong-willed".



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

Although similar to CV and DEX, there is no real world mental combat, so no way to link the two. A separate ECV stat may be desirable if Figured's, including regular CVB, are de-linked from characteristics, as otherwise the "ego/3" mechanic will be wholly unfamiliar. If Ego and ECV are de-linked, maybe ECV starts at 0. I'd rather keep the link, but I'd rather keep Figured's overall.



Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Gut feel: no, it should have mechanics like your Talent suggestions. But analysis says:

- high and low COM should both have effects; we can't do that effectively, especially without negative characteristics.

- what non-PRE based effects would COM ever have? If the answer is none, as I think it is, COM is an SFX of PRE.


Q: Should PRE be removed as a Characteristic?

Maybe it should. I'd like to see more on "Inspirational PRE" as opposed to "Frightening PRE". That's similar to "attractive COM" and "ugly COM". We could start with base PRE attacks of 2d6, and interaction skills have no stat link (the one piece I really don't like). PRE attacks get resisted only with EGO, making it more desirable at 2 points per. We can then have talents for bonuses to interaction skills, being more impressive and being resistant to PRE attacks (+X Ego only to resist PRE attacks).


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

No and Yes. In addition to other points you and other posters raise, I don't want a huge array of limited DEF to simulate what we have now. Give objects PD and ED instead.


Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

If figured's are eliminated, NO. If not, then no. But the "buy 1 point, add ego/5" should be removed. It should be like Flash and Power defense. It would not break my heart to add it, but most mental defense applications reduce attacks that are already resisted by base Ego, so this is just a 20% bonus to that resistance.


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

I can't properly answer this within the posting guidelines, so I say only "NO".


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

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

A sidebar or optional rule is the best approach, in my view. This can be expanded on in genre books and setting books, where customizing the system options fit better, IMO.


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

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

What will it do? A characteristic that changes other characteristics is an added layer of complexity (especially if Figured's are removed for everything else). I'd rather see packages of abilities based on changes in size from the template norm.

[JakSpade]

Depends. Sometimes times yes, sometimes no. But even if I end up adding to them, I have a preset value to work from. And with REC, END, STUN, and answer is often "yes." The Figured values are usually fine "as is" with no need to alter them -- especially for Heroic-level characters.

I rarely change the values of Recovery or Endurance, unless it goes with the theme of the character (high Rec for Wolverine, high End for energy blasters). I only raise Stun if it seems low compared to a normal human stat.

jak

[DreadDomain]

I will briefly give you my ideas on your questions and I will try later to organise my thoughts with an example. None of what I say there is well thought out and this doesn't mean I even agree with my ideas :)



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

I agree it would make a lot of sense and would make application of advantages on characteristics more intuitive. Another idea if you want to remaining human centric would be to centre the characteristics themselves around 0 (lets say human range from -10 to +10). It would connect well enough will opposite powers (Growth and Skinking) but could definitely upset long time gamers. Another less disturbing concept (especially from a retrocon point of view) would be to to ...



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



... have CHAR 0 means "lack of". Of course the STR chart would need some reworking from a slow progression at the lower end (increasing granularity) to a faster increasing slope on the high end. This would potentially change the relation between STR and damage though.




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

Increasing granularity would be good. Even decoupling figured, every point of STR (damage and lift), DEX (initiative), CON (stun resistance), BODY (well, Body), EGO (presence resistance and mantal resistance) and PRE (presence resistance and presence damage) means something. Only INT and COM really give nothing by themselves. Break points are created by figured characteristics and CHAR/Skill roll. If you decouple and change the CHAR/Skill roll calculation to 7+CHAR/3, you both decrease the importance of break points and add more meaning ful numbers. On the side, youn also increase cohesion by making Skills and CV work more alike (more on that later surely).



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

Yes but... In the base rules, I would like to see Figured decoupled (thus becoming Secondary CHAR) BUT, I also would like a discussion on how to package them back together and how it influences the CHAR cost. So later, in a setting book for instance, the author could choose to package them a certain way (SPD = 1+(DEX+INT)/20; END = CON +EGO, etc...) in accordance with his vision of the setting



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

Yes. By decoupling figured (and maybe even skills as a base line). Every CHAR would be worth about 1/1 in my opinion except :

COM : But this is a non primary characteristic anyway
BODY : Another non primary characteristic. A Primary for me should give at the very least a CHAR Roll and some side benefits (like STR gives damage, INt gives Perception, EGO gives presence and mental resistance). BODY gives only an ablative damage soak number. It is worth 2/1 but it should be a Secondary Characteristic.
STR: Str gives damage which by itself is worth 1/1 and it gives lift/encumbrance resistance which may or may not be worth something. My idea is that in superheroic campaign encumbrance resistance means nothing and lift capabilities is really nice but is mainly only a SFX anyway. STR in superheroic campaigns would cost 1/1.

In heroic campaigns, encumbrance is surely a factor worth something so I would make STR cost 2 points. To cost structure for STR you say? Well it is only a dial no different than equipement costing points or not.

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

Yes.



Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

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

Oups! See my point above. In Heroic, 2 points, in Superheroic, 1 point.



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



Yes.



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


I think not. Damage and lift is very logically tied to STR.



Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?


Once everything is decoupled from DEX (SPD, Skills, CV), I would say DEX is worth about 1 point (for initiative and CHAR roll). In my mind, CV and Skill rolls should work the same. If you decouple skills, you decouple CV. If skills are based on CHAR/3, CV should be based on CHAR/3.



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



Not necessary in my opinion.



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

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

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

Personally, if you decouple Skills, you should decouple CV. You would not need extra CHAR becuase you would treat it like skills (base of 10- and +1 for each x point).



Q: Should INT be “redefined”?


For me the trick is to base physical and mental CHAR on the same logics. Power is represented by STR and PRE, resistance by CON and EGO and aptitude by DEX and INT. So I definitely see INT as both depth and quickness of thinking.



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



Tricky one. When reasoning from effect, PER should be out of INT. From a design point of view, I would divorce it from INT only if INT can be made more relevant and if a fouth mental CHAR is needed to balance four physical CHAR. I'd rather see STR, DEX, CON, PRE, INT (with PER factored in), EGO while BODY would become Secondary (yes, I know it is only a aesthetic and organisational change, functionally, it would be the same) and COM would become a perk.



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



Yes, I cannot see as it is EGO being more useful than STR.



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



See DEX and CV.



Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?


I'd see it as a Talent/Perk or a Secondary CHAR.



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

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?



I think, ED is only really useful in Superheroic games. I see really 4 different type of damage Physical, Energy, Mental and Emotional with Power Defense being used to resist other type mainly covered by the for above. I'd rather have PD (combining both PD and ED) and MD (combining both MD and Emotional) as a basis and have them divided as needed in different genre (super might add ED while Horror might add Emotional Defense).



Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?


Absolutely not.



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


A way to decrease bookkeeping would be appreciated. Otherwise, people can choose to use END or not (in most of our games we just don't the speed up things).



Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?



A Secondary Characteristic at best.

[Susano]

I rarely change the values of Recovery or Endurance, unless it goes with the theme of the character (high Rec for Wolverine, high End for energy blasters). I only raise Stun if it seems low compared to a normal human stat.

jak

Yeah, I'm with you. See my edited post. Sorry. :idjit:

[steamteck]

I like NCM. Its a nice shorthand for defining a normal person as opposed to a super. The definition could be expanded and better defined probably though.

[Sean Waters]

If we reduced characteristics to 0 wouldn't we lose the ability to represent normal and frail people within the same system? I see no benefit.

Entirely a matter of perception - if you start at zero you build to what you want. People are often less willing to sell back than they are to not buy up int he first place. It also makes the system more 'universal' - having a zero baseline for the system doesn't mean there has to be a zero baseline for every character in a given campaign: you could start at 8 across the board, or 15.




These changes are starting to sound less and less like Champions and more and more like something completely different.

I don't accept that there is a problem with buying back points or attributes giving too much benefit. Players can always go to extremes but thats where its the refs job to go "nah!"

If you remove figured characteristics you will create an imbalance between character costs and power costs IMO.

Players go to extremes? Surely not! :)

I think we ought to take the safety off a lot of Hero and give the responisbility to the players and GMs to make it work. Figured characteristics are an example of this. You might need to adgust some of the primary characteristic costs but that doesn't seem problematic.

[steamteck]

I rarely change the values of Recovery or Endurance, unless it goes with the theme of the character (high Rec for Wolverine, high End for energy blasters). I only raise Stun if it seems low compared to a normal human stat.

jak


Same here.

[eternal_sage]

just for those keeping score, this is how my version of retooling the CHAR would turn out, using Steve's examples. looking at them, they came in better for all but the Pulp guy (and much better for the wuxia fellow). i think this is largly a matter of not adjusting the pricing of figured Chars when adjusting primary.


high STR brick via champions

Here’s the same character with no Figureds:

Val Char Cost
60 STR 50
20 DEX 10
30 CON 20
25 BODY 15
10 INT 0
10 EGO 0
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0 105

30 PD 28
30 ED 28
5 SPD 30
25 REC 42
60 END 20
70 STUN 50 198

7 CV 12

Total Cost: 315

79 more points

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

Now with no Figureds:

Val Char Cost
20 STR 10
25 DEX 15
20 CON 10
15 BODY 5
15 INT 5
15 EGO 5
20 PRE 10
10 COM 0 60

15 PD 13
10 ED 8
6 SPD 40
10 REC 12
40 END 10
40 STUN 20 103

8 CV 15
Total Cost: 178

That’s a cost increase of 17 points.

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

Now without Figureds:

Val Char Cost
15 STR 5
15 DEX 15
18 CON 16
12 BODY 4
13 INT 3
13 EGO 6
20 PRE 10
14 COM 2 61

6 PD 4
6 ED 4
4 SPD 20
7 REC 6
36 END 8
39 STUN 19 61

5 CV 6
Total Cost: 128

so thats 38 points extra

my way of looking at it is that, by severing these connections, all stats should cost less, because they do less. to that end, i think it is then neccessary to think about what stats actually need to stay. personally, i think you will find that severing Chars and adjusting costing appropriately you should come to an area where the differences are similar to the Wuxia example char (as in very little difference)

[JakSpade]

The following is just my opinion, ad nauseum... :D

Base Characteristics

The way I see it, all characteristics should have at least some affect on the game, otherwise, it takes away from the experience. There's always someone who wants a super-beautiful character, who believes that buying 60pts of Comliness is going to solve all his or her problems, and then be disappointed when the rules system doesn't support their original impressions.

Characteristics are divided into several groups, based on their usage:


Physical: Health, Power and Coordination
Mental: Knowledge and Willpower


I always feel like there should be a Spiritual aspect of character development, but that's kind of hard to add tangibility to that, and just fold that under Mental.

Under Physical aspects, we have Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, which cover most of the basics. We could break Dexterity into a group itself, but initiative is rarely an issue, and it can model coordination and fine motor skills fine, or can be modified with talents to fit the bill.

Under Mental aspects, there's Intelligence, and Ego, which I feel should cover Knowledge, and Willpower. Anything else, I just can't quantify, unless you're thinking something along the lines of Wisdom, which just doesn't seem to fit (could be more of a talent).

I would suggest adding another grouping, which would contain:


Interaction: Presence, Comliness and Perception


Presence and Comliness deal with outward interaction, where Perception deals with being aware and interpreting ones surroundings. These could even be considered Figured Characteristics, having a base value based on the above base attributes.

If characteristics were to change, I'd like to see them set up something like this:


Physical: STR, DEX, CON
Mental: INT, EGO
Interaction: PER, PRE, COM


Figured Characteristics

I'm all for adding Size to figured characteristics, as well as combine PD & ED into Defense. I'm still thinking Speed is a toss up. The Speed Chart has it's uses, and is quite useful at distinguishing characters in combat. I'd probably roll Mental Defense into Figured Characteristics, and call it something like Willpower, but that might or might not work with the scheme of the system.

I'd like to set Body and Stun in figured characteristics, mostly because I think they fit the best here. Defining how much damage, lethal and non-lethal, that someone can take should reside in the figured characteristics.

Endurance and Recovery can be optional systems to deal with powers, magic, and other special abilities.

I think Figured Characteristics should look something like this:


Resistance: DEF, WILL
Physical: SIZE, STUN, BODY, SPD


Movement Types

Just keep all the standard movement types (Run, Jump, Swim, Flying, etc) the way they are, but disconnect the base numbers from powers.

Just thought I'd throw that out there...

jak

[gregghelmberger]

Personally, I'd like to see Dex split up and possibly divorced from CV. Dex inflation, particularly for warriors is something that bugs me and sometimes leads to add situations like agile types (thieves, acrobats, etc) being the best combatants CV wise. This makes more sense in comic settings (martial artists, speedster, etc) but in Heroic settings it can lead to some disconnect.

I strongly agree here. As currently written, Dexterity applies to such diverse factors that it really hurts granularity. A "fast" character is also inherently better with things that require fine manipulation and agility, which doesn't track either from real world experience or from fiction. At the very least there ought to be two characteristics, one that governs speed/agility/nimbleness and another that governs manual dexterity. If you continue the system of basing skills on characteristics (which I like a lot) then the first characteristic could govern things like Breakfall and Riding, while the second governs things like Sleight of Hand and Lockpicking. That is to say, you could then create a slow, clumsy guy who happens to have naturally nimble hands, without resorting to buying lots of levels.

[Vondy]

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

No. It makes a certain kind of sense, but having to purchase up to "normal guy" or better strikes me as tacking on "empty points" to the character just to get to the normal baseline. On the other hand, it does eliminate buying back characteristics and negative characteristic cost, which has always left me with a sort of neurotic suspicion, but then unnatural and irrational numbers do that do me. If you did go this route, however, you could do the following....

Base Package (Everyman)
+X Design Points.

So a superheroic character would get the base package for a normal joe + 350 character points. If he wanted a stat that was lower than normal joe he would deduct the points and add them into his design points. It keeps us working with positive numbers. :thumbup:




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

In 17 years of heroing I've never once used them, or run across a situation where they counted. Almost every GM I've gamed with (and myself) ran with the default assumption of "negative means it doesn't work." Aside from Stun and Body 0 should be "no effect." However, negative characteristics do have one important utility that has to be dealt with if you go this route: recovering from drains. You could write the rule thus "negative characteristics are only for determining recovery time," and then implement a stun-like system for recovering from drains (i.e., 0 to -10 recover per turn, -11 to -20 recover per minute, -21 or more GM's discretion (or whatever works).


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

I like the idea, but I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't rip out the guts of the system and open up a can of potential worms.


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

Please do. The only argument in favor of them is that it "makes sense" for most characters (but not all) with certain primary characteristics should have a commensurately high characteristic that is currently figured from the primary characteristics. The argument is pretty weak, however, because it a point based system I can just buy the commensurately high "figured characteristic" and call it a day. On the other hand, for some concepts I'm forced into buy back mode because I didn't want the figured characteristic as high as it came out to be (and we currently have rules limiting buy-backs).
However, making this change raises a couple of sub-issues:

Sub-Issue #1... in general the pricing will still feel right. I might, however, consider making all the current primary characteristics 2 points except comeliness, which I would consider making 1 point. The potential problems with this are: 1) does that make dex too cheap (I think dex has too big an impact on combat values and would like to see this change), and 2) why should comeliness be worth so much? In terms of the second, I'll address it below.

Sub-Issue #2... this is the reason I still use figured characteristics: I don't want to do the math for reworking this aspect of the system. I don't mind someone else doing it, however... :hush:

If you decide to can figured characteristics you pretty much have to give people the points to buy the newly minted primary characteristics with. The math brains should be able to come up with a metric for you.



Q Should the cost of STR be changed?

IMO, strength is costed correctly for superheroic games and incorrectly for heroic level games. I would like to see it at 2 points per point, but that's because I play heroic level games and generally avoid the caped crusaders.



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

If you are removing figured characteristics then I would argue you have to do so to be consistent. Also, its the only movement power that is figured. My running and swimming aren't affected by my characteristics. What's more, a stronger character who should be able to leap farther can just go ahead any buy the appropriate amount of leaping which would be consistent with the essential logic behind a point based system.



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

I think it creates too many problems to do this.



Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

If the current combat value paradigm is unchanged it should remain 3 points. However, I would like to see the impact of DEX on combat values decrease or disappear entirely. This goes along with my "streamline all primaries at 2 points" comment above. I'll cover this below.



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

I'm generally against creating more characteristics, but for all practical purposes OCV, DCV and ECV are figured characteristics. We don't call them characteristics, but thats what they amount to. What's more, I don't believe new players would have any more trouble with CV and ECV as formalized characteristics than they have with OCV, DCV, and ECV now. At the same time my issue isn't really how we currently handle DEX-OCV, but how much impact DEX has on OCV. I would like to see the formula changed to match skills DEX/5 and the cost dropped.

[QUOTE=Steve Long;1536934]
Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?

In principle I'm for it, but in practice I think its going to require redifining large parts of the system with limited benefit. I would rather see the impact of DEX on OCV reduced.




Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

RAM.




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

Yes. We already have a place on character sheets to list perception rolls, so I don't think it clutters anything. Its there and amounts to a figured characteristic already.



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

I say leave it alone. I would rather see the mechanics for mental powers that require "levels of success" (and presence attacks) reworked.



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

I think the "to hit" method should be the same for everything.



Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

I've been using a modified version of the reputation perk for this. I think it can go the way of the dodo. First off, its costed with an irrational number and that annoys me. Second, you don't get much utility even at half a point.



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

I have been tempted to use a combined characteristic "tough" in heroic genres, but I think the PD/ED divide is absolutely critical in the superheroic genre.



Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

I think having resistance and mental defense cover all potential eventualities cleanly as it is.



Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

What is your name?!!!!
What is your mother's name?!!!!
I will now call down the curse of fire on you!!!
Hold me back!!!
Hold me back!!!
Only an INFIDEL would ask this question!!!

More seriously... the speed chart, while taking a little while to learn, is an essential part of the hero-systems character as a role-playing game. It would also be a serious pain in the tuches to replace... let alone dying a horrible, slow death from my fiery curses!



Q: Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?[/qupte]

I fall into the ignore or design around camp. At the same time, it does have uses, and hero is about being a tool-kit. There are times where these things need to be modelled and there are, believe it or not, people who like combat bookkeeping. I say sidebar it.

[QUOTE=Steve Long;1536934]
Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?


Um... I'm head scratching. I can live with size as it currently is. I would really have to see the system you came up with whole cloth before commenting on this.

[Vondy]

Alright Steve... having survived your rubber-hose interrogation I will now RANT.

I run heroic games. My major peeve with hero (though I use it) is the lack of granularity at the heroic level. Over time I've come to consider the presence of a genre universal strength chart the root of all evil. I say this because all characteristics with the exception of strength currently have an abstract measure that could easily be scaled or adjusted to a given genre, while strength has a concrete measure that works very well for the superheroic genre, while limiting the range of the strength characteristic (and therefore strength rolls) for grittier games. If I wan't to have a range of characteristic rolls that runs up to 15- or 17- for my heroic game I can scale the characteristics to 30 or 40, but then I have warriors who can bench many tons!

There is a simple solution for this: have three strength charts: gritty, cinematic action, and superheroic. The superheroic chart can be the default, while the other two can be GM option. This allows more granularity at the heroic level without seriously impacting the mechanics of the system. The only issue you then have is "what about aliens or supernaturals or giants who can lift more?" There are a couple of options: 1) just let them buy over the benchmarks and call it a day (this works for characters like beowulf, or vampires who can't bench mack trucks but can toss conan around, etc), or 2) create an adder or modifier "uses alternate strength chart." Also, you could provide both options.

I REALLY would like to see this option in the book. I've already done it as a house rule, but I really think the "universal" as opposed to modular tool-kit approach to hero creates problems in modelling genres other than the legacy superheroic default (like exponential strength assumptions). I think the guts will always work for supers, but opening the system up a bit would help us lowly mortals whose swords are only as strong as the hands that weild them.

[Chris Goodwin]

Now this is just an idea banging around in my head and I personally have found problems with it but here I go. Divorce Movement from the Speed chart. All characters will have a base amount of movement they can do in a turn. Of course speedsters and others will buy this up while some will keep it at the base. As I said this is a raw idea but two me it avoids the illusion of moving and then stopping.

Yes. Not just yes, but hell yes. In fact, consider this to be the Meg-Ryan-in-the-diner of yes.

Grrr. You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours.

[eternal_sage]

actually, what i would want would be two seperate books. not this PHB, DMG thing we're getting, but a SuperHEROic and a HEROic book, each with rules tweaked to make sense for those types of games. this is my major peeve with the RAW, because supers and heros don't really meet well in the middle.

[Chris Goodwin]

How so? I see people saying this, but no one says why. Other than saving some points in character creation, what does figuring actually do for the system that's so important? Why can't they be treated the same as primary characteristics?

Back in 1985, I thought Figured Characteristics were one of the coolest things about the system. Having a higher DEX meant you were faster in a way that mattered in combat. Higher STR meant your muscles were tougher and could help you shrug off damage better. A healthier guy (higher CON) has more energy, just because he's healthier.

My vote: keep figured CHA; make removing them a toolkitting option.

[Susano]

Back in 1985, I thought Figured Characteristics were one of the coolest things about the system. Having a higher DEX meant you were faster in a way that mattered in combat. Higher STR meant your muscles were tougher and could help you shrug off damage better. A healthier guy (higher CON) has more energy, just because he's healthier.

My vote: keep figured CHA; make removing them a toolkitting option.

Chris, thank you for summing up what I saw trying to get across.

[eternal_sage]

i can see that point, really, but i think that its really not consistant with the other ideas of the system (nothing free, etc). i also personally find that Chars are to expensive for the small amount that they do, and that by seperating them out, i pay for what i want without paying for things i don't. and limited Chars are really messy, and totally silly, imho, because they don't really seem to make as much sense as just spliting things to begin with.

my 2 coppers, at least.

[Chris Goodwin]

i can see that point, really, but i think that its really not consistant with the other ideas of the system (nothing free, etc).

So, the question really becomes: does adding consistency for consistency's sake make the game any better? I vote no.

I would totally be okay with recosting Primary Characteristics in terms of what they provide in Figured Characteristics, but I'd prefer to keep Figured in the system. If they're not in by default, I'd like to see them as a toolkitting option, but I'd really prefer they stay.

[Edsel]

I printed off all of Steve's original posts in all of the 6th Edition threads and spent hours reading them last night and thinking. It is amazing how little I came up with to respond with though. However the opinions in this post are based only on what Steve has posted in message #1 of this thread, I haven't been influenced by what others have posted subsequently since I haven't read them yet. I will try to keep my comments brief since there is a hellava lot to read in these discussions.


Q: Should all characters start with 0 in all Characteristics?
No, this is too radical of a change.


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

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

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


Q: Should we change the HERO System so that “every point in a Characteristic matters” and to discourage people from buying Characteristics at “breakpoint” levels?
I can't think of anything to add to Steve's comments on this issue.


Q: Should we get rid of the concept of Figured Characteristics, and just make all Characteristics straightforward purchases?
I like Figured Characteristics. To me they make logical sense. Someone with a lot of Strength ought to default to a higher PD and STUN. However I can see how eliminating Figured Characteristics would make the rules easier and not drastically alter things. I don't think I can offer a strong argument for keeping the Figured Characteristics.


Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?
If you eliminate Figured Characteristics this becomes unnecessary. If you keep Figured Characteristics then it probably ought to be raised to 2 points per +1 STR.


Q: Should Leaping be removed as something that’s factored from STR?
If Figured Characteristics go away then this should as well. If you keep Figured Characteristics then it should stay.


Q: Should HTH damage be removed as something that’s factored from STR?
No. To me a STR based damage system for hand to hand attacks (and generally muscle-powered attacks) makes too much sense.


Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?No (especially if Figured Characteristics go away).


Q: Should DEX be split into two or more Characteristics?No, this would be more trouble that it is worth and would be counter to streamlining the rules.


Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?No, for the same reasons given to previous question.


Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

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



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

Making PER a Skill is another possibility, though it would be a bit of an odd duck too. It would start as an Everyman Skill at 11-, costing +2 points per +1 for one Sense Group, +3 points per +1 for all Sense Groups — a structure not quite like any other Skill (though it would allow me to remove Enhanced Perception from the Enhanced Senses list). This makes more sense to me than making PER a Characteristic.
I think I like the idea of making it a Skill.


Q: Should the cost of EGO be reduced to 1 Character Point per point?
No.


Q: Should ECV be removed as something that’s factored from EGO?
No, keep it as it is.


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?
I find the idea of making it a Talent to be appealing.


Q: Should PD and ED be combined into one Characteristic called DEF? If not, should objects be given separate PD and ED ratings?
No I like the granularity of keeping them separate. Objects should get PD & ED instead of DEF to keep things uniform.


Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?
No. Keep is as a Power.


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?
Emphatically No. This is a hallmark of the system and one of the first things that appealed to me in the old, original Champions game. It is a part of what makes the Hero System distinctive from lesser games.


Q: Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?
I like the END system, especially for Heroic games. It also has dramatic appeal for almost all genre. It gets dramatic when the Hero starts burning STUN to maintain that heroic effort. It adds to the game.


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?
No.

[Kdansky]

I thought up quick answers to all posed questions, I might comment on other answers another time, not now. This post is too long anyway. :)


Q: Should all characters start with 0 in all Characteristics?
Start at "average" for things everyone has, rather than 0. Makes perfect sense to me. Also, it's less hassle, and makes very low values very defining (which they actually are, because everyone else bought them up).

Q: Should we get rid of the concept of negative Characteristics?Totally! It's complicated and does not help the game at all. If you get drained to 0, that's it, the stat does not do anything anymore. Also, negative comliness is a disaster rules wise. Stun and body into negatives makes sense though. OTOH one could also define 0-10 body "special/dieing but not dead yet" and same for stun, but I think that works less well.

Q: Should we change the HERO System so that “every point in a Characteristic matters” and to discourage people from buying Characteristics at “breakpoint” levels?
yesyesyes!!!! Less soft spots! And no: I have no good idea how to fix that without changing all (!) scales (which even I don't want, and I am in favour of change).


Q: Should we get rid of the concept of Figured Characteristics, and just make all Characteristics straightforward purchases?
I will cover your back on this one. Figureds are awful and just a leftover from the past.


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

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

I think Con and body are way too expensive, since +1 resistant def (pd and ed) for 3 is not much more expensive than +1 body, and it's a lot (!) better. I believe if you get hit 2 to 10 times, 1 point of defense should cost about as much as 1 point of "pool" (stun/body). I cannot see anyone buying stun if pd/ed is only twice as expensive (because it has to cover two sides, and theoretically we could add mental into that, but these are rare and low-damage). Let's say all three attacks are as common (I would like to see more Mental things, and I think ECV vs DCV and OCV vs ECV would go quite a way for that, I'll write this down somewhere else), and we assume you want to take 3 hits each to make 1 point of def equal 1 point of pool. If defs cost 1/1/1, then that must give us 9 (!) pool for the same three points. Yes, you are right, I think body should cost about 0.5 per body and stun should cost about 1 per 5 stun.

What do you prefer: 2 stun or 1 pd, 1ed? (definitely defenses for me)
What do you prefer: 4 stun or 1 pd, 1ed? (probably defenses)
What do you prefer: 6 stun or 1 pd, 1ed? (getting interesting here)
What do you prefer: 8 stun or 1 pd, 1ed? (I think I'd take stun now)

Con should be about 1:1 due to defenses being cheaper still, or even 2:3. (1:2 is too cheap, I agree). For 2, I'll buy 1pd 1ed. Same defense against stunning, but I take less damage. Mental Attacks will not stun anyway due to low dice. On the other hand, if con is expensive, we will see a lot more stunning due to high price and low (visible) effect. That might be uncool for beginners, as their characters will be low on con (because they don't see the value) and then have stunned orgies, reducing fun a lot. I'm for 2:3, to make high values possible. You don't get much for it, do you?
PD, only vs getting stunned effect (-1). Really cheap, about correctly priced for defenses. Could be -1.5 Too. Or even -2.

Body currently costs 1, as we take a free stun out of it. Change it to 1 if you uncouple figureds. It's just not worth 2.

If you change Body to 1, that makes converting easier. Same goes for Con if it gets cheaper. And really, it's not worth 2, I'd rather buy limited defenses.


Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?
If you decouple figureds, I'm fine with str. It's still extremly highly efficient, but it does not give negative points too (hah, I said it!). If you don't, it's just too good of a deal. If you change the way str adds to damage, this might need looking at again. When in doubt, do something new, we can just play 5ER if we hate it ;) And we can also get used to the new problems, we are used to the current ones :)


Q: Should Leaping be removed as something that’s factored from STR?
Yes, it was weird to begin with. Dex and speed do not add running either :)


Q: Should HTH damage be removed as something that’s factored from STR?
Even though I would want to see "add str to KA" changed, I actually see this working out nicely. If only adding up HA + Martial DC + STR + Weapon + Maneuver + Combat levels wasn't so chaotic! Do something about that!


Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?
If you drop Speed out, make it 2, or else combat levels rise in relative cost efficiency. Buy the way that's actually *easier* to convert, as the combined cost of speed and dex will not change.


Q: Should DEX be split into two or more Characteristics?
Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?

Since we assume disconnecting figureds, I can live with it. Limited DEX (only cv / no cv adjustment) is now an option. We tried the CV approach once, but that wasn't so interesting. Dex became lighting reflexes for many characters.


Q: Should INT be “redefined”?
I like the current definition, because it is NOT "intelligent". If I want to play an intelligent character, well, I just play myself. I can't play more intelligent than I am. If I am stupid, I take a limitation ("Stupid") and then play the idiot. Int has never worked for me at all. I am against this change.


Q: Should PER be removed as something that’s factored from INT?
Since I see INT more as PER than PER as INT, why not rename INT to PER and don't have an INT stat? :) That would suit me a lot better. Converting it also makes sense. I don't like the Skill, that's like DnDs Spot Check. Everyone can spot, and you cannot "learn" that (mostly). Or else I want to go to Eye-School and get rid of my glasses. Skill does not fly with me, honestly, it just IS not a skill.


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

Why not make EGO cheap (1 or 0.5) and only figure D-ECV off it? O-ECV has to be bought separately (with specialiced levels, I would say). Everyone has decent willstrength (or can have) and mentalists don't get off easy (currently ECV is nearly auto-hit).


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?
Perk makes sense to me. I hate that statistic.


Q: Should PD and ED be combined into one Characteristic called DEF? If not, should objects be given separate PD and ED ratings?
Nooooo! That makes for incredibly simple characters without weaknesses.


Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?
Naaah, not really necessary. It's rare enough anyway. And if Ego was only 1 point for defense, people will have higher resistances (currently they are lacking I think).


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?
Speed is complicated
Speed is very complicated
Speed is one of the most defining hero elements and it's interesting. Keep!


Q: Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?
NO! It's one of the most interesting things in the system. I would actually favour easier to manage long-term END rules, so I can use them easily.


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?
I am still for the "growth/shrink" table with all variants (advantages and disadvantages) and then just writing that down in the power list, as it's way too complicated to simulate with a single stat. Also, if you start at 10, you can go up a lot but not down a lot. That's impractical. Cost is also very chaotic.

[Toadmaster]

You can't please everyone all of the time, but I am pretty astonished at the strenght of feeling here.




How so? I see people saying this, but no one says why. Other than saving some points in character creation, what does figuring actually do for the system that's so important? Why can't they be treated the same as primary characteristics?



The reason you are seeing this reaction is because we are talking about certain things that are the essence of the HERO system. Figured characteristics and the speed chart are pretty much unique to HERO. It would be like adding classes or using a d20 in place of 3d6. It might make a good game but it would not be HERO anymore. There are more similarities than differances between HERO and GURPS, the current characteristics and speed are two critical differences that give the two games their personality.



Yes it is true that in play figured characteristics don't make much difference between coupled to primary or seperately purchased as secondary characteristics, but figured characteristics are very much are a part of character creation, design and concept. It has nothing to do with point costs, "free" stats (which they are not since you are paying more for certain primary stats do to their impact in figured).

Figured characteristics are a safety valve or cheat sheet. They help you create an "average" tough guy, long distance runner or weakling. Now certainly you can adjust the figured characteristics and most people do some tinkering here as most people are not creating "average" characters. They help ensure that the strong character with low stun was intended to be a tough guy with a glass jaw instead of a damn I forgot to buy a bunch of stun.

Say I build a brick, high Str, Con & Body but figured characteristics become secondary characteristics, how should these high primary stats fit with the secondary? Is 30 stun alot? How much endurance do I need?

Now compare this to figured characteristics, I have a Character with 30 Str, 20 Con and 18 Body. Taking these stats I now have a ballpark of what my Stun, End, Rec, PD etc should and I can adjust for an even tougher or perhaps weaker concept.

I know just semantics right? No its not this is where character concept comes in, again lets take that 30, 20, 18 character described above.

What is the concept, is this just a big strong tough "normal" human?

If so then the figured characteristics can probably remain pretty close to what they are, but what if instead of the typical big strong fantasy fighter I'm building Steve Austen the 6 million dollar man? Well we know he is pretty healthy because he survived a pretty hellacious plane crash, so the Con and Body figured stats should probably stay pretty close to what the base figured stats, but the Str comes from mechanical replacements (bought as Characteristics instead of powers because they are basically an integral part of him) so maybe some of the figured Characteristics based on Str should be lowered a bit, since we were really aiming at lifting and damage from the bionics not a huge mass of muscle and the associated benefits of extra protection that muscle mass brings.

Lets take a third example what if I have designed a huminoid lizardman character, he may be big and healthy like my Conan clone in the first example but instead of flesh and bone he has a tough scaly hide, not quite enough to call it armor but quite a bit tougher than the typical human "squishy" so I want to buy up his Stun and PD / ED even higher, but End and Recovery can stay the same, he his really tough but his cardio vascular system is basically "human".

Without figured characteristics how do you know what the baseline is?

[Enforcer84]

Do you usually leave them at the figured values?
Very often yes, is this wrong?

[nexus]

Yes. Not just yes, but hell yes. In fact, consider this to be the Meg-Ryan-in-the-diner of yes.

Grrr. You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours.

I think it's an interesting idea but how will Half and Full moves be calculated or would that concept be ditched?

[Chris Goodwin]

I think it's an interesting idea but how will Half and Full moves be calculated or would that concept be ditched?

Half moves might be one of the sacred cows it's time to slay. Though we can keep the notion that performing a combat action ends your Phase; once you've done something, you're done. Maybe moving more than half your "per Phase" movement gives you a combat penalty, but you can still do it.

[Lizard]

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


This, more than anything else to me, would justify a 6e. It's the only major issue I've had with Hero through all of its incarnations, and I would be giddy if you fixed it.



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


Ohhh, radical. But you might be onto something. Of course, this 'disconnects' some logical things, like Stun being related to Body, Endurance to Con, and so on. Perhaps some kind of bonus/point break for abilities which are 'close' to their previous antecedents?




Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

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


Almost everyone views Int as intelligence, not reaction speed, and the fact Science, etc, skills are based off of it adds to that perception. If you have to, I'd say have some kind of 'Mental Dex' that reflects speed of thought and reaction, as a wholly different attribute.



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


Yes. It doesn't work in GURPS; it doesn't work in Hero.


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?


Yes, since almost everything Com might be used for is actually done by PRE. It's a purely descriptive ability; it's like paying points to have a particular color eye.



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


No, for the reasons you mentioned. As an option, make it...erm...optional...DEF=(PD=ED/2). People who want simpler games can do it that way. (Double the cost of all defenses to compensate, of course)



Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?


Ooooohhhh...while the SPD chart is really at the heart of Hero, it is also possibly the thing which most slows down the game and adds confusion, especially in large battles. Further, in heroic level games, almost everyone is SPD 3, making the chart less useful as a means of distinguishing characters.



Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?


Works for Runequest. :)

[Vondy]

Figured characteristics and the speed chart are pretty much unique to HERO.

GDW (many games)
Flying Buffalo Inc (many games)
Dream Pod 9 (many games)
Aftermath --- 1981!
Harnmaster.


To name a few.

The list continues and gets pretty long.

Figured characteristics are not unique to hero.

Whether or not it originated the idea is hard to know as Aftermath was printed in the same year as Champions. Who got to the punch would require more minutiae than I possess.

[BobGreenwade]

As I posted elsewhere, I have a few specific thoughts not covered by these questions, but I'll go into them another time.
Q: Should all characters start with 0 in all Characteristics?

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

While in an absolute sense this appeals to me, I think it’s probably not necessary. Starting at 10s has been a part of every edition of the HERO System, and it tends to go along with the “dramatic simulation” aspect of the system. I don’t mind being a little humanocentric in this regard, either. ;)I'm with you on this one. Starting at 0 would seem an unnecessary complication, not to mention in some ways genre-specific.
Q: Should we get rid of the concept of negative Characteristics?No. Besides the effects of Drains sending the Characteristics into negative numbers (and I'm assuming you'd keep the additional recovery time that'd cause), I actually like the existing rules, at least in principle. One tweak I can mention here is that the CHA Roll for acting should be initially based on the character's normal CHA Roll rather than his current one; I can go into anything else later.
Q: Should we change the HERO System so that “every point in a Characteristic matters” and to discourage people from buying Characteristics at “breakpoint” levels?I actually would like to see more ways of working with this, just so lower-level characters won't seem so homogenous. The 3/5/8/10 effect does kind of leave out a lot of good possible 14s and 16s.

That said, I wouldn't go overboard, and try to make every single point count for something. For example, the "Spell Slot" rule (one active Spell in fantasy games per 5 INT) could simply not round up; you could also put concepts like ICV and PCV into the main book to encourage possibilities of INT/3 and PRE/3. We'll still see a lot of 3/5/8/10, but perhaps not quite so much.
Q: Should we get rid of the concept of Figured Characteristics, and just make all Characteristics straightforward purchases?

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

Sub-Issue #2: If Figured Characteristics are removed, should characters be given more points for character creation?I'll answer these in reverse order: Yes, definitely; I'm not sure, and OH PLEASE GOD NO.

Contrary to your statement, Steve, Figured Characteristics have been around since Day One, and are intrinsic to the system. They are treated differently from Primary Characteristics in more ways than just how their base values are determined; they don't get Characteristic Rolls, buying them "down" is controlled, and their entire perception is something else.

That said, some manner of addressing how much they're affected by Primary Characteristics is called for. For one thing, it seems to me that PD would be affected by BODY rather than STR. For another, I think you could give a formula for END more like 10+CON, and make a similar change for STUN, so the point-for-point from STR and CON isn't quite so severe.
Q: Should Leaping be removed as something that’s factored from STR?This is one thing where I'm with you 100%, and with the same logic. Even in real life great leapers tend to be not-so-great lifters, and vice versa.
Q: Should HTH damage be removed as something that’s factored from STR?

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

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

Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?For these, your answer is also no, and again I agree.
Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

Steve’s Thoughts: Right now, INT in the HERO System is generally defined as the ability to perceive and react to problems and crisis situations quickly. If so, it could be better named, and it should probably factor into how SPD is calculated (see below). And there’s some question as to whether it should be the basis of so many Skills that seem to depend on intellect, memory, and reasoning power. Right now my thinking is we’d be better off to “redefine” it as being basically “thinking power,” and leave the idea of reacting to crises out, or at least only refer to it secondarily.I agree. Refer to reacting to crisis as an optional, secondary effect. Some text on how a player and GM can handle a character who's smarter than the player (or GM) probably would be good here too.
Q: Should PER be removed as something that’s factored from INT?I'm ambivalent on this one. The best alternative I can think of, really, would be to impose a basic 11- PER and let it be bought up separately using existing abilities.
Q: Should the cost of EGO be reduced to 1 Character Point per point?I'm with you here; address the issue with a "Strong-Willed" Talent.
Q: Should ECV be removed as something that’s factored from EGO?I'm inclined to leave it as-is, unless CV is separated from DEX. In other words, treat them both the same way, for consistency.
Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?As much as I'd hate to see it go, just in principle, I think your logic for doing so works, so go for it.
Q: Should PD and ED be combined into one Characteristic called DEF? If not, should objects be given separate PD and ED ratings?For characters, I'm with you' there's enough history in this to leave it as-is. For objects, I'd leave the DEF Characteristic, but allow unbalanced Armor to simulate one being better than the other (as per TUV).
Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?I would. Or maybe you can include a section on optional Characteristics, also including Sanity, Size (below), and other ideas that affect some genres but not others.
Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?I'm for leaving it in place, but it does need to be refined for lower-level games. It works fine when the SPD range is 4-8, but in Heroic games where everyone's 3 or 4 it hardly does anything. Whether you double the value and halve the cost of SPD, or make allowances for fractional SPD affecting the SPD Chart, or come up with some other solution, some greater differentiation is needed.
Q: Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?I'm with you: leave it as an option, but don't eliminate it altogether.
Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?As I mention above, I'd make this optional. It has some appeal, for the reasons you say, but it'd be hard to do this and eliminate negative Characteristics. Also, it doesn't affect all genres.

My general thought on adding Characteristics is: will this really affect all, or at least most, genres? Mental Defense and Size don't really do this, so I'd assume not.

[gojira]

starting at SPD 1 will even the point difference between Bricks and others by 10 points.

Oops, this bit is not correct. Never try to do math late a night, kids.

[gojira]

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think that it should,

I would argue against this. First, many games have a numerical representation of "looks" or "attractiveness." It might seem to some new players that Hero is deficient if it does not. DnD is the primary culprit here, which will condition player to believe a COM stat is needed. But I think Hero was first to have a COM stat, and DnD followed. So I'd like to preserve Hero's firstness here too.

You might consider making COM a cost-free stat. Just write the number in there that you think best reflects the background write-up you made for your character. There's no direct game-play effect. (Buy other advantages if you want those.) That way there's no temptation to treat COM as a dump stat, and no penalty if you decide to improve it.

I could see making COM an optional stat for some games or genres. That's about as far as I'd go.

BTW, I can also see more than one type of character sheet for 6e. Some with COM, some without, and also some with blank space for optional stuff like a Size stat (I'll get into that later) or a COM stat. I think players, as a whole, like being given something that's been customized for them and their character, even a little, and made to feel special. It's a fundamental aspect of role-playing games. Character sheets with a little something extra just for them are one way of doing this.

[gojira]

GDW (many games)
Flying Buffalo Inc (many games)
Dream Pod 9 (many games)
Aftermath --- 1981!
Harnmaster..

First edition Shadowrun too (at least) had something like a speed chart.

[DreadDomain]

Here is another possibility as a base model:


PRIMARY CHAR
STR 10 1x/2x* (Gives CHAR Roll, Damage and Lift/Encumbrance)
DEX 10 1x (Gives CHAR Roll and Initiative)
CON 10 1x (Gives CHAR Roll and Stun Resistance)
INT 10 1x (Gives CHAR Roll and Perception)
EGO 10 1x (Gives CHAR Roll, Mental and Presence Resistance)
PRE 10 1x (Gives CHAR Roll, Presence Damage and Presence Resistance)

SECONDARY CHAR
PD 2 1x (folding PD and ED)
MD 2 1x
SPD 2 10x
REC 4 2x
BODY 10 2x (not really a Primary CHAR anyway)
END 20 1x (getting rid of half points)
STUN 20 1x


* In Superheroic games, you have to buy your equipment and STR cost 1 point per level because encumbrance isn't really and issue and because Lift is more a SFX than anything else. In Heroic games, no point is spent on equipment but Encumbrance/Lift are much more relevant so the cost is pushed to 2 points per level.

In this example, Skills and CV's are based on a fixed value not on CHAR thus the low cost of CHAR.

This base model could then be used as building blocks for any particular setting or genre. So, Jean Valjean, the author of the Miserablian Age could think his setting ask for a few of the Secondary CHAR to be repackaged and for skills and CV tol be based on appropriate CHAR at [7+CHAR/3]. In the Character Creation section of the Miserablian Age, the costs* are defined as :

*I am mostly throwing numbers now but a discussion on how to assigne cost to repackaged CHAR could easily be done in the Rulebook.

PRIMARY CHAR
STR 10 2x
DEX 10 3x
CON 10 3x
INT 10 3x
EGO 10 3x
PRE 10 3x

SECONDARY CHAR
PD CON/5 1x
MD EGO/5 1x
SPD 1+(DEX+INT)/20 10x
REC (CON+EGO)/5 2x
BODY 10 2x
END CON+EGO 1x
STUN CON+EGO 1x

[Toadmaster]

GDW (many games)
Flying Buffalo Inc (many games)
Dream Pod 9 (many games)
Aftermath --- 1981!
Harnmaster.


To name a few.

The list continues and gets pretty long.

Figured characteristics are not unique to hero.

Whether or not it originated the idea is hard to know as Aftermath was printed in the same year as Champions. Who got to the punch would require more minutiae than I possess.

Yes other games have secondary characteristics based on the primary characteristics, but these are usually mostly static, not baseline stats that are easily adjusted.

Whether or not other games have used a vaguely similar set up doesn't change the fact that the current primary / figured characteristics of HERO is a key part of the system, changing it without very careful consideration of the effect is likely to change the game to the point it is the Hero system in name only.

[Vondy]

Yes other games have secondary characteristics based on the primary characteristics, but these are usually mostly static, not baseline stats that are easily adjusted.

Whether or not other games have used a vaguely similar set up doesn't change the fact that the current primary / figured characteristics of HERO is a key part of the system, changing it without very careful consideration of the effect is likely to change the game to the point it is the Hero system in name only.

I disagree. I'd rather not have them. And you have yet to propose an argument for your doomsaying.

[Enforcer84]

That's okay, all of our arguments are based on personal preference anyway. Some of us like the game the way it is some don't. In the end Steve and the ownership will make their decision with our input and if a player doesn't like the result they move on or don't as the case may be.

All we're doing here is airing our opinions. It's not a trial.

[Vondy]

All we're doing here is airing our opinions. It's not a trial.

Nor are repeated opinions - especially dramatic ones - very useful without an argument. The point is: no, its not a trial, but arguments change minds, sandwhich signboards, soapboxes, and prophecies of doom don't.

[incrdbil]

The whole matter boils down to this, on each point. These are the considerations I'm using to format an opinion about each matter.

Will the change help streamline HERO?

Will it make it more accessible to players who may have been deterred before Will it not take away from the games ability to simulate things it has been able to do before?

Will it add to to this ability?

Has some consideration about backwards compatibility or system defining uniqueness been made?

So, no figured characteristics passes this test. Nothing is lost by not having them figured. Starting character points can easily be adjusted. This reduces math in character creation. Overall, a net good. The cry of the way its always been doesnt apply in editon changes unless is a defining system characteristic..and its not. the Speed Chart is defining..but defining because its useful, and serves an irreplaceable purpose that makes the game better than other system with their inferior resolution systems.

Merging PD and ED also passes the test. It simplifies things for players. Nothing is lost, as the ability to easily buy Defense, only vs physical or energy is there. No flexibility is lost. It remds me of the related ideas to combine closely related powers, like HKA and RKA, or EB and HA to simply one ability, with advantages or limitations.

My earlier idea about merging END and STUN faisl thsi test miserably. It still has the bookkeeping per phase, which is the real anoyance, and it changes things too much to harm backwards compatibility of products, and it removes the ability to simulate those with lots of energy, but can't take much damage, or vice versa. Wow, I must have been tired last night..that idea stinks!

Eliminating PRE for levels of a Perk-- It sort of barely passes the test.

Decoupling CV from Dex: Fails the tst. added complexity, broken backwards compatibility. Adds little that can't be doen already with combat levels.

Decoupling movement per turn from SPD. Great idea, severly violates backward compatibility. Unsure if its any simpler for new players. I remember Aftermath, with the 'pahses consumed per action' stat, and spreading a move over different action phases. Still, it smooths the start/stop stutter step of Hero Combat movement.

Removing COM: passes the test with flying colors. simply equate PST COM scores to a perk, so backwards compatibility is made easy. COM is fairly trivial, and worth dropping to clean up the stat block. So many COM points are just wasted just because people want their characters to be handsome to fit with a mental image, but derive no game benefit from it. Ditch the stat..even broken old d20 figured that one out.

Mental DefenseD as an added sat: thats what the power is for. Giving everyone MD screws too much with mental powers, and its adding a nother stat, which is not the goal.

[buzz]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I am strongly in favor of doing this and intend to implement this change unless I am persuaded otherwise by a particularly convincing argument.
Thank God. As changes go, this is low-hanging fruit. Ditch 'em!


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think that it should, and I intend to do so unless someone comes up with a good counterargument that I find convincing. ;)
See above. (I.e., yes.)


Q: Should PD and ED be combined into one Characteristic called DEF? If not, should objects be given separate PD and ED ratings?
Please, yes. If you want to retain the ability to differentiate, let it be an exception, not the rule. E.g., "Only works against physical attacks".


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?
Absolutely.


Q: Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?
Yes. Looking back over the last four-year stretch with my old HERO group, END rarely mattered. It was mostly a bookkeeping annoyance.


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

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

[nexus]

For those that want the Speed chart removed. What is so complicated about it? Serious question.

[JakSpade]

For those that want the Speed chart removed. What is so complicated about it? Serious question.

For me, in heroic games (modern, pulp, western, some fantasy), the speed chart can become more of a hindrance than a tool, especially in a game where speed scores don't vary more than two points or so, say SPD 2-4. I say in cases like this, give the really faster characters/monsters an extra action every other round (players would pay 10-20pts for this ability). This will allow faster characters more of an advantage in a cinematic style.

[edit] Other than that, I have no problem with the speed chart, for superheroes and the higher powered games...

jak

[Fireg0lem]

I'm only going to comment on two things.

Figured characteristics absolutely should go. The idea is fine, in principle, and it does have its benefits, but it just does not work out in practice. The problem is that it adds a whole huge dimension of game mechanics that make it vastly harder to balance and harder to tweak, and removing it fixes several other problems handily.

CON has to be lowered in price if figured characteristics are removed. As others have pointed out, resistance to stunning is not as good as not taking the damage that would have stunned you in the first place.

Personally, I think that DEF functioning as both PD and ED, and just allowing a Limitation for it, is a good solution. First, it's more, uh, HEROtastic, for lack of a better word. It fits the overall philosophy of the system. Second, it solves balance issues. In a superheroic game, physical and energy are about equally likely. In a pulp western game? Not so much. Under the current system this is a problem. Merging PD/ED into DEF fixes this - change the value of "Not vs. Energy" and "Not vs. Physical" to reflect the campaign.

[Kenn]

I'd go one step further. Without figured characteristics, all CON is resistance to Stunning. I'd recommend (and I apologise if anyone else has already said this) that if Figured characteristics go away, that CON and BODY be folded into one stat.

[pawsplay]

Speaking as someone who has been a teaching assistant for a class on human Perception, and someone who has been minimally trained to give IQ tests, I have to say that making Intelligence and perception related is extremely... realistic. It doesn't apply to all domains of intelligence, but there is a strong correlation between perceptual organization skills and general intelligence. While perception also includes some heightened sensory abilities, I think those are best handled as specific modifiers, range penalty reducers, and the like. Someone who was book-smart but generally unperceptive and lacking in sense does not have a high intelligence either in HERO system nor in real world conceptions of intelligence. Although some people obviously do, it is very rare for someone to score a high IQ that does not have good cognitive skills (they would tend to fail tests of problem solving or social appropriateness, for example, and would struggle with tests that measure using working memory).

I think it would be simpler, from a standpoint of theories of intelligence and practical utility, to assign a handful of people +5 INT, "Only for taking standardized tests" (-2) and leave most smart people with 12- perception rolls. INT = Per defines Sherlock Holmes well, as well as Adrian Monk, real world physicist and intellectual Richard Feynman, and so forth. Albert Einstein does not fit this mold, but he had a Disadvantage, Absent-Minded, and probably skill levels in his speciality, so it's doubtful his Per would produce really distorted results in a game. And Einsten had delayed speech development and some signs of dyslexia as a child, so it's doubtful he's a good baseline for intellectual development.

[Andrew Cermak]

Very often yes, is this wrong?

It's not a question of right or wrong, it's a question of how useful those figured values really are. In terms of PD, ED, and SPD, I've got a strong feeling that the answer is usually "Not very."

I'm sure the mileage varies for the other figured characteristics, but if the main argument for keeping figureds coupled to primaries is that it saves us a little time in buying Rec, End, and Stun for some characters, then I don't think that's a very compelling reason in the face of the arguments for decoupling.

[steamteck]

T


So, no figured characteristics passes this test. Nothing is lost by not having them figured. Starting character points can easily be adjusted. This reduces math in character creation. Overall, a net good. The cry of the way its always been doesnt apply in editon changes unless is a defining system characteristic..and its not. the Speed Chart is defining..but defining because its useful, and serves an irreplaceable purpose that makes the game better than other system with their inferior resolution systems.

Merging PD and ED also passes the test. It simplifies things for players. Nothing is lost, as the ability to easily buy Defense, only vs physical or energy is there. No flexibility is lost. It remds me of the related ideas to combine closely related powers, like HKA and RKA, or EB and HA to simply one ability, with advantages or limitations.



Removing COM: passes the test with flying colors. simply equate PST COM scores to a perk, so backwards compatibility is made easy. COM is fairly trivial, and worth dropping to clean up the stat block. So many COM points are just wasted just because people want their characters to be handsome to fit with a mental image, but derive no game benefit from it. Ditch the stat..even broken old d20 figured that one out.




See removing figured characteristics to me means I now have to buy them up to logical levels for the character more trouble just as much math if not more. figured characteristics are as integral as the speed chart to me. In fact if I had to choose bye,bye speed chart. Speed chart is not a deal breaker for me figured Stats probably would be.:D


merging PD and ED just complicates matters for also every character design my game has ever seen. Everybody has a different ED and PD. I think objects should have separate PD and ED myself

The perks of "beautiful" etc instead of a COM type Stat is one of the things my group REALLY hates about GURPs. They like a comparable number as opposed to a bland and ambiguous perk.

[steamteck]

How so? I see people saying this, but no one says why. Other than saving some points in character creation, what does figuring actually do for the system that's so important? Why can't they be treated the same as primary characteristics?


OK, as I've said several times but I guess you missed my repeated rantings.. Its logical and elegant to me personally. It makes sense that the figures are based on the primaries the way it is. It also makes character creation quicker and easier as I have a baseline for Stun etc with that STR and CON and I rarely change figureds except PD and ED. Without them there is no logical or normal Stun, EN etc for any levels of the primaries. A newbie could easily accidentally design a theoretically simple build strong man who is as easy to KO as a average citizen and doesn't have to EN to support his STR. Removing them seems to cater to odd and not normal character designs or calls for system purity ( which often ignores ease of play to me) while making what should be basic builds harder.


Also a question to those who seem to want to drop as many characteristics as they can ( i guess you'd have liked to Fantasy Trip , 3 characteristics) :doesn't anyone else use characteristics to get a handle on their character. Numbers give to feel that a perk could never give IMO. My player have pretty strong feelings often whether their Stat should be a 14 or 15 etc.

[GloryFox]

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

The number 10 has always been a basis to show what normal is. It’s a happy medium; I see no reason to change, as it is a happy medium to define normal with normal attributes people. Super people should have super attributes thus the synergy for secondary attributes are vital for a starting point for character costs.


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

No if you are allowing a negative characteristic for one stat then you should allow it for all stats. Zero is a happy medium for non-existence as is. Anything Below as a penalty is a measurement for powers that drain your ability to recover those points.


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

I agree with this argument. INT issues can be dealt with on the skills side of things. Skills IMO should be [4+STAT/2] or [9 or less for 1 point at base 10 +1 per 2points x2] but that can be a different discussion altogether.


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

Figured characteristics have been a staple of the HERO system from 28-29 years ago. Please don’t change it, the math is very easy to calculate and shows how various aspects of the characteristics themselves inner relate to the primary aspects of STUN, END, REC, SPD, ED and PD. Again don’t change it please. It provides a little more realism to the game overall and rewards (synergies) characters who are in fact one stat aspect characters. It does no harm to the game by leaving it alone but can do harm by removing it since synergy is not a bad thing to have in the game. STR in reality does have an effect on body mass and muscle tone thus PD. Your Health does have an effect to withstand shock from energy, and does provide the bodies with the ability to withstand some stun type damage. Allow synergy in the game, it’s a unique aspect of the HERO system itself that has been around for 28-29 years and no one has brought up a good argument on why some stats should not synergies with secondary attributes. Secondary Attributes are an exception for the rule that powers cost character points since starting values are determined by primary attributes.
SEE QUESTION ONE RESPONSE AGAIN.


Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?


This goes back to an issue I’ve had with the HERO system 28 years ago. An 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 should matter more for STR and can be reflected in the dice quite easy. This is an issue for damage classes in general. I truly believe that STR should be a x2 cost because of its affect on figured characteristics, and various ways of pumping damage output of STR based DC”s. As a house rule we allow for +1 Normal STUN damage for STR that ends in 1,2,6, and 7 and d6-1 STUN for 4, and 9. Thus someone with STR of 14 does 3 d6-1 damage, and someone with 11 does 2 d6+1 normal damage.


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

Yes I can agree with this. Seems to me that leaping should never out your running ability unless its bought as a power. Otherwise I end up seeing players continue to sell back their Leaping for normal leaping.


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

HTH damage should always be a factor in determining where damage starts with STR.


Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

I don’t think so. It’s fine at x3 cost as DEX plays a big part of whatever your doing including how you hold and handle weapons such as guns.


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

Now your making this more complicated then it needs to be.


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

I think its fine how it is.


Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

INT is fine how it is already. Your big issue is not INT but how skills work in general.


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

I like Presence as a stat. There are just too many cool things that are affected in game play with an active presence. Leave presence as a STAT alone IMO. The only modifier to this would be your PER roll DC. (SEE STR REVIEW FOR DETAILS) Furthermore it also provides some great opportunities such as.

PLAYER “Is the babe in crisis hot?”
GM “8 COM, No she is a ginger, but she makes up for it with a great personality 18 PRE”


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

No, your willpower is a powerful aspect of your character and who you are as a person. Keep it at x2 cost per 1 point of Ego.


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

Yes, keep it as a part of EGO.


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

This is a great role-playing aspect for things like the following.
PLAYER “Is the babe in crisis hot?”
GM “20 COM, yes she is hot, but she has the personality of a fish with 5 PRE”
Please keep comeliness in the game its low cost is reasonable enough.


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

PD vs. ED separation is a cool thing for Special Effects. That high PD rubber HERO who is has low ED vs. things like fire, lighting, and such without dealing with a low ED through aspects of the game like vulnerabilities or susceptibilities disadvantages.


Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

That’s a silly question the system works already don’t fix what is not broken.


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

I agree with Steve. SPD is a good system for who goes first. It dramatically changes several aspects of the game itself.


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

END is great for the reasons stated above. Plus there are many genres that have a need for END like Magic Systems and such.


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

SIZE should always remain as a power. It might be passive but can be bought as such already as a power.

[Cardinal]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: This is an interesting issue. On the one hand, it’s hard to argue that EGO is somehow twice as valuable as STR, INT, or PRE. Furthermore, many, many heroes are supposed to be “strong-willed,” but at 2 Character Points per point of EGO few of them can really afford to be.

On the other hand, changing EGO to +1 point per point would make it veeeeerrrry easy for characters with Mental Powers to obtain outrageously high ECVs (though the counterbalance to that is that, in theory at least, many more characters would have higher ECVs than 3 because EGO’s now cheaper). The cost of EGO is really part of the way that Mental Powers are balanced in the HERO System, and my inclination is to keep things as they are. But perhaps adding a ‘Strong-Willed” Talent through which characters buy EGO only to make EGO Rolls would be a worthy addition to the rules.


I have been pondering Ego for a little while. I agree with you assessment that the current cost structure is such that characters, who are supposed to be "strong willed", do not have the pts to put into these powers or just don't bother.

In addition, certain constructs, such as the strong willed Telekinetic, are a little more expensive than their practical effect (i.e. adding BOECV to TK means that you get virtually no str for the campaign max AP).

Rather than reducing the cost, I think it might be worth instead modifying the definition of EGO to make it a more flexible a characteristic. I would recommend one of three modifications. First, allow a player to define at creation whether an attack is based on EGO or DEX. In both cases, the default would target DCV (i.e. you use your mind to shoot beams which someone can dodge with their quickness). Therefore, a super agile Martial artist hurling shirken at the foe would use dex, while a strong willed super emerald guardian would use his mind to shoot beams of energy from his willpower powered lapiz staff.

Second, I would consider if there are other items that should be based on Ego, such as resisting stun. This would allow someone to play mentalists or Energy Projectors who do not have obscene Cons, just so that can survive a hit without being stunned (I generally agree that Con is an gimiced stat). This would not be applicable if you eliminate figured characteristics.

Third, I think MD should be a figured Characteristic and it should be based on EGO. Again, not applicable if you eliminate figured characteristics.

If you opt not to add additional features to EGO to make it worth the cost, I strongly recommend reducing the price to 1 pt per.

[Toadmaster]

Nor are repeated opinions - especially dramatic ones - very useful without an argument. The point is: no, its not a trial, but arguments change minds, sandwhich signboards, soapboxes, and prophecies of doom don't.

Did you read my other post, the one you quoted a completely irrelevant portion of for your post? The current system allows a wide range of variation based on character concept. Removing or drastically changing the relationship between primary and secondary characteristics is pretty much a new game.

Hero has a careful balance between characteristics, powers and skills. All I said was tampering with any of these needs to be done very carefully.

There are a lot of posts suggesting HERO be made more like other games, many of us like it the way it is or we would be playing those other games.

Ultimately I guess Steve will have to take the chance that he can get more new players he loses with the changes. It is not up to us to sell him on why HERO doesn't need dramatic change, failure to do so will result in loss of long time supporters.

Just because you don't agree with the points does not mean they are not being made. I have read quite a few explaining why they feel strongly about stats not being changed, perhaps we are not on the same website. I read some comments from Susano that seemed pretty rational to me.

Hey, I guess I'll go join Chad and let Steve play with his new friends, there is that other Steve that sells a pretty good point based game and its been awhile since I gave him any money. He has made it plain he will do as he pleases anyway so there is no reason to get my blood pressure up while you guys invent the new HERO in name only.

Awesome idea Steve, Bye.

[Andrew Cermak]

OK, as I've said several times but I guess you missed my repeated rantings..


Other than a vague reference to confusing newbies, you hadn't really said anything.



Its logical and elegant to me personally. It makes sense that the figures are based on the primaries the way it is. It also makes character creation quicker and easier as I have a baseline for Stun etc with that STR and CON and I rarely change figureds except PD and ED. Without them there is no logical or normal Stun, EN etc for any levels of the primaries. A newbie could easily accidentally design a theoretically simple build strong man who is as easy to KO as a average citizen and doesn't have to EN to support his STR.

A newbie who relies on figured values for their stats is going to have a bad time of things anyway. Figured values will rarely get a PCs defenses in the vicinity of where they need to be, and they will almost never get his SPD there. Figureds don't address this problem; sample characters and charts with suggested values do. It doesn't make sense to keep figureds to solve a problem that they don't actually solve.

[Andrew Cermak]

The current system allows a wide range of variation based on character concept.


Under the current system, strong guys automatically get tougher and recover faster, agile guys automatically act more often. That's a restriction in variation, not an aid to it.


Removing or drastically changing the relationship between primary and secondary characteristics is pretty much a new game.

This makes zero sense to me, I'm afraid. Once you're done creating your character, figured characteristics cease to matter at all, and they only matter for a brief part of the character creation process. That makes them a very small part of the system.

[Chris Goodwin]

If figured characteristics go away:

STR only provides lift and Hand-to-hand damage. (Assuming Leap is divorced from STR.)

DEX only provides CV, fodder for DEX-based Skills, and initiative.

CON only provides STUN resistance.

BODY only provides hit points.

In that case, CON and BODY absolutely should be folded together.

I think I've posted this, but I think that PD and ED should be folded into DEF. If we're doing all this other stuff.

COM is being eliminated.

As it is, INT only provides PER as well as fodder for INT-based Skills. There have been proposals floated to remove it or replace it with PER.

There have been proposals to divorce CV from DEX, which means one of DEX's functions goes away.

There have been proposals to divorce Skills from Characteristics entirely, which removes one of INT's two functions and one of DEX"s remaining two. We would then replace INT with PER and replace DEX with Initiative.

PRE's purpose so far is Presence Attacks, defense against PRE Attacks, and PRE-based Skills. Divorcing Skills from Characteristics removes one of those things, and defense against PRE attacks can be handled by EGO. Because we need something for it to do...

We could, if we wanted, divorce hand-to-hand damage from STR (because if it doesn't make sense for a character with high STR to be extra tough automatically, why does it automatically make sense for a guy who can lift a lot to hit harder? And we have a Power to represent hitting harder), and it would then make sense to remove Presence Attacks from PRE; Presence Attack could easily turn into a Power as well. So we've eliminated PRE and turned STR into Lift.

That leaves us with:

LIFT
INIative
BODY
PER
EGO
nDEF
SPD
REC
END
STUN
CV
ECV


Now, am I going to far with "divorce X from Y"? It depends. If we're taking some things out because they don't make sense, why draw a line? Any line we draw is arbitrary. So why not take out everything from everything?

This list I've come up with? I don't know what it is, but (IMO) it's not Hero.

[steamteck]

Under the current system, strong guys automatically get tougher and recover faster, agile guys automatically act more often. That's a restriction in variation, not an aid to it.





This makes zero sense to me, I'm afraid. Decoupling things that make sense for a characteristic to effect makes poor logic. Glass fragile strong guys or ( even more bizarre) slow as normals guys with Spider-mans agility should not be the norm that you have to adjust and change to get them where 99% of characters should be.. Actually It makes so little sense to me I can't fathom why its such a big deal to people.:confused:

[Andrew Cermak]

This list I've come up with? I don't know what it is, but (IMO) it's not Hero.

It's also not a list anyone but you has actually proposed.

Decoupling figureds doesn't by necessity lead to anything else on that list. Suggesting otherwise is just a slippery-slope argument.

[steamteck]

Other than a vague reference to confusing newbies, you hadn't really said anything.

A

I disagree. I feel I said plenty and not vague you may not think its a rational or valid argument though.That's OK your arguments strike me the same way. I don't see a your arguments as compelling. I think we just see things THAT differently so talk pass each other without getting each others point. :nonp:

[archermoo]

it’s a unique aspect of the HERO system itself that has been around for 28-29 years

This goes back to an issue I’ve had with the HERO system 28 years ago.

Just as a minor note: Champions was first published in 1981. That means somewhat later this year it will have been available to be played for 27 years.

[steamteck]

A newbie who relies on figured values for their stats is going to have a bad time of things anyway. Figured values will rarely get a PCs defenses in the vicinity of where they need to be, and they will almost never get his SPD there. Figureds don't address this problem; sample characters and charts with suggested values do. It doesn't make sense to keep figureds to solve a problem that they don't actually solve.


My newbies disagree with you. It simplifies their life incredibly. We only change PD and ED for the most part.

[Andrew Cermak]

This makes zero sense to me, I'm afraid. Decoupling things that make sense for a characteristic to effect makes poor logic. Glass fragile strong guys or ( even more bizarre) slow as normals guys with Spider-mans agility should not be the norm that you have to adjust and change to get them where 99% of characters should be..

A guy with really good hand-eye coordination doesn't necessarily move faster than the average person. A guy who is really hard to kill (say, someone blessed with virtual immortality) shouldn't necessarily be harder to knock out than the average person. And while it might not be logical, if I want to build a guy who is really strong but has a glass jaw, I currently have to sell back more characteristics than the system will allow me to.


Actually It makes so little sense to me I can't fathom why its such a big deal to people.

It's not a big deal by itself. It's just one more data point against the value of figureds. Combine it with the fact that figureds require more math, are inconsistent with stated design philosophies, and arguably make Str more valuable that it should be, and you've got a decent collection of reasons for getting rid of them.

[steamteck]

How about this? Speed is automatically rounded not bought up to the next level and is figured Stat like CV that is not buyable up.

[Andrew Cermak]

I disagree. I feel I said plenty and not vague you may not think its a rational or valid argument though.That's OK your arguments strike me the same way. I don't see a your arguments as compelling. I think we just see things THAT differently so talk pass each other without getting each others point. :nonp:

You had only made one post on this thread at the time I made the comment you were originally responding to, and in that post you hadn't said much on this topic.

I can't be blamed for not taking future posts of yours into account.

[CourtFool]

Under the current system, strong guys automatically get tougher and recover faster, agile guys automatically act more often. That's a restriction in variation, not an aid to it.

I think that is a good point.

[archermoo]

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

I like the idea in the abstract, but I don't think it adds enough to the system to make it worthwhile.


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

Yes. This would require some changes to the way drains and such work, but I think it would be worth it.


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

I don't see any point to this one.


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

Yes please, very much. This is one thing that has been bothering me since I started playing Champions in 1981. It is the one thing that has stood out like a sore thumb loudly singing "one of these things is not like the others".


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

I think that dropping the cost of DEX to 2 might be worthwhile, though that's about it.


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

Almost certainly needed.


Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

Not if figureds are removed.


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

Yes.


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

No.


Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

Down to 2 would be reasonable in my opinion if figureds are gotten rid of.


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

No.


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

No.


Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

Possbily, though I don't see any reason to.


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

Only if INT is redefined. :)

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

No, I don't think so.


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

Certainly not.


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

I like it, though I'll have to say I'm not overly attached to the concept.


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

No, and yes.


Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

I like the idea, and have run it that way myself several times.


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

No. Please no. I would not consider any game that did not include the Speed Chart to be HERO. As staunch a fan of HERO as I am, I doubt that I would continue buying HERO products if the Speed Chart were to be removed. It is to me THE thing that defines what HERO is. Without Figured Characteristics you can still make the same exact characters. Getting rid of the Speed Chart would fundamentally change how the system works and would change it into a game that I cannot imagine that I would have any interest in playing.


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

I don't feel quite as strongly about this one as I do about the Speed Chart, but were END and END Costs be removed I would probably house rule them back into the system.


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

No real interest in this one. I'd argue against it on the grounds of not adding characteristics without good cause.

[GloryFox]

Just as a minor note: Champions was first published in 1981

Just as a minor note I have my Black and White copy of Champions here and it says 79.

[JmOz]

Two things just occured to me about decoupling Figured charactristics

1: the rule about every point of body suffered is automaticaly 1 point of stun should be abolished if the figured characteristics are droped. Not saying body damage should not hurt, just that let defenses do there work

2: If the decoupling happens I would like to see EC's become more liberal about characteristics in them, and if so a example of a EC: Strongman, including STR, Con, Stun, etc...

[Steve Long]

I'm really not a numbers guy, and I'd really like to contribute to 6th edition... at least somehow.

No worries, Jak -- you don't have to be a "numbers guy" to contribute. As I've often said, while I'm certainly happy to look at the numbers someone's run on a particular issue, rarely do I decide any rules issues solely on the basis of math. Even in the HERO System, meaning cannot be contained wholly within numbers. ;)

[archermoo]

Just as a minor note I have my Black and White copy of Champions here and it says 79.

That's interesting, since Steve Peterson gives a pretty lengthy description of what he and the original Champions creators went through to get the book printed and ready to go for the 1981 Origins convention in the article he wrote for the Champions 25th Anniversary edition that was published in 2006. The actual number of years since Champions came out seems an odd thing for everyone involved in that book to have gotten wrong.

[John Desmarais]

Okay, read through the list of possibilities, while I am not in favor of the removal of Figured characteristics, as I feel it is one of the important flavors of Hero I can see your point in it.

Ditto (in both respects).


As per cost changes, I would like to speak up in favor of as a standard (see below) of at least reducing CON's cost to 1 if you are droping the figured Characteristics, In my opinion Con's primarily a form of framework for figured characteristics, while the help vs stunning is nice I can just plop down points for defences at about the same cost to prevent stunning and prevent me from taking stun damage, just not seeing the 2 point value if it does not have it's figured.

I gotta agree here. Once you divorce CON from ED, STUN & END, it's not worth 2 points anymore. At this point it's just defense against being stunned and CON checks. (Actually, I kind of wonder if it's even worse 1 point per - the same number of points spent on PD & ED would probably have more effect in combat than CON).

[Steve Long]

Just as a minor note I have my Black and White copy of Champions here and it says 79.

To echo archermoo's comments -- I'm not sure if there's a problem with your book, or something's being misread, or what... but even the original creators of the game will tell you it was published in 1981. They've said so in print.

[incrdbil]

For me, in heroic games (modern, pulp, western, some fantasy), the speed chart can become more of a hindrance than a tool, especially in a game where speed scores don't vary more than two points or so, say SPD 2-4. I say in cases like this, give the really faster characters/monsters an extra action every other round (players would pay 10-20pts for this ability). This will allow faster characters more of an advantage in a cinematic style.


jak

I guess I just don't see the problem--if almost everyone has the same speed, there's nothing complicated about it.

Trying to work out those who have more attacks without a SPF chart seems to be a lot harder than workign with a SPD chart when everyone has the same SPD.

and another thought on figured characteristics: its simpler to decouple than increase STr and CON to the point that you dont get more value out of them than what you pay for them. we al know making a low STR and CON character with decent REC, END, STUN is a losing game--to use someone elses phrase, 'paying to suck'.

For the simplicity of just saying 'stats start at certain amounts, buy them up to what you want', coupled with restroing some balance while maintaining the most flexibility in creating character creation, decoupling figured characteristics from primaries comes out as the better options. Simpler, allowsall of the same possibiloities, and has a better game balance to it.

[Yansuf]

Rather than give my opinion on each proposed point (I don't think Steve really needs a poll) I will comment on a few that I think I have usefull info on.

Should we eliminate negative characteristics?
If so, what about STR for children, small animals, etc?
Possible solution, for STR allow decimal values below 1, so a chipmunk might have a STR of 0.1, etc. Have to work out how to effect this with drains, etc. though.

Should we add size as a characteristic?
Possible, but based on my experience with C&S this will cause problems with what is the meaning of your STR score, unless very carefully done.

Should each point of a characteristic mean something?
Absolutely, IF a simple way to do it can be worked out. That is the problem.
For strength, (with figured characteristics still in) I have used the following:
10 STR 2d6 damage
11 STR adds one to Stun
12 STR 2d6+1 damage
13 STR adds to figured PD, REC & Stun
14 STR 2 1/2 d6 damage
15 STR 3d6 damage (plus adds one to Stun)
16 STR 3d6+1 damage
17 STR adds one to Stun
18 STR adds to PD & REC
19 STR 3 1/2 d6 damage (plus adds one to Stun)
20 STR 4d6 damage
21 STR adds one to Stun
22 STR 4d6+1 damage
23 STR adds to figured PD, REC & Stun
24 STR 4 1/2 d6 damage
25 STR 5d6 damage (plus adds one to Stun)
26 STR 5d6+1 damage
27 STR adds one to Stun
28 STR adds to figured PD, REC & Stun
29 STR 5 1/2 d6 damage (plus adds one to Stun)
30 STR 6d6 damage
etc.
Arguably, Dex and Con do have an advantage to each extra point: Dex is going earlier in the phase (and decrease cost of added SPD by 1); Con is being harder to "Stun".
Body clearly has an advantage for each +1.
Ego has the better resistance to some mental attack effects.
PRE has better defense against PRE attacks.
So Only INT seems to have no benefit from a +1 (I am assuming the proposal to replace COM with perk/disadvantage is going to be adopted); at this time I don't see any good way to fix that, but maybe someone else will.

[Spudboy]

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

Eh...not sure about this. Leaning towards No.


Q: Should we get rid of the concept of negative Characteristics?
No



Q: Should we change the HERO System so that “every point in a Characteristic matters” and to discourage people from buying Characteristics at “breakpoint” levels? No



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

YES


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


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

Yes- I'd estimate 450 for starting Champions characters



Q: Should the cost of STR be changed? No



Q: Should HTH damage be removed as something that’s factored from STR?
No


Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?
That's a tough one. I'd like to see some playtesting where it's done at 2pts per pt of DEX

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

I like COM, but I understand your reasoning. Maybe making COM more useful and making it 1 pt per point? COM rolls to add to seduction or persuasion? Just a thought....

[incrdbil]

Just a thought--without figured characteristics, REC may cost too much at two points per 1 to bring it up to even minimal combat levels. How about 1/1 REC?

[steamteck]

You had only made one post on this thread at the time I made the comment you were originally responding to, and in that post you hadn't said much on this topic.

I can't be blamed for not taking future posts of yours into account.

Ditto.

[caris]

Ok, pretty much everything here does not interest me in the least. I don't have a need for any of the changes, but could pretty much ignore the truly annoying ones except one.

Dropping SPD/Speed chart is a deal breaker for me. The Speed chart is one of the few ways in any RPG system where I have truly felt that I as a player was able to make truly significantly meaningful tactical decisions that weren't just manipulating bonuses to my roll to hit or picking out how much damage I did.

[Fedifensor]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: My feeling on this is no, they should not. I think regardless of the side benefit of getting Figureds, each Primary Characteristic provides one or more valuable functions that justify its current cost. Some argument could perhaps be made for CON, since Skills aren’t based on it, but I think that “resistance to being Stunned” is worth 2 Character Points per point — if I change it I have to re-examine every character built in terms of offense and defense, and so do players.

This, by itself, would ensure that I skip 6E. As it is, I don't believe CON with the -1/2 No Figured Characteristics limitation is worth the points. Leaving it at 2 CP per point without figured characteristics means that defenses like PD and ED are hugely undervalued. Active Point limits aside, it's more efficient to buy up PD and ED (which means you take less STUN) than to buy up CON (which limits how much STUN you can take before being stunned).

Really, CON is the lost stat in HERO. In other games, it determines "hit points", resistance to debilitating status effects (poison, disease, etc), long-term endurance, and much more. Almost all of that is handled in HERO by END and STUN. Instead of dropping CON down to a simple resistance to being stunned while leaving the cost the same, it needs to do more.

[vincemcd]

Wow, I'm glad I started this post in Notepad, because it's gotten long....

Starting with a 0 score in every Characteristic gives a much more flexible "starting point." Obviously, characters would be based on more points to compensate. Packaage Deals, such as "Normal Human," can be then used to specify a typical starting value and the corresponding costs. This has the side-effect of making Multiform, Summon, and similar powers more expensive, but that can probably also be compensated for somehow - perhaps a "minimum effect" for a certain cost, then 1:5 for additioanl CPs desired.

If negative characteristics are kept, they need to be explained better. Other than STR, STUN, and BODY, negative characteristics never made much sense to me, and even negative STR isn't all that useful.

Decoupling figured stats makes sense to me. Nothing should be "free" to such a degree that it already is. Include "suggested" levels for what are currently Figured Characteristics, based off the corresponding Primary Characteristics, but don't make it something that everyone "gets" unless they "sell it back." The cost of certain "Figured" Characteristics may need to go down, but the Primary Characteristics seem to be costed right, excepting the other change I suggest below. Said guidelines can help the player in building, and the GM in knowing when to ask "Are you sure you want a STR and CON that high with that little STUN?"

I would't mind seeing the COM stat go, in favor of the Beautiful/Handsome and Ugly talents which would actually do something. It should be possible to buy multiple levels in any of these talents - and perhaps it may make sense to have both, with certain Limitations on one or both. (Adorable Catgirl: Beautiful x3, only to humans (very common, -0); Ugly, only to Ogres (uncommon, -1/2)) "Unattractive" might become a Disadvantage, with penalties inverse of Beautiful/Handsome but none of the benefits of Ugly.

I think mixing PD and ED into a single DEF stat is a good idea. If you need to have someone who's notably more resistant to energy damage, add it as DEF with a Limitation - probably a -1 Limitation to arrive at the same end. If there are enough "sample" characters in the main rulebook that show off this kind of a split, it won't seem quite so unusual to someone whose first taste of HERO doesn't separate the two kinds of defense.

I feel that CV should be moved into a Skill or set of Skills. CV is simply too effective to be as tightly coupled to DEX as it is, and "Combat Levels" never really made a whole lot of sense to me. DEX could then be dropped in cost to 2:1. Having CV as a set of Skills allows DEX to have some impact on combat capability without being overwhelming; this might include "HTH Combat" and "Ranged Combat" skills, with the possibility of using a "Power Skill" roll in the place of these, especially for Multipowers or Elemental Controls that contain both ranged and melee Powers. I've seen this split up, for instance, as "HTH Attack" and "HTH Defense," but I'm not too fond of this split-up. This also helps to avoid "DEX inflation," since it becomes much more cost-effective to up the skill than to up DEX. Making CV into a skill also sidesteps the problem with ECV, since you might use a "Mental Combat" skill based off EGO, and keeps mentalists on the same scale of point-spending as their more physical counterparts.

It might also be worth eliminating REC as a separate stat, letting CON fit its place. This would better justify CON's 2-for-1 cost. You want recovery without being harder to stun, or the other way around? Limited CON. Such concepts are perfectly valid, though I don't think are very common.

I'd really like to see all of the primary characteristics cost the same amount. At the same time, I realize how difficult this would be to balance.

I feel that Perception should still be tied to INT, but should probably be a skill.

I see mixed reactions on adding Mental Defense as its own stat. Perhaps make this a campaign-specific option.

Removing END should probably be an option, as should folding it into STUN. I think END-tracking makes perfect sense for superheroic campaigns, and many (but not all) heroic campaigns.

The Speed Chart, while it's a core of HERO, gives me headaches until I get used to it again after not playing HERO for a while. I think it's a good thing to keep, but it could use some work. Two things in particular don't make sense, and could do with some tweaking:
- Why does Mr. Zoom (SPD 6) have to burn three times as much END than Super Average Guy (SPD 2) to keep their equivalently-costed Force Field powers active for the same period? Perhaps Persistent powers need to have a cost-per-Turn, rather than a cost-per-Phase.
- How come Mr. Zoom only has to pay a third of what Super Average Guy for Flight to end up with the equivalent speed, particularly out-of-combat? Similarly, perhaps movement Powers need to be bought on a per-Turn basis, with their per-Phase movement rate determined from that and their actual speed.

Making a "size chart" and better detailing what benefits size entail, whether being "larger" or "smaller," is full of win. Size is likely one characteristic which should be expressed as positive or negative, with 0 as "human average."

I'm also in favor of putting BODY on the same scale as STUN, an opinion I don't expect to be popular. This has the obvious side-effect of needing to rework "killing damage" entirely, though I can't say this is a bad thing. It would make it much easier to compare a "normal" attack to a "killing" attack, and might make it easier to either bring the "stun lottery" under control or to get rid of it altogether.

[buzz]

I think END-tracking makes perfect sense for superheroic campaigns, and many (but not all) heroic campaigns.
Funny, I'd say the opposite.

Honestly, I'd love to see END go away. Have being exhausted be an exception rather than the rule. I.e., let "exhausted" be a condition that can be inflicted upon a PC, be it by themselves (via a Limitation) or by an NPC or environmental effect.

[ghost-angel]

I'm pretty indifferent to changing Characteristics. I think there are vices and virtues to Negative Characteristics, but I do agree that STR0 means No Lifting, it's weird that -STR still lets you have that ability.

The only loss I would mourn as a Primary Characteristic is Comliness. Sure - we haven't defined a lot of Game Mechanics for it, now we have an opportunity to look at it. What does it add? I think it adds a lot of flavor to the system, it's one of those little quircks that tells me Hero isn't just trying to simulate Combat Effects.

I really like COM, and would like to see it stick around. If it becomes a Perk I'll just cry softly for a while.

As for Figured, I'm all for just decoupling. Remove the math step, add some more points to the Base Character and help bring them to the front. Make them Secondary Characteristics and we'll have more ability to customize a character exactly as we want them.

Looking at Characteristic Costs... Base it on what/how much it provides.
STR - 1pt. (eh, I like 2pts but it's legact and would honestly mess up more than it fixes)
DEX - gets you OCV/DCV, Initiative, DEX Skills - 3pts/lvl
CON - gets you Stunning 1pt/lvl
BODY - gets you your life level 1pt/lvl
INT - gets you PER (I'm against separating the two) and INT Skills 2pts/lvl
EGO - gets you ECV, Mental Effects Resistance - 2pts/lvl
PRE - gets you PRE Skills, PRE Attack Resistance - 2pts/lvl
COM - I like it OK! *sniff* 1pt/lvl

Secondary Characteristics - despite Steve's demonstration, I think we should look at the costs here too.
SPD - 10pts/lvl (it's important!)
PD/ED - 1pt/lvl (no change)
STUN - Keeps you in the fight 1pt/lvl (or if you want to encourage Dramatic Realism 1/2pt/lvl)
REC - Stun,END,BODY regeneration 2pts/lvl
END - 1/2pt/lvl (Make it cheap encourage END)

Just my .02 at the Characteristics debate.

[Hugh Neilson]

If figured characteristics go away:

STR only provides lift and Hand-to-hand damage. (Assuming Leap is divorced from STR.)

DEX only provides CV, fodder for DEX-based Skills, and initiative.

CON only provides STUN resistance.

BODY only provides hit points.

In that case, CON and BODY absolutely should be folded together.

I think I've posted this, but I think that PD and ED should be folded into DEF. If we're doing all this other stuff.

COM is being eliminated.

As it is, INT only provides PER as well as fodder for INT-based Skills. There have been proposals floated to remove it or replace it with PER.

There have been proposals to divorce CV from DEX, which means one of DEX's functions goes away.

There have been proposals to divorce Skills from Characteristics entirely, which removes one of INT's two functions and one of DEX"s remaining two. We would then replace INT with PER and replace DEX with Initiative.

PRE's purpose so far is Presence Attacks, defense against PRE Attacks, and PRE-based Skills. Divorcing Skills from Characteristics removes one of those things, and defense against PRE attacks can be handled by EGO. Because we need something for it to do...

We could, if we wanted, divorce hand-to-hand damage from STR (because if it doesn't make sense for a character with high STR to be extra tough automatically, why does it automatically make sense for a guy who can lift a lot to hit harder? And we have a Power to represent hitting harder), and it would then make sense to remove Presence Attacks from PRE; Presence Attack could easily turn into a Power as well. So we've eliminated PRE and turned STR into Lift.

That leaves us with:

LIFT
INIative
BODY
PER
EGO
nDEF
SPD
REC
END
STUN
CV
ECV


Now, am I going to far with "divorce X from Y"? It depends. If we're taking some things out because they don't make sense, why draw a line? Any line we draw is arbitrary. So why not take out everything from everything?

I think this is an end of the spectrum to explore. If linking things is bad, de-link them. But don't go half way by saying "Not all strong people are tough (PD), hard to knock out (STUN) or have staying power (REC)" while leaving all agile people as great HTH and ranged combatants (OCV and DCV), or even everyone who's good at avoiding being hit (DCV) also good at hitting (OCV).

I agree with Chris - any line is arbitrary. In the absence of a strong reason to change the arbitrary line, leave it where it is.

I would also like to see the impact of adding enough starting points to that Brick character on his colleagues, including the Mentalist with NCM and the Energy Projector. Presently, the system balances pretty well. Show me the elimination of Figured will, if not improve balance, at least not jeopardize it!

[Chris Goodwin]

I think the problems we've been seeing over the years with Figured Characteristics have come from the fact that they're primarily provided by STR and CON, neither of which are costed appropriately for what they provide. The reason for the rule about only being able to buy one down is a direct result of that; otherwise everyone would buy up their physical stats and buy down the figured ones because, hey, free points.

If you make the Primary Characteristics cost appropriately for what they provide in Figured Characteristics, essentially to the point that buying the Primary Characteristics and buying down the Figured Characteristics doesn't bring you ahead in terms of points, then they're no longer a problem.

Is it better to do away with Figured Characteristics completely or to fix the costs so that you get what you pay for and pay for what you get? If we do away with them, we're changing the costs of everything anyway. Why not minimize the overall changes to the system?

[GloryFox]

Posted by Ghost Angel
The only loss I would mourn as a Primary Characteristic is Comliness. Sure - we haven't defined a lot of Game Mechanics for it, now we have an opportunity to look at it. What does it add? I think it adds a lot of flavor to the system, it's one of those little quircks that tells me Hero isn't just trying to simulate Combat Effects.

I would add PRE to that list as well. We have had some great encounters with the high COM low PRE NPC's. You know the beautiful, intelligent, always stuck up girl behind the counter type scenario's. The only change I would not mind is a x1 cost instead of .5, but that can be a house rule over an edition breaking changing rule. COM is flavor important please don't change it to a GURPS style talent or advantage.

[TSandman]

Whew... just read the whole 7 pages of the thread...

First of all, as I've said somewhere else, I'm a false-newbie... meaning I've played Champion some 15+ years back and only got into HERO some months ago. The only thing I was remembering about my old games was Point Buy, Stun, Body, OCV/DCV and the SPD Chart, you might guess what are some features I think are icons of HERO.

Right now, I'm still reading 5er (just began the Combat part) but got through Sidekick completely. I will give my opinion as a Newbie comming from many other gaming systems (tho mainly D20/WoD)


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

If there are sample "average Joe" character for newbies to base their ideas on, I see no real problems with this. Of course, like you said, there must be some way to "compensate" for having to buy it all (as in more points).


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

Personally, if there are Negative Characteristics, there should be for all of them. But then, I still wonder if I have STR 0, why am I able to do something that need strength??? If I have DEX 0, Am I not literally a fumbling idiot barely able to coordinate mind with mouth? If you need to spread STR to negative just to represent Shrunk characters, small animals and the like, maybe the whole STR scale is just not up to snuff...


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

I agree with those, but only because there are Special Events going on when you reach 0 and one or two other further down. If you'd die at BODY 0, then -10 BODY wouldn't be needed. Since it's not the case and you start bleeding/dying instead and cannot continue unaided, it is worth keeping.

Maybe some similar problems could happen at -10 STR, -10 DEX or -10 INT, I don't know.. but would be the only way I personally would justify keeping any negative characteristics


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

I have yet to see systems with more than 5 levels in statistics not having breakpoints. (ok, maybe there are, but there are not legions). Short of using percentage for dice rolling, you need to fit a large range of statistics under a single roll, usually meaning that it's CHAR/x for the roll or as a bonus to a roll. Rolemaster had it, D20 has it, others have it. those who don't have a small range of stats in the 0-5 neigborhood (ok, Ars Magika 4th ed had -5/+5)

Just thought of something that could do the trick... or at least help a bit along the way: the Higher stat could win ties in contested rolls by default.


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

They could go away or stay.. I mean I'm not needing them to breath, but it's kinda logical to see that if you're strong (high STR) and have high stamina (CON) that you can take more punishment (STUN) and recover from it faster. If they go away as figured statistics, there should be some explanation on how normally those are affected by other stats. (ie: normally a high CON would indicate also a high STUN, but not necessarily) Else, it would lead - IMHO - to too many illogical built for newbies/powergamers (they do not understand the logic or don't care)


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

If some characteristic have less effect on gameplay, you would be hard pressed to suggest a high cost for them... If they don't, don't change it ;)


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

Well, I say yes... but with "how much" being dependent on the game (more for SuperHeroic, less for Dark and Gritty) It's simply the fact that you have to buy more statistics without more points, you are left with less points to build the rest. Ergo, every player will think that they'll be short changed and have underpowered character compared to before,


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

Leaping shouldn't be solely based on STR if it's based on it at all. Elephants are strong but cannot jump, crickets aren't but jumps very far (compared to their body length)


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

My thinking is that I wouldn't mind being punched by Mini-Me but would avoid Rambo's fist at all cost. If you are stronger, you can use heavier tools/weapons more effectively or simply impart it with more energy than others could. Unless you think that a baseball bat in the hands of a 15 year old kid hurts as much as one in the hands of a major league player... (that's my rational at least...)


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

Urk!

Now that would be quirky! at least for me and the other I play with


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

Normally, for most people, being good at hand/eye coordination generally mean that they know how to aim something reasonably well, be it a fist or a gun. or be able to get their head out of the way of a fist. For me, it should at least be tied with it, but maybe not wholly based on it?


Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

Maybe you should differentiate thinking from knowing?


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

Many of those stupid people that are keen observers mostly lacks knowledge or exposure to experiences. Perception for me does not mean to perceive quickly, but only to perceive, to be aware of your environment. Most people are more aware of things they understand than those they don't (I doubt that Natives of north america paid real attention to the european's guns before having seen what it could do). To that end, knowing things and being able to think things to logical conclusion should help Perception. As someone said, Einstein was absent minded, and there are some stupid but quick thinking people...


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

If EGO is to the mind what DEX is to the body, then the logic of DEX should follow the one of EGO: If DEX doesn't influence CV, EGO shouldn't influence ECV. if DEX does, then so should EGO.


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

I wouldn't mind.

A simple perk saying how good you look relative to your race should do the trick. As some race are better looking than others for humans (Cats vs Toads), GMs could rate each races preferences if they like, even going to having a matrix of "perception" for each races. But the basic idea is that you are rated "for your race", the rest is fluff unless the GMs/players absolutely want it.


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

That's be Great! As mentioned, players could just specify that they are more susceptible to Energy or Physical attack...


Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

Why not? It would keep the whole concept of Defence together... lets say: Physical Defence (defending the integrity of the character's body) and Mental Defence (defending the integrity of the thoughts, personality, etc)


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

It's one of the Selling point I used to hook some friends!

For me, it's a much better way than to say "you each have 1 attack/round, fighters gets more, etc" If you run a game of "Normals", you basically go in DEX order, if you have many with more attacks, it evenly spreads them, making things like having three attacks back to back while others have one each turn things of the past (which was something I had problems with in other systems, even when you said "everyone get their first attack, then those with mutliple attacks get their others" you could end up with characters each having 1 attack and one getting a "bonus 2" attack at the end...)


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

It's pretty much Plug'N'Play right now... Don't like it? forget it!. Like it? Use it! Really simple already.


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

Could be interresting, but for some games where you have verrra verra small buggers, what would you do? Negative Size???

Or you could have Growth as multiplyer and Shrink as divisor... ex: Human is 1, Ogre is 2, Halfling is 1/2.

Isn't kinda what those powers are right now?

[Shaft]

Some short points:

I like figured characteristics because it appeals to the "builder/munchkin" in me. I like seeing the return that magic numbers give and figured characterisitics is part of the appeal. But simplifying the formulas might make them less offensive to those who don't like them.

I am in favour of removing COM as a stat and replacing it with talents.

I am in favour of dropping BODY and having CON serve this purpose. I'm also in favour of reducing CON to x1.

I am in favour of renaming EGO to WILLpower, and reducing the cost to 1, and having it handle the defensive elements of PRE attacks and be the statistic used to resist mental attacks.

Combine PD & ED into DEFense. ED isn't used enough in Heroic games. Individual PD & ED can be bought up as a defensive power or talent.

I think a new figured characteristic called EGO or MIND should be created and based on the average of INT, WILL and PRE. PRE would be used solely to influence people. This stat would be the base for ECV- and would have the same base cost as DEX (since the three mental attributes each cost 1 pt/pt, raising the EGO attribute by 1 pt effectively costs 3 pts, though it can be done with a combination of INT, EGO and PRE).

I would also be in favour of making STUN based on the average of STR, CON & WILL and adding 10 to this total to give an "average" person a STUN of 25.

PERception should be an Everyman skill with a base 11-.

The cost of attributes in Heroic and Superheroic games should double after 15 (ie, Norm char max should be 15, but don't call it normal characteristic maxima since that confuses things). However, primary attributes exceeding 25 should be considered Superhuman and care should taken to specify that Attributes between 15 and 25 are upper human level, not superhuman.

The SPD chart should be kept, but go from 1 to 6, with 2 being average, 3 being trained and 5 being the upper level of human. I believe combining speeds in this range with two weapon fighting skills and rapid attack skills serve the needs of making fast characters. Superhuman characters needing speeds in excess of 6 can do so, but they start doubling up on the SPD chart. A SPD chart based on 6 allows for a neater division of the 60 second minute.

[TSandman]

Physical: STR, DEX, CON
Mental: INT, EGO
Interaction: PER, PRE, COM

Seems to me quite a bit like World of Darkness...

Physical, Mental and Social, each having Power, Finess and Resistance, for a total of 9 stats...

Much too alike for me, would seems like a ripoff for wayyy for too many :(

[Shaft]

Based on what I said above, the characteristics would look like this:

STR x1
DEX x3
CON x1
INT x1
WILL x1
PRE x1

***

DEF ([STR + CON]/10) -> cost x1. double after 5. Above 10, it's "superhuman"
REC (Base DEF x 2) -> cost x2. double after 5. Above 10, it's "superhuman"
SPD (DEX/10 +1 round down) -> cost x10. double after 3. Above 5, it's "superhuman"
END (STR + [CON x 2]) -> cost x1. Never double. Above 50, it's "superhuman"
EGO ([INT + WILL + PRE]/3) -> cost x3. double after 15. Above 25, it's "superhuman"
STUN ([STR + CON + WILL]/3) + 10 -> cost x1. Never Double. Above 50, it's "superhuman"

***

OCV/DCV = DEX /3
ECV = EGO/3

[Enforcer84]

Nor are repeated opinions - especially dramatic ones - very useful without an argument. The point is: no, its not a trial, but arguments change minds, sandwhich signboards, soapboxes, and prophecies of doom don't.
Has that been proven?
I know at least once I've gone to a sandwich shop because of a board :)

[Enforcer84]

I'm pretty indifferent to changing Characteristics. I think there are vices and virtues to Negative Characteristics, but I do agree that STR0 means No Lifting, it's weird that -STR still lets you have that ability.

The only loss I would mourn as a Primary Characteristic is Comliness. Sure - we haven't defined a lot of Game Mechanics for it, now we have an opportunity to look at it. What does it add? I think it adds a lot of flavor to the system, it's one of those little quircks that tells me Hero isn't just trying to simulate Combat Effects.

I really like COM, and would like to see it stick around. If it becomes a Perk I'll just cry softly for a while.



COM - I like it OK! *sniff* 1pt/lvl
Just my .02 at the Characteristics debate.
ya ol softy!

[Arac-4105]

Speed should stay, I think. It'd require a major overhaul of the combat system to get rid of it, and it's one of the things that makes HERO unique. Combat takes a few times to master, but once the flow is understood, it moves easier than combat in most other systems.

The change I'd suggest is getting rid of PD and ED characteristics. I honestly don't think they do anything that can't be done better by Armor.

[James Gillen]

For those that want the Speed chart removed. What is so complicated about it? Serious question.

What I said about the "Hero System Combat Time Inversion Principle."

jg

[James Gillen]

my way of looking at it is that, by severing these connections, all stats should cost less, because they do less. to that end, i think it is then neccessary to think about what stats actually need to stay.

You're saying basically what I was trying to, but better. :D

jg

[James Gillen]

To echo archermoo's comments -- I'm not sure if there's a problem with your book, or something's being misread, or what... but even the original creators of the game will tell you it was published in 1981. They've said so in print.

TIME PARADOX!!!:eek:

[Enforcer84]

TIME PARADOX!!!:eek:
he's from an alternate Earth Timeline!

[schir1964]

Well, since you closed the Philosophy Thread, I guess I'll have to post in all these other threads. (8^D)

A few things about my posting:

1) I'm going to respond to the question themselves and not comment on the answers Steve gave to them.
2) I"m not going to comment on any cost issues since that is non-issue for me. If a cost doesn't work for a specific game, it gets changed anyway. I'll let the number crunchers on the boards hammer out the costs since that is why they are there. (8^D)
3) Everything in my post are opinions only and any ideas or thoughts on solutions are simply suggestions. I try not to be too wordy and I don't want to worry about forgetting to write "In My Opinion" or "I think" and all that so 'm stating it here to make sure no one gets the wrong idea.

Q: Should all characters start with 0 in all Characteristics?
This would increase flexibility in creating various characters without resorting to Limitations/Disadvantages.

Yes. Reduces complex builds while increasing flexibility.


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

This would remove the necessary chart for what those negative would give you (which wouldn't occur very often anyway depending) and for any character/npc that would require such a odd build could use a Disadvantage specifically geared to the negative consequence and thus get such points back in the category where it is usually expected... Disadvantage.

Yes (Body/Stun not Applicable since characters shouldn't purchase these to negative anyway). Reduces unnecessary complexity and allows for a more flexible build based on a Disadvantage.

Minor Drawback: May need to define or give example of Disadvantages in order to show such points are derived for such a Disadvantage.


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

Not sure this could be done without magnifying the effect at the upper ends. Only other option would be to have bonuses increase exponentially or logarithmically which I think would increase complexity too much for the flexibility it might gain. Perhaps instead an optional rule that would guide one on how to redefine Heroic level games where one can use each point for a benefit for more "realistic" games. Certainly not a default or core rule per se.

No. Decreases flexibility overall. It does make certain genres easier while making other genres more difficult to simulate (a trade off but whether it is an even trade off I don't know).


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

This would increase flexibility a great deal since now any characteristic can be at any level and combined with the "purchase from zero" change it makes creating unique characters a snap. This also reduces the human centric nature of the characteristics to makes creating non-human type games easier.

Yes. Increases flexibility while only minimally increasing character creation or complexity if at all.


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

This would increase flexibility since for many characters (especially non-human) it doesn't make sense for them have increased leaping as STR goes up. Plus, Leaping should be it's own stat, power, skill, or whatever that can be increased on its own. This also opens the possibility of using a custom Advantage to Associate (hint hint) the two things where an association would be logical.

Yes. Increases flexibility while allowing current functionality to still be built easily.


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

This is more philosophical preference than anything else. I think removing it would add more flexibility, but is that gain in flexibility enough to offset the complexity or the drastic changes in the rest of the system.... I can't say. Ideally I would say I would prefer it, but such a decision would benefit most from an initial design of a game system than long established one like the Hero System. Also, one needs to look at what is left for STR to represent. If it is Lifting only, then why bother calling it STR? The most logical change if one had to made is to separate Lifting from STR to become it's own stat, power, talent, or whatever and only let STR represent how much Damage one can deliver, period.

No - Conditionally. STR should only represent HTH Damage, nothing else.

Addendum 1: Leaping should be it's own entity within the game system.
Addendum 2: Lifting should be it's own entity within the game system.
Addendum 3: Manipulation should somehow be expressed as new mechanic that can be purchased in some fashion and scalable. This will resolve a lot of issues I have with Extra Limbs and how certain characters are built for non-human entities.

Note: I have more detailed work for Manipulation as mechanic and will post it to an appropriate thread if you want Steve, but I'm not sure it belongs here.


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

This would add flexibility but would increase complexity. Is it worth it? I don't know. However, a compromise would be to show how DEX is built (like a Talent) so that removing any component from DEX can be done without the need of a Limitation. So basically, each component acts like an Adder to the characteristic DEX. This retains the flexibility without having to add all the complexity of having new characteristics and a method of recombining those components back together when it is appropriate. This same technique could be used for other characteristics that have well defined components with established costs.

No - Conditionally. Dividing DEX up would be too cumbersome, but providing an easy way to split DEX up would be beneficial.


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

Possibly. Unfortunately I have no idea or acceptable method to offer at this time. I think it would offer flexibility, but I can't think of any method that wouldn't be overly complex to implement. See comments above for compromise solution.


Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

This might help give INT a home of it's own to live in. Right now it seems to be a permanent guest in someone's else's home.

Yes - Conditionally. INT needs to be uniquely defined from other mechanics in the system while actually having an effect in either combat or more affect on skills in some way. Again, it needs something to anchor to that can be used in the system more usefully than perception. Perhaps an INT Roll can automatically be rolled once per combat to affect a dice roll or as a Jack Of All Trades skill roll kind of thing (just meandering right now).


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

This would increase flexibility and would not add any real complexity in my opinion.

Yes - Conditionally. Providing INT is given a new home and purpose as described above.


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

Perhaps, but since I found mental powers to be very powerful in my games I limited their use so my experience has skewed my view of ECV which is an integral part of mental powers. So I'll refrain from giving an opinion in this case.

Abstain. I don't trust my own opinion on this enough to give it.


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Since I've never seen a practical in game use of this characteristic (for my games at least) it would seem it should be removed in deference to something that is.

Yes. Unequivocally.


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

Although this might at first appear to be the most logical step, I actually think it goes against the concept of a Tools Kit approach. In my mind, it makes more sense to break things down into their component parts in order to build up instead of making combined entities (like some characteristics) and then tear them down. And this what a Took Kit approach in essence does, it gives you the component pieces in which build what you want.

Now to go a step further to get even farther away from the Human Centric nature of characteristics, perhaps PD and ED should have the option being replaced with other types of the DEF for character building. Perhaps a non-human character doesn't have any innate PD or ED, but instead has FD and MD as innate defenses. The character must then purchase PD and ED as powers if they want them. But this is going back to the difference in philosophical preference for game design.

No. I think a more logical approach is available and can be implemented.


Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

This would be handle by my compromise solution above. Or at the very least, have an option listed for Mental Defense to be default defense like PD and ED. But I think the rules may already have this option, but if I recall correctly it was not immediately obvious as an option.

Neither. See above for compromise solution.


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

I just don't any benefit in removing it. Those who don't like it won't use it anyway. Removal of it for those who do like it will have to refer to prior editions or print out their own Speed Charts and explanations on how to use them.

No. Reduces options and doesn't add anything other than perhaps a new method that may speed up combat for a small set of the customer base.


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

See above.

No. Same reasons as above.


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

Uh-oh! I don't know if I should bother posting my whole pdf of my take on this here or not. Not that it matters since I sent it to you years ago anyway and you chose to go with the Size Template solution. Personally, I'm in favor of it since I think the flexibility it adds outweighs most of the complexity or additional work it may add. Personal opinion of course and yes I am emphasizing that since this was one of my pet projects.

Here are some the hurdles adding such a Size Characteristic must get over:
1) Combat modifiers need to be based on relative size difference instead of the base human size factor.
2) Benefits of Size Increase and Detriments of Size Decrease don't balance when derived from the current cost of components. Not sure what can be done about this.
3) Distances need to be scaled to match the character as a default, or Reach and Leaping need to somehow be automatically accounted for in logical fashion.
4) Damage needs to be scaled to match the character.
5) Defenses needs to be scaled to match the character.
6) Size should be Inherent by default unlike other characteristics.

Yes - Please!! All you have to do is ask and I'll email you my Size Stat document carte blanche to mine for ideas. It's yours completely if you so desire. (8^D)

[GloryFox]

No what I did was mis read the page I was on. Can we move along now?

[tgaptte]

So...if we remove Figured Stats and start all "starting characters" at zeroes for all stats...we'd need 187 points to get back to our old "base". See my crazy math below:

old base cost to buy 2 old base #s if 0 is the new base, w/ no Figstat
str 10 10
dex 10 30
con 10 20
body 10 20
int 10 10
ego 10 20
pre 10 10
com 10 5
PD 2 2
ED 2 2
SPD 2 20
REC 4 8
END 20 10
STUN 20 20
187 <-- Extra points needed to get up to the old "base" stats

[The Monster]

I'd prefer to see figured characteristics remain, though at this point it's not a deal-breaker for me either way. The problem I have with eliminating them is that, frankly, they've generally made intuitive sense to me and most other people I've explained the system to. If you eliminate them, yes, you get rid of the fractional math, but you also add to the list of things each player has to keep track of just to make a consistent character. I run mostly heroic-level games, and it is not infrequent that viable characters can be built leaving the figured characteristics just where they land, with little tweaking. To have to deliberately account for all the things STR, CON and BODY contribute to would add that much more to the work of creation. To me, the addition of that much detail offsets any advantage in flexibility - flexibility which already exists quite handily for those who want to access it.

[Killer Shrike]

The following is very radical, and really would take the game in a very different direction. However, I think its useful to put some extreme cases out there and see how far something can be taken before it starts to lose its semblance. I fully expect that most if not all of you that read this will be like OMG! OMG! CRAZY TALK! That's fine. But, hopefully after initial shock value wears off, I hope that you'll think about it a little bit and maybe see something useful; it might also serve as a good measuring stick for more conservative changes. Also, I just typed this out gonzo style, so excuse any misspellings and poor sentence structure. Here we go....


************************************
Primary Characteristics

These are essential attributes of all "standard" characters. Primary Characteristics are the basis for many resolutions in the game and are very important aspects of a character.

All Primary Characteristics cost 5 character points per 1 point of effect. Every point of Primary Characteristic matters. They are all on the same scale and work similarly (though different ones are used for different things). They can even be averaged in different ways if a GM wishes to resolve some tasks. Primary Characteristics start at 0 and go positive or negative; negative Characteristics grant points back to a character to spend on other things. However, negative Characteristics seriously hamper a character and should be carefully considered. Characteristics apply directly to resolution rolls as a bonus if positive or penalty if negative.

Characteristic Maxima are always in effect (for no point return or Disadvantage), and works like it currently does; a character can go over Maxima but pays double for each point over. Maxima also work in both directions (a Maxima of 3 applies equally to +/- 3). Maxima = Base Character points / 50 (So in a 75 Base + 75 Disad game, 3; in a 150 + 100 game 6, in a 250 + 100 game, 10, etc).

All game actions determined by 3d6 roll under are assumed to be 8- plus any bonuses, minus any penalties (very similar to 5th edition, but set lower and specifically declared as the underlying assumption). Anything that helps a character succeed is a bonus, anything that hampers their success is a penalty. Everything is resolved with a successful roll under the needed number, with degree of success being determined by how much a roll was made by. As in 5th, unresisted rolls within a characters capabilities outside of combat are generally assumed to succeed. Further, if the difference between all bonuses and penalties affecting a roll is positive, the GM can assume success unless the player chooses to roll anyway (to attempt a spectacular effect or similar) (this is similar to how PER rolls work in 5th edition).

All Primary Characteristics add or subtract directly from an appropriate 8- resolution roll for actions a character initiates, and act as a penalty (if positive) or potentially (in some cases where it seems appropriate) even a bonus (if negative) to an opposing roll when characters take actions against them.

So for instance if a character with STR 5 were to attempt to lift something, they would have a base 8- chance of success +5 for their STR for 13-, and would suffer penalties based on the weight of the object they were lifting. Similarly, if attempting to push open a barricaded door the same character would have a 13- chance minus penalties based upon how well barricaded the door is, and the STR modifier of anyone else bracing it from the other side.


Further since Primary Characteristics grant bonuses / penalties to resolution rolls directly, all of the skills that are currently "X-based" in 5th Edition are instead just bought as bonuses that modify the applicable Characteristic roll for a specific kind of task. Thus instead of buying the DEX-based Skill "Acrobatics" for 3 points and +1 levels with it for 2 points leading to the weird 3/2 cost structure of Skills (and the effect of Skills needing to be adjusted if their base Characteristic is modified), instead you would just buy +X to Acrobatics for 1 point per +1; this would add directly as a bonus to any Acrobatic oriented resolution roll the character ever had to make. So, a character with DEX 4 and +1 Acrobatics would have a 13- resolution roll for Acrobatics plus any other bonuses and minus any penalties.

************************************
Physical / Mental Primary Characteristics are further split into two categories; Physical and Mental, which is meaningful within the context of combat. Also within the context of combat, each Characteristic is used for one of three roles; offense, defense, or targeting. This is indicated by the following special characters in the listing below:

> = offensive
# = defensive
! = targeting


Physical
>Strength (STR): Unlike current Strength, this is purely a measure of lifting power, and physical dominance. There is no longer a direct correlation between precise levels of STR and exact weight lifted; rather their is a Weight chart that imposes penalties for heavy things and bonuses for light things. Similarly, there is a "Feats of STR" chart giving bonuses and penalties for doing everything from forcing a door to opening a stuck jar to squeezing coal into diamonds. There is no more "casual str"; rather the auto-success rule for having more bonuses than penalties applies to unopposed tests. Throwing things is accomplished by the simple expedient of cumulating the weight bonus / penalty, range penalty, and other specific penalties (such as aerodynamicness and weildiness) [A GM can also choose to use a (provided) variant Supers-STR chart with less severe penalties for upper end weights if they wish to allow extreme comic book style STR; also a GM could choose to allow a STR roll penalized by Range penalties and perhaps other penalties to grant extra hexes of Leaping for certain genres].

#Constitution (CON): Ability to press on physically despite hardship (both immediate and prolonged). In addition to being important to staying conscious despite being harmed (a duty it shares with EGO), CON also determines how long a character can function without rest (represented by cumulating penalties for long term activity that eventually force CON checks to continue when they outweigh bonuses), how little sleep, food, etc a character can get by on (again, more penalized rolls), and can be used to resist various types of attack that target the character's physical well being directly. A character recovers BODY at a rate equal to their CON per month. A character recovers Fatigue at a rate equal to their CON + EGO per 12 second combat TURN.

!Dexterity (DEX): physical quickness and agility. This does all the things DEX does in the HERO System 5th edition save that SPD is not directly figured from it and CV is not as marked.


Mental
>Presence (PRE): Strength of personality, social graces, people skills, and mental dominance. It is the basis of offensive non-physical attacks, whether that be in the social arena or via actual special abilities that target opponents minds directly. "PRE Attacks" are gone, kind of, but the basic idea behind them is rolled into the larger concept of Non-Physical attacks (see PROVOKE below under traits).

#Ego (EGO): Mental stamina, grit, and tenacity. It is usable interchangeably with CON to resist succumbing to pain and exhaustion, and is used to resist the social and mental assaults of opponents. A character recovers PSYCHE at a rate equal to their EGO per month. A character recovers Fatigue at a rate equal to their CON + EGO per 12 second combat TURN.

!Intellect (INT): Unlike current "Intelligence" this really is a measure of relative intelligence, wit, mental perspicacity, thinking power, and discernment. It is also used to guide and percieve opportunities for offensive non-physical actions, both social or via actual special abilities that target opponents minds directly. PER checks are no longer figured per se; that is just yet another 8- + bonus - penalty kind of roll, for which INT is usually appropriate; PER bonuses can be bought as skills or special abilities for a character that is unusually perceptive.

************************************
Combat is its own section, but to the extent it effects Characteristics some discussion is given here. Combat is yet another 8- +/- resolution. ECV / OCV / DCV still exist conceptually but are no longer written down on a sheet and thought of distinctly or as a attribute of a character.

Characters try to connect with their attacks and also avoid attacks with a targeting characteristic, try to resist being affected with a defensive characteristic, and try to inflict more effect than normal with an offensive characteristic, either STR or PRE depending on whether an attack is Physical or Mental (see STRIKE and PROVOKE below).

Assuming a target is not surprised and conscious then the attacker gets a bonus or penalty to their attack roll equal to the difference between their targeting Characteristics; for example a character with DEX 5 attacking an oppenet with DEX 3 would have a +2 bonus to hit.

Range is done a little differently, but the same basic idea applies. The unit of measurment is still the hex, but a hex <> 6.5 feet. Each hex = 1 meter (or yard if you hate the metric system)

Sharing a Hex = +4 (12-)
Point Blank (within 2 hexes) = +3 (11-)
Short Range (within 4 hexes)= +2 (10-)
Exponential reduction (within 8 = +1, within 16 +0, within 32 -1, etc)

Combat Skills are no different from other skills save that they can be upscaled (like 5th). +1 to hit with one specific attack is 1 point, +1 with tight group is 2 points, +1 all HtH / Ranged / Social / Mental is 3 points, + 1 Attack / Defense is 4 points, + 1 All Combat is 5 points

************************************
Figured Characteristics: non-Primary Characteristics are no longer figured. See below.

************************************
Traits: Characteristics that are not directly opposed and don't grant bonuses to resolution rolls are called traits; their base values and the way these values are used are more direct and mathematical rather than modifiers of success / failure.

Traits are not figured from other Characteristics (but may have a relationship with one or more other Characteristics); rather they have a default base (overrideable by the GM if desired). Each Trait defines its own base maxima and cost.

Unlike Primary Characteristics which all follow a common model, Traits are more distinctive and each have their own purpose and meaning. Traits are generally tracked as positive or neutral values but can be negative where indicated and negative values may have special meanings based upon what a particular Trait is tracking. Not all characters necessarily have all Traits.


*BODY: As current BODY conceptually, but no skill roll and not based on 10. This is a direct ablative measurement of structural damage that can be taken before death / destruction ensues. Default base = Base Character points / 10 rounded up. (So in a 75 Base + 75 Disad game, 8 BODY; in a 150 + 100 game 15 BODY, in a 250 + 100 game, 25 BODY, etc). Maxima: Double base. A character that is reduced to 0 BODY or below is unable to deal with physical encounters effectively; a character at negative BODY takes penalties on all Physical resolutions equal to -1 per -1 BODY. Death occurs at negative base BODY. BODY cost 1 character point to raise 1 point.

*PSYCHE: This is a direct ablative measurement of the mental / spiritual damage that a character can take and retain their sanity, sense of self, and playability. Default base = Base Character points / 10 rounded up. (So in a 75 Base + 75 Disad game, 8 PSYCHE; in a 150 + 100 game 15 PSYCHE, in a 250 + 100 game, 25 PSYCHE, etc). Maxima: Double base. A character that is reduced to 0 PSYCHE or below is unable to cope with social and mental encounters effectively; a character at negative PSYCHE takes penalties on all non-Physical resolutions equal to -1 per -1 PSYCHE. Insanity (or some other character-retiring mental or social malady) occurs at negative base PSYCHE. PSYCHE cost 1 character point to raise 1 point.


*FATIGUE: replaces STUN and END; measures consciousness / motive force. Default base = Base Character points / 5 rounded up. (So in a 75 Base + 75 Disad game, 25 FATIGUE; in a 150 + 100 game, 30 FATIGUE, in a 250 + 100 game, 50 FATIGUE, etc). Maxima: Double base. FATIGUE cost 1 character point to raise 1 point.

A character spends Fatigue to do things (like END), and loses Fatigue when they take BODY or PSYCHE at the rate of -2 Fatigue per -1 BODY and -1 Fatigue per -5 PSYCHE (kind of like STUN).

Some attacks can specifically target Fatigue to knock a character out or put them to sleep rather than try to cause serious BODY damage.

If a character's Fatigue becomes negative whether due to taking actions or damage it works similarly to how negative STUN currently does except that the character doesn't go unconscious immediately; rather the character starts making CON or EGO Rolls with a penalty of -1 per -5 Fatigue to avoid becoming Incapacitated. A character can still spend Fatigue into the negatives, but it makes it more likely that they will become Incapacitated; optionally a character also loses 1 BODY per -5 Fatigue spent in this fashion for grittier games. Characters stop losing Fatigue when they are Incapacitated (unlike in 5th Edition where a character can continue to take STUN even after being knocked out).

Incapacitated mechanically means a character is unable to take Actions and are unable to resist being targeted (i.e., opponents attacks are unresisted); however it can vary conceptually. Most commonly it is synonymous with unconsciousness if stemming from damage, but can also mean a character is simply reeling and disoriented, shocked, overcome by emotions, or any other effect that makes dramatic sense in a given circumstance.

If a character ever takes more Fatigue loss in a Phase than their CON or EGO score (whichever is better) whether due to taking an action or taking damage, they must make an immediate characteristic check at -1 per 5 Fatigue lost or take double the amount lost. If this takes them into negatives, they also become Incapacitated.

Under normal combat circumstances characters regain their CON + EGO in FATIGUE on any Action that they don't lose Fatigue (whether by spending it to do something or from hostile action). There is no "Post-Segment 12 Recovery equivalent. Outside of combat characters recover Fatigue between scenes unless the GM indicates otherwise for dramatic purposes such as if two scenes happen in close succession.

*STRIKE: amount of damage the character does if they physically hit something. This is, in effect, the character's base damage for Physical Attacks. Weapons and some special abilities add to this. It is rated as a number that translates directly into a number of d6. This base STRIKE rating is not figured from STR; it is a combination of many factors including precision, technique, perceiving and understanding where to strike, etc. Strike damage is inflicted against BODY minus any mitigation the target has.

Default base = Base Character points / 50 rounded up. (So in a 75 Base + 75 Disad game, STRIKE = 2 (which means 2d6); in a 150 + 100 game, 3 (3d6), in a 250 + 100 game, 5 (5d6), etc). Maxima: Double base. STRIKE cost 5 character points to raise 1 point (1d6).

However, very strong characters can inflict more damage than weaker characters with muscle-powered attacks; whenever a character succeeds with a Physical Attack that is based on STR they may roll an extra d6 for every 2 points their STR exceeds the opponent's CON. This could be from a bow attack, pistol whipping, swinging a sword, or a punch, but not shooting someone with a gun or other non-muscle powered weapon. Thus if an attacker had STR 6 then vs. a CON 3 opponent they would inflict +1d6 damage with muscle powered attacks.

*PROVOKE: amount of damage the character does with social and mental attacks. This is, in effect, the character's base damage for all non-Physical Attacks. Some special abilities may also add to this base stat. It is rated as a number that translates directly into a number of d6, exactly the same as STRIKE. Provoke damage is inflicted against PSYCHE minus any mitigation the target has.

Default base = Base Character points / 50 rounded up. (So in a 75 Base + 75 Disad game, STRIKE = 2 (which means 2d6); in a 150 + 100 game, 3 (3d6), in a 250 + 100 game, 5 (5d6), etc). Maxima: Double base. PROVOKE cost 5 character points to raise 1 point (1d6).

Characters with very strong personalities can inflict more damage than weaker characters with social attacks; whenever a character succeeds with a social attack that is based on PRE they may roll an extra d6 for every 2 points their PRE exceeds the opponent's EGO. This could be in the form of insults, intimidation, verbal sparring, or even bartering. Thus if an attacker had PRE 6 then vs. a EGO 3 opponent they would inflict +1d6 damage with social attacks.

(Among other things the concept of the PRE Attack falls within this, save that rather than be instant, it has a longer term effect on those affected. It also opens up the opportunity to have Social and Mental Maneuvers similar to Martial Maneuvers and a prolonged mental / social "battle").


*MITIGATION: amount of damage a character can ignore from incoming attacks. Mitigation is either bought specifically to protect a particular Characteristic or Trait, or vs a specific single SFX with GM's permission (and how broad of an SFX is appropriate will vary from setting to setting).

No character starts with Mitigation for free. The cost for 1 point of Mitigation is always one character point for its base effect, and it subtracts one point of damage from any attack it protects against. Mitigation is not normally visible per se; if it is obvious in nature it costs -.25 point per point (every 5th point of visible Mitigation is free). Mitigation is not persistent by default; it is considered to be "active" -- the character has to be conscious, capable of defending themselves, and reasonably aware that they might be in danger to benefit from it. Mitigation can be made "passive", meaning that it is always on and doesn't require awareness or consciousness for +2 points per point.

The rationale for the Mitigation can be defined as anything appropriate to the genre and character; for instance a "brick" can define their Mitigation as just being tough, while a quicker character can define their mitigation as super-dodging, while another character's might be "mystic defenses" or "charmed existence" or "heroic durability" and so forth. Some character concepts can justify more Mitigation than others or Mitigation vs. specific SFX, but all character concepts can justify a reasonable amount of Mitigation.

Note that Mitigation can be bought to protect against FATIGUE loss, but it only protects against FATIGUE loss sustained due to damage.

*SIZE: Directly relates to the size chart. Base is 0, and a character goes up or down the size chart at each step of +1 or -1. Maxima is 1 (both +/- 1). Characters that can alter their Size as an ability buy one or more Powers (like in 5th Edition). The cost of SIZE I'm loose on -- the size templates would need to be looked at and locked down, but lets call it 5-10 points per step for now.

*ACTIONS: Basically the same as SPD, but not necessarily on the same scale. Number of effective actions a character can take in a 12 second combat TURN. Characters with 0 (or negative) Actions stand around shocked, terrified, confused, or are just too slow to react and take no combat actions; however they might still move away / flee at the GM's option at whatever rate seems reasonable / useful to the plot. Default base = Base Character points / 100 rounded up. (So in a 75 Base + 75 Disad game, ACTIONS = 1; in a 150 + 100 game, 2, in a 250 + 100 game, 3, etc). Maxima: Double base. ACTIONS cost 20 points per point.

There are no more Full or 1/2 Moves; each distinct task is a separate Action. Non Actions can be done at anytime. "0 Phase Actions" are called Free Actions; a character can take a number of Free Actions per Turn equal to their Actions rating, however they can take them one per Action, or all at once on one Action, or any combination thereof. In some settings Characters can buy additional Free Actions as a special ability at a cost of 5 point each; some skills may grant additional Free Actions for specific purposes in conjunction with a resolution roll such as Fast Draw (drawing / holstering a weapon) or Quick Load (changing out a clip on a weapon) or Riding (mounting / dismounting in conjunction with a Move Action), etc. Some abilities also allow a character to turn something that is normally an Action into a Free Action so that it can be combined with some other Action into a single segment, such as Snapshot (allows a shooting Action as a Free Action in conjunction with a move) or Maneuvers with the Move element (allows a move in conjunction with a specific melee attack).

The 1 second segments still count off, but the SPD chart is not used. Instead characters can take their Actions one after another or spread them out over the course of a Turn but can take no more than 1 Action per segment.

Each Action is generally considered to take a minimum of 1 second each, but this may be distended for dramatic purposes or due to a mechanical restriction (for instance a special ability defined as a Full Turn action would consume all of a characters actions and take 12 seconds to execute). If two or more characters want to take an Action at the same time, the all announce their intention in reverse DEX / INT order (Physical / Mental), lowest Characteristic declares intent first, and then each make a Characteristic Roll based on either DEX or INT depending on if their Action is Physical or Mental in nature and go in an order determined by degree of success. Some abilities have an Action bonus or penalty indicating that they are easier or harder to initiate quickly that apply to this roll.

Characters can declare that their intent is to "hold" and wait for everyone else to go first; characters that are holding an Action can chose to Abort to a defensive action during Action resolution; Aborts always resolve first before any other action. If multiple characters hold and then attempt to go at once after the initial set of Actions are resolved the process repeats itself.

Actions not taken by the end of the Turn are lost.

************************************************** ****
Modes of Movement: All characters have a set of Modes, which refers to different kinds of Movement. As noted previously 1hx = 1 meter (or yard for metric haters); movement is measured in hexes with a certain cost per hex. A character's movement rating represents the maximum distance they can travel in a 12 second combat Turn. The highest form of movement represents the maximum distance possible, but hexes of movement from other Modes can be substituted on a one for one basis within a Turn. For instance, a character with Walking of 12 hexes and Flying of 20 hexes can move no more than 20 hexes in a Turn if flying, or 12 hexes if moving on the ground, but could opt to move 12 hexes on the ground and 8 more hexes by flying (or 10 hexes on the ground and 10 hexes flying, etc).

Characters with multiple Actions can do many things in a Turn, but they can still only move as far as their highest form of movement within that Turn. For instance a character with 3 Actions and 12 hexes of Walking could move shoot move as their 3 actions, but between their two moves they could not exceed 12 hexes of movement.

All standard characters have the following movement Modes by default. Some types of characters may have a different set of Modes (such as Vehicles), and some characters have "exotic" forms of movement granted by special abilities (such as Flight or Teleportation). Mode's of movement are generally bounded by gravity, and are circumstantially relevant; Walking requires a stable surface upon which to walk, Leaping requires something to leap from and something to leap to, Climbing requires something to be scaled, Swinging requires something to swing on / from, and Swimming requires a liquid medium in which to float.

Walking: Base: 10, Maxima: 20, Cost per hex: 2 points
Leaping: Base: 2, Maxima: 4, Cost per hex: 1 point
Climbing: Base: 2, Maxima: 4, Cost per hex: 1 point
Swinging: Base: 2, Maxima: 4, Cost per hex: 1 point
Swimming: Base: 2 Maxima: 4, Cost per hex: 1 point

Sprint: characters can choose to sprint, which allows them to gain half again their movement hexes for a Turn, but if they do so they may not take any Actions other than moving in that Turn. They don't suffer any penalty to being hit for doing so (unlike the current NCM rules).

Modes of movement can be sold back and yields its point cost per hex in character points. A character should have a logical conceptual reason to do this, subject to GM veto, but there are scenarios where this is legitimate such as for a character suffering from a physical limitation of some sort that prevents some forms of movement but not others. If a character sells back hexes from a Mode of movement the lowered value is considered to be the base for that character.

Base movement or less does not cost FATIGUE; moving more than base movement costs 1 FATIGUE per hex. This loss can be reduced or negated; to take 1 FATIGUE per 2 hexes over base moved +.5 point per hex; to not take any FATIGUE loss at all for a Mode of movement costs +1 point per hex. For instance to walk 10 hexes costs a normal character no FATIGUE loss, but to Sprint for +5 hexes costs 5 FATIGUE.

[steamteck]

I would add PRE to that list as well. We have had some great encounters with the high COM low PRE NPC's. You know the beautiful, intelligent, always stuck up girl behind the counter type scenario's. The only change I would not mind is a x1 cost instead of .5, but that can be a house rule over an edition breaking changing rule. COM is flavor important please don't change it to a GURPS style talent or advantage.


Again I agree completely. There was some resistance to converting my long running homebrew fantasy game to HERO. My wife's favorite character was literally the fairest in the land and she had spent tons of points to get there. If she hadn't had comeliness to use my great HERO conversion ( just used it for supers for a long time ) wouldn't have happened. Another of her characters is beautiful but not unbelievably so but a complete social idiot high COM lower PRE works here. Another character is moderately pretty but very impressive and sexy ( lower COM higher PRE with a few extra PRE for opposite sex for appropriate actions)

It seems dropping COM will decrease flexibility and flavor for the type of characters my group likes lots.

[Chris Goodwin]

Killer Shrike: I like where you're going with it, and you have a lot of interesting ideas in there.

I would say: Keep the HERO System scaling; buy stats from a base of 10. However, all of the "important values" are based on the stat/5; CV becomes DEX/5, STR damage is STR/5, skill rolls and stat rolls are based on stat/5. I see this as analogous to what WOTC did for 3rd edition D&D; they kept the D&D system's six basic stats, and the methods for generating them, but the operative values are (stat-10)/2; really, the fact that your fighter's Strength in D&D is 18 means less than the fact that his Strength bonus is +4. This is what we're doing here. So, for every stat, you buy the values on the HERO scale we're all used to... then every stat has, call it an "Operative Value" (OV) equal to the stat/5, which you write down in the column next to the value. (I know it's an extra step and a bit more math, and maybe it's my remaining sensitivity to Fuzion talking... but it means something to me, at least.)

I'd make the base target number equal to 11, to keep the 11 + OV - DV (defensive value), which you can flip to 3d6 + OV >= 10 + DV if you desire. But this works for combat and skill use both.

Using Presence as the "mental offense" ability is an idea I've had for quite some time, and I wholeheartedly agree with KS's use of it here.

[Vondy]

I fully expect that most if not all of you that read this will be like OMG! OMG! CRAZY TALK!

He doth speak in tongues.

Have you more?

Like the rest of the system?

If so, I'd like a copy.

[Netzilla]

Took me a while to put this together.


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

Eh, I think that Characteristics should default to what the assumed standard is. In the case of almost all Hero System games I've played in, heard of or read descriptions of, that's heroic humans. By basing everything off that as our standard, it saves having to build a heroic human to start from every time.

However, I think an argument could definitely be made for adjusting things to start at Normal Human level (8s for all Primaries, etc). With our group (an even mix of veterans and new players) folks are always forgetting that normal humans are 8, and thus being twice as strong only needs a 13. Newer players want to pick 20 to be twice as strong and grognards want to pick 15 for twice as strong.

It's not exactly a big deal, but reseting to an 8 base would re-enforce the idea that 8 is human normal (rather than heroic normal) and would require fewer additional starting points than a 0 base would (around 25 as I recall).


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

I actually like a good deal of the negative characteristic rules. Our group has made good use of negative PRE for fear effects and negative INT for confusion (as two examples off the top of my head). However, I can see how some folks find it to be rules bloat. Rather than removing them in their entirety, I think they may be better moved into optional side-bar status. That way they are easily ignored by most folks, but those of us who do make use of them still have some official support.


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

While this is a nice ideal to strive to, I think it might be a bit too tall an order. As you mention, there is already some small benefit for non-breakpoint values for STR, CON, BOD, DEX, EGO & PRE. It's just that you get more from the breakpoints. INT is kind of the odd stat out as it provides no benefits that aren't skill roll related. The common suggestion of higher stats win tied skill contests does help with this some. In addition to that, our group uses INT as a tiebreaker on initiative. If DEX is tied and SPD is tied, then the highest INT gets to act first. After that we go to a roll-off.


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

Wow, this is a hot-button topic for the Hero community. Personally, I'm in favor of either decoupling Figured Characteristics or adjusting the cost of Primary Characteristics so that the FC bonuses are taken into account. Straight decoupling is probably the easiest, but seems to be causing a major rift for some folks here. Personally, I don't see a real downside as anything you can do with Secondary Characteristics being Figured, you can also do with them being straight buy. It just costs a few more points to do so.


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

Some will definitely need to be adjusted. CON is the obvious example as providing defense vs. Stunning at 2 per point is virtually pointless when compared to defense vs damage at 1 per point (PD/ED) or 3 per 2 points (Armor).

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

This would certainly have to be the case.

Now, the argument for decoupling Figured Chars is primarily game-balance related. The math really isn't that bad. Mostly, its that people feel you get too much bang for the points on Primary Characteristics (especially STR and CON). So, it seems to me that re-pointing Primary Characteristics might be another way to go. Every stat gives a Stat Roll, so that's a wash. For each point in a Primary Char you get:

STR: Lift(v), Damage(1/5), STUN(1/2), PD(1/5) & REC(1/5) = ~3CP
DEX: CV(1/3), Initiative(1), Skills(1/5), SPD(1/10) = ~4CP
CON: STUN(1/2), ED(1/5), REC(1/5), END(2) = ~2CP
BOD: Death(1), STUN(1) = ~2CP
INT: Skills(1/5), Perception(1/5) = ~1 CP
EGO: ECV(1/3), Mental Resistance(1), PRE Resistance(1) = ~4CP
PRE: Skills(1/5), Presence Attack(1/5), PRE Resistance(1) = ~2CP
COM: nada = 0CP

Lift I rated equal to 5 CP per doubling for lack of a better idea.
HtH & PRE Damage I rated at 5 CP per d6.
Initiative I rated at 2/3 CP per ponit based off Lightning Reflexes.
Skills & Perception I rated at 2 per +1.
Mental Resistance & Presence Resistance I rated at 1 per point.

This would theoretically balance the stats better as you can't sell back Figured characteristics for an advantage, and you can choose to keep your Primaries low while raising your Figured without being unduly penalized.


Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

With Figured characteristics, almost certainly. If FCs are decoupled, then it's probably fine at 1 point.


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

The logical disconnect of Conan's muscles not allowing him to do more damage will really throw people. I think HtH should stay a function of Strength. One thing that could be done, would be to lessen the relationship. Instead of +1d6 per 5 points, perhaps +1d3 per 5 points. This would help balance out buying extra Damage Classes from other sources.


Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

With Figured, it's worth at least 3 per point (see above). Without you still hit near 3 per point.


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

If you're removing Figured characteristics, breaking up DEX is probably more trouble than it's worth. If you don't decouple Figured Chars, then I could see breaking DEX up into Reflexes (Init and SPD) & Agility (CV and Skills).


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

No, but I could see reducing it's impact. Instead of DEX/3 = CV, change it to DEX/5 and Combat Skill Levels might balance better. Of course, you're setting all your CV breakpoints the same as your Skill breakpoints, thus exacerbating that problem, but I think that's a non-issue.


Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

I think this is such a minor issue as to be not worth changing.


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

I could see Perception as a separate Talent or Skill that starts at a base 11- (or even 8-) for free and can be increased by +1 per 2 points.


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

Ego seems to be fine as it is. I'd just encourage use of 'No ECV (-1/2)' and 'Not to resist Mental Effects (-1/2)' for strong willed characters who aren't especially good at resisting mental powers.


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

See my comments on CV and DEX above.


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

It does seem a tad superfluous as it currently stands. I think it needs to be made into either a Perk or given a solid game benefit. Our group has used it as a complementary for Interaction Skills where appropriate, but it's hard to think of much else to do with it. It just seems too often used as either a dump stat or an afterthought. Personally, I spend more time on working out my character's abilities, background and personality and how he looks is generally an afterthought.


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

I think adding separate PD & ED ratings to objects will clutter up Equipment write-ups too much. When you consider that most equipment will probably have the same PD/ED then it seems really pointless to do that. I can see the benefit of rolling PD & ED into DEF on characters. It's easy enough to buy a small amount of DEF with 'Not vs Physical (-1)' or 'Not vs Energy (-1)'. It would also simplify power write-ups like Armor, Force Field and the like.


Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

I think ECV and having to exceed EGO scores adequately simulate those who are naturally more resillient to mental powers than others. I don't think a Mental Defense stat is really needed.


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?
Definitely not. One of the biggest advantages of the SPD Chart over other Init systems is that it prevents the front- or back-loading of actions for fast characters. When one character is significally faster and gets to take 2 or 3 uninterruptable actions in a row, that can cause major balance issues. The SPD chart makes people spread out their actions in a nice balanced fashion.

I could see doubling the SPD chart from 12 to 24 to provide greater granularity (especially at the low end), but this seems a minor issue to me. Perhaps some optional rules discussing how to eliminate or expand the Speed Chart and why would make a good side bar.


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

No. Yes it's more paperwork, but its very valuable for its dramatic effects in my opinion. My group's had several epic battles that were made all the more tense because several of us had gotten to the point of having to burn Stun for END in order to have a chance to win. Getting off that last shot even though the effort knocks you out is truly heroic stuff.


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

Eh. I think the current system of handling it as package deals works well. I would like to see some more uniformity between the Growth, Vehicle and Base size charts. Plus I don't like that a battleship (0 DCV) is just as easy to hit as a parked car (0 DCV), but that's a discussion for another thread.

[Eosin]

I think the problems we've been seeing over the years with Figured Characteristics have come from the fact that they're primarily provided by STR and CON, neither of which are costed appropriately for what they provide. The reason for the rule about only being able to buy one down is a direct result of that; otherwise everyone would buy up their physical stats and buy down the figured ones because, hey, free points.

If you make the Primary Characteristics cost appropriately for what they provide in Figured Characteristics, essentially to the point that buying the Primary Characteristics and buying down the Figured Characteristics doesn't bring you ahead in terms of points, then they're no longer a problem.

Is it better to do away with Figured Characteristics completely or to fix the costs so that you get what you pay for and pay for what you get? If we do away with them, we're changing the costs of everything anyway. Why not minimize the overall changes to the system?

Ditto.

I was looking for a way to express this exact thought.


Additionally, here are the problem areas that I perceive.

Break Points - this is especially true in heroic games.
Universal Badass - buying a high dex (20-23 Heroic) and 6-8 points in WF means that you are great at everything. Marksmen, Knife Fighter, Boxer,etc... This means that all the experienced players wind up with overlapping badness and competing for the same roles rather than have a niche to fill.
Combat Psychologist - Related to points 1 & 2 which result in a term we call the "Combat Psychologist" since every character in our group basically starts out with a 20 DEX -- every single time we build new characters, even when there isn't much point in a psychologist having a 20 DEX. Why build an inferior character? It is not so much fun to build a marksman with a 14 DEX and a boatload of skill levels, only to be out shot by the Middle Manager Character with a 20 DEX and a WF.
Heroic Glass Jaw - With RKA & HKA proliferation in Heroic level games characters basically have a 25% of remaining sunnyside up after any hit.


Ideas that peek my interest are divorcing CV from DEX --- maybe in the form of skills. Von-D Man used this once in a FH game to great effect. Another option might be to increase the cost of familiarity groups.

Another idea would be to change the stat divisor to a lower number so that other numbers become important. DEX has critical numbers at 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, & 20 (DEX Rolls and CV values). Currently we only have the values 13 & 18 that matter for most Stats....

Tangent - numbers that matter by stat. Grey colors are important for figured characteristics.
STR: 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 [all odd numbers buy you a point of stun, 13 & 18 gets you a +1 to the roll and a 1/2 die - 15 & 20 get the full die]
DEX: 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20
CON: 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19 [all odd numbers buy you a point of stun, 18 gets you a +1 to the roll]
BODY: All odd numbers [improves impairing roles]
INT: 13 & 18
EGO: 13 & 18 [If mental powers are in use then add in the ECVs]
PRE: 13 & 18
COM: none

Obviously, I play Hero for the heroic level games. That is where I see issues and room for improvement. When I play Supers (once every 4-5 years), I think the numbers flow a little more smoothly. A large part of this is because there is some niche protection in Supers --- the martial artist isn't going to pick up VIPERs 3d6 RKA rifle and out perform Cyclops.

I don't exactly have solutions. Only identifiable issues.

[Vondy]

Ideas that peek my interest are divorcing CV from DEX --- maybe in the form of skills. Von-D Man used this once in a FH game to great effect. Another option might be to increase the cost of familiarity groups.



That was a very fun game and the skill based combat system worked very well.

I didn't mention it here because I felt it would be too radical a change for people to consider.

It added a roll to combat, but simplified the calculation and proved pretty quick.

Players just announced the margin of success. The higher margin won; ties went to the defender.

Example: player rolls... MOS 5! Gm rolls... MOS 4! Player hits.

And, for mooks, I just simplified and had them "take 11" on their defense rolls, which gave them a default MOS of 1 or 2.

The real work was in deciding how granular I wanted the combat skills to be and dealing with martial maneuvers, but for people who want choice thats a bonus.

It can be adjusted by genre or campaign.

I don't think most people would go for it, but it did work.

[Susano]

Ditto.

I was looking for a way to express this exact thought.


Additionally, here are the problem areas that I perceive.

Break Points - this is especially true in heroic games.
Universal Badass - buying a high dex (20-23 Heroic) and 6-8 points in WF means that you are great at everything. Marksmen, Knife Fighter, Boxer,etc... This means that all the experienced players wind up with overlapping badness and competing for the same roles rather than have a niche to fill.
Combat Psychologist - Related to points 1 & 2 which result in a term we call the "Combat Psychologist" since every character in our group basically starts out with a 20 DEX -- every single time we build new characters, even when there isn't much point in a psychologist having a 20 DEX. Why build an inferior character? It is not so much fun to build a marksman with a 14 DEX and a boatload of skill levels, only to be out shot by the Middle Manager Character with a 20 DEX and a WF.
Heroic Glass Jaw - With RKA & HKA proliferation in Heroic level games characters basically have a 25% of remaining sunnyside up after any hit.



Having been in a variety of games, allow me to state I've never seen the "Combat Psychologist." GMs in my group, at least, are going to seriously question your 20 DEX for someone who has no true combat experience. And in the Heroic games I've been in, a 20 DEX isn't all that common.

We also went with a flat x3 STUN for KAs to avoid KOing people with a lucky high BODY and high STUN hit.

[Eosin]

That was a very fun game and the skill based combat system worked very well. I didn't mention it here because I felt it would be too radical a change for people to consider.

It certainly got my interest. I have toyed with the idea many times since seeing how you did it.

[Chris Goodwin]

Having been in a variety of games, allow me to state I've never seen the "Combat Psychologist." GMs in my group, at least, are going to seriously question your 20 DEX for someone who has no true combat experience. And in the Heroic games I've been in, a 20 DEX isn't all that common.

We also went with a flat x3 STUN for KAs to avoid KOing people with a lucky high BODY and high STUN hit.

Many is the Fantasy Hero wizard I've created, back in the day, who was 20 DEX and 4 SPD.

Someone (I can't remember if it was here or That Other Place) wrote that SPD = fun. This was driven home to me very strongly in a Fantasy Hero game I once played in, wherein I played a ki-rin in a group of mostly humans. I was SPD 6 when everyone else was SPD 4, and I think I had something like 12 DEF and 10 PD. What made it worse was that the ki-rin image we were using was the one from AD&D1 Monster Manual, very horse-like in construction, and so I had another character riding on my back: SPD either 4 or 5 with a 3d6 HKA sword. It was brutal....

Which may be more of a general argument against combat inflation than against SPD inflation, but I do recall generally having multiple actions to my compatriots'.

[GamePhil]

Well, I read through everything but it's already 10 pages so I may be repeating something. Sorry about that, I'll try to keep up from here on.


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


Maybe. Starting with heroic human beings (that is, 10s in Primary Characteristics and so on) is comfortable for most of the current players and understandable to new people coming in. It is not difficult to sell back stats, even all the way to 0. The benefit to the average player of doing this is slight and there are at least psychological drawbacks to have to buy up a Characteristic just to be "normal".

However, from the standpoint of using Hero to design games has its uses. If you wanted to have things that are built as characters but didn't have certain Characteristics (Vehicles, Bases, possibly Spirits going back to 4th Edition), you don't have to sell them back or do anything else with them, you just don't buy them.

Even if you don't do anything that radical, certain settings may call for different starting points for Characteristics. A game where you start off as "normals" rather than "heroes" might have all stats start at 8 (for example, the Valdorian Age), or if you start as children you might start with 5's. By starting with 0's, you can simply add a package that increases them to 5, 8, or 10. You then just plug in whichever one is appropriate, pay the cost, and go on from there.


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


I'd like to see that, but don't know yet how it would be done without impacting other rules too much. It makes it very easy to define a character that lacks a characteristic. No Lifting power is no longer a -50 (or whatever) STR, it's just a 0 (whether that's where you start or by being bought down).



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


Depends on what you mean. If you mean having every point of Characteristic increase means some increase in Skills or CV, I think that's unnecessary and even undesirable. It actually decreases that much talked about granularity to me: you can't be just a little smarter, you pretty much have to be enough smarter that all your Skills go up, for example.

I wouldn't mind seeing a (perhaps optional) rule for giving a small benefit to non-breakpoint stats, though. For instance, I've seen the suggestion of allowing a +1 to an INT skill once per game for every point a character has it over a breakpoint. This specific example may not be workable, but it's about the right level of benefit for what I'm thinking.

I cut out some here because I agree with the conclusions, or because they have been consolidated elsewhere.



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


A viable optional rule, but I don't know that it would add enough to the core game to be worh it. Like with starting at 0 Characteristics, whichever one you present as the "official" rule it's easy enough to get to the other one for those that are interested.



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


I think that as long as you keep DEX as the current package of abilities rather than breaking it up, it works fine as it is: CV is just part of the package. If you do break it into sub-stats, I might change my mind.



Q: Should INT be “redefined”?


It might settle certain arguments, but I don't think it would add nor detract from the game otherwise. Personally, I'm fine with it either way.



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


If you were to decide to do this, I would simply start with an 11- and allow the purchase of Enhanced Senses to increase it: 1 for one Sense, 2 for a Sense Group, 3 for All.



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

But perhaps adding a ‘Strong-Willed” Talent through which characters buy EGO only to make EGO Rolls would be a worthy addition to the rules.


That would be my inclination, although in a game with no Ego Powers that's all anyone would ever buy.



Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

replace it with a Talent, Beautiful/Handsome, that’s defined as Interaction Skill bonuses in certain situations (and naturally there’d be a variant form called Ugly ;) ).


Generally agree, but I wouldn't replace it with a Talent, I'd change the Reputation Perk to allow it to do this as well. It even fits as a Perk: It's something you can lose, for example, if your face gets scarred or you don't work to maintain it in various ways, if you choose to keep the idea that "Perks are things that can be lost". It then gives a bonus to skills, Presence attacks, only affects those it is appropriate for it to, and takes into account individual tastes (you might have a 14- if many of your target group find you attractive, or an 8- if you have an exotic look that appeals strongly to some people but not to others, for example).



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


My main desire is that everything work largely the same: if Characters have PD and ED, so should walls. So if DEF were used for everyone, I'd be reasonably content. However, PD and ED work for objects the same way as they do for the living: some are more resistant to some types of damage than others, and PD and ED is easier for that than taking Vulnerabilities to do the same thing. DEF is still a good shorthand when the two values are the same, though.



Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?


I admit I like it in theory. It cleans up the packages for creatures of great or small size very nicely, and continues to make different "character" types more similar (Vehicles and Bases already have a Size characteristic, but no one else does). I'm not sure about the specifics, though, aside from reach it doesn't seem to do much for you.

If you go with the idea you mentioned of no negative Characteristics, would a 0 Size would mean you have no volume or mass? Presumably, a 10 would be your typical 2m 100kg human, give or take.

If you did this, you might consider eliminating Growth and just allowing the Size Characteristic to be bought as a Power with Non-Persistent or Costs END to simulate changing sizes. Shrinking, though, would either be rather odd or would have to be done another way.

[Eosin]

Having been in a variety of games, allow me to state I've never seen the "Combat Psychologist." GMs in my group, at least, are going to seriously question your 20 DEX for someone who has no true combat experience. And in the Heroic games I've been in, a 20 DEX isn't all that common.


Having been in a variety of games, I'll state that I see them all the time [so, experience is a wash]. Further, I'll state that if you are using skill levels it isn't efficient to build a character with less than a 20 DEX under the current rules set -- in the exact same way that 13 & 18 are so frequently seen. An 18 DEX character with one 5 point skill level is throwing away points. It is hard to get around the math.

Now, you can say that "keeping with the spirit of the genre" or maybe "stats reflecting experience" should trump math but that doesn't fly real well at our game table. What that means to me (I've tried), is that I get to sit back and watch the team tackle people who would eviscerate me. PCs have to spend points effectively unlike when you build someone without regard to points (like the majority of characters on your site which I love to use for NPCs because they are built without regard for point efficiency instead focusing on simulation. Quick example to show you what I mean -- Martin Riggs buys a 17 DEX and 4 SPD instead of the much more effective 20 DEX. He spends 17 points in skill levels to make up for that bump (+1 All Combat x 2, and Lightening Reflexes)). Inefficient building of PCs is like handing points back to the GM and saying, "here I'll take a 15 point handicap." When we get all into the "character concept leads to build" at the table then everyone starts coming up with Wolverine-like backgrounds. It is just to plain effective to build a 20 DEX character and tack on some WF.

Note: You also get into the realm of the GM arbitrarily deciding your stats. See something like, "Iceman, you are an accountant. I really can't see your character having more than a 12 DEX and 2 SPD." As mentioned, at our table that means Iceman goes back to the origin sheet an suddenly grew up training for the UFC.

[nexus]

Maybe. Starting with heroic human beings (that is, 10s in Primary Characteristics and so on) is comfortable for most of the current players and understandable to new people coming in. It is not difficult to sell back stats, even all the way to 0. The benefit to the average player of doing this is slight and there are at least psychological drawbacks to have to buy up a Characteristic just to be "normal".

However, from the standpoint of using Hero to design games has its uses. If you wanted to have things that are built as characters but didn't have certain Characteristics (Vehicles, Bases, possibly Spirits going back to 4th Edition), you don't have to sell them back or do anything else with them, you just don't buy them.

Even if you don't do anything that radical, certain settings may call for different starting points for Characteristics. A game where you start off as "normals" rather than "heroes" might have all stats start at 8 (for example, the Valdorian Age), or if you start as children you might start with 5's. By starting with 0's, you can simply add a package that increases them to 5, 8, or 10. You then just plug in whichever one is appropriate, pay the cost, and go on from there.


Put that way, I find myself more in favor this idea.

[Susano]

Having been in a variety of games, I'll state that I see them all the time [so, experience is a wash]. Further, I'll state that if you are using skill levels it isn't efficient to build a character with less than a 20 DEX under the current rules set -- in the exact same way that 13 & 18 are so frequently seen. An 18 DEX character with one 5 point skill level is throwing away points. It is hard to get around the math.

Now, you can say that "keeping with the spirit of the genre" or maybe "stats reflecting experience" should trump math but that doesn't fly real well at our game table. What that means to me (I've tried), is that I get to sit back and watch the team tackle people who would eviscerate me. PCs have to spend points effectively unlike when you build someone without regard to points (like the majority of characters on your site which I love to use for NPCs because they are built without regard for point efficiency instead focusing on simulation. Quick example to show you what I mean -- Martin Riggs buys a 17 DEX and 4 SPD instead of the much more effective 20 DEX. He spends 17 points in skill levels to make up for that bump (+1 All Combat x 2, and Lightening Reflexes)). Inefficient building of PCs is like handing points back to the GM and saying, "here I'll take a 15 point handicap." When we get all into the "character concept leads to build" at the table then everyone starts coming up with Wolverine-like backgrounds. It is just to plain effective to build a 20 DEX character and tack on some WF.

Note: You also get into the realm of the GM arbitrarily deciding your stats. See something like, "Iceman, you are an accountant. I really can't see your character having more than a 12 DEX and 2 SPD." As mentioned, at our table that means Iceman goes back to the origin sheet an suddenly grew up training for the UFC.

Nitpick -- I didn't build Martin Riggs.

[Blue]

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

(Wow, what color should I use for "on the fence" comments? Hmm... Orange it is.) On it's face it seems like an unnecessary move to accomodate an esthetic; One of those things that makes sense only on an analytical level but not so much on an application level. However, upon further review, I think it would make it easier to by characteristics with advantages and limitations.

Example: Jay is confined to a wheelchair and has a STR of 6. When he puts on his supersuit he has a STR of 40. You aren't forced to deal with taking him in reverse for one ID and forward for another ID.

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

I think negatives may be necessary, otherwise you get into that whole thing about "absolutes" again. If 0 COM is the ugliest you can go, then you can never have anything uglier than that one character and everyone who comes after him who probably should be uglier just isn't.


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

Well, only place what you could use more granularity might be INT (assuming skills continue to be based on Stats), and SPD, but I have NO idea how fractional speed would help you and can't propose anything there. So I put this in the "nice idea but probably impractical" category.
--------------------------
Q: Should we get rid of the concept of Figured Characteristics, and just make all Characteristics straightforward purchases?

I propose (And I apologize if anyone else has already suggested this; I'm not stealing, I'm just too impatient to go back and read it all right this minute): Make SPD a primary stat, rather than figured. Keep it 10pts per. Make DEX 2pts Per, like EGO. Now EGO and DEX are on the same cost footing and you can use either stat for your order in initiative, and the SPD chart still determines attack order regardless of which one you're using.]
-------------------------
Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

No.

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

Makes sense.


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

No way. Not sure I even need to explain why ;)


Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

See the "Figured characteristics" above.

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

Unless a stat is modeling something new, I think it's unnecessary and cumbersome. We've already got a way to model these things with one stat. But as I said, dropping off the figuring into SPD helps streamline interraction between ego and dex combats.

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

No. No argument, just "No".

Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

Aside from PER rolls and SKill rolls, INT doesn't seem to do much. As a stat, it simulates people who are smarter at EVERYTHING where as leaving that sort of differentiation to Skill levels makes a more realistic effect. Bob is good at Math while Jill is good at spelling.

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

Only if you're getting rid of INT altogether or giving it some other function to compensate


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

Not if you make the adjustment I suggested under "figured charactersitics above.

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

Nope. Not necessary.

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Nah. Nice to have an actual appearance gauge. Only place this really ever fell apart was when you got to comparing species and animals. One man's "cute" is not the same as another's.

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

I suppose if we compensated for such things with vulnerabilities and susceptabilities it might work. Iceboy, after all, could be highly resistant to lasers but not so much on the fire. And fewer stats in theory sounds good.

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

No. Not unless you're wholesale changing the mental combat system. If you aren't using the "+10, +20, +30" system anymore and changing mechanics then yeh, it might be necessary.

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Now yer just reinventing the wheel..

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

Sure means less bookkeeping. I think it would still be nice to simulate overuse of powers or the harm of pushing a power. If there's a replacement mechanic then ok.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

Is this a costless mechanic? I mean is it 0 cost for any size? That might make some sense.

[ajackson]

Q: Should all characters start with 0 in all Characteristics?
Not unless stats are rescaled.


Q: Should we get rid of the concept of negative Characteristics?
Probably. With a few exceptions, they're not very useful.

Q: Should we change the HERO System so that “every point in a Characteristic matters” and to discourage people from buying Characteristics at “breakpoint” levels?
Only if stats are rescaled. If we multiply stat costs by 5 and set an average person's stats at 2, then each level gives +1 to (stat) rolls, and has the convenient effect that a normal person has almost all of his stats at 2. This would require rearranging how Body and Stunning work, however.


Q: Should we get rid of the concept of Figured Characteristics, and just make all Characteristics straightforward purchases?
It would clean up a lot of math, but probably means Con and Bod need to be merged.


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

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

With the exception of Con/Bod, no. It's figured characteristics which have historically made Str and Dex unreasonably good deals, so it's really better balanced without figs.


Sub-Issue #2: If Figured Characteristics are removed, should characters be given more points for character creation?
Depends on how we want power level to shift around; it's not essential for bricks to have 60 Stun. One predictable issue is that zero END cost will become even more tempting than it currently is. If you're spending, say, 1 minute poking around the abandoned building, a character maintaining a +15/+15 force field, with a speed of 5, uses up 75 END, and at base REC, gets 20 of that back, for a net of 55 END lost. Thus, either he needs 60 END (cost 20 points) or 15 REC (costs 22 points) or he buys it at 0 END (15 points).


Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?
If we're eliminating figured characteristics, STR cost is fine.

Q: Should Leaping be removed as something that’s factored from STR?
Probably. It's not even very genre-accurate -- while there are plenty of bricks who leap about, there are also plenty who don't.

Q: Should HTH damage be removed as something that’s factored from STR?
Probably not. Strength (Not for Damage; -1) isn't that weird a construct, for those few characters who care.


Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?
If figs are gotten rid of, the price of Dex is fine; it's 45 points for +5 OCV, +5 DCV, +3 Dex skills, which would cost 65 points if bought as levels.


Q: Should DEX be split into two or more Characteristics?
Probably not. If you want combat-only Dex or noncombat-only Dex, you can buy levels.


Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?
Probably not. While there are realism arguments in favor of it, Gamer Intuition says 'dexterous = agile, accurate, hard to hit', and again, you can always get levels.

Q: Should INT be “redefined”?
Maybe split off Per. While it affects a lot of skills, in my experience most of them aren't as significant as many of the skills based on other stats.


Q: Should PER be removed as something that’s factored from INT?
Yes. There's neither genre nor realism evidence for them being strongly linked. Whether it needs to be a stat is a separate thing; there are very few uses for a perception stat that aren't covered by basic perception rolls.


Q: Should the cost of EGO be reduced to 1 Character Point per point?
Yes, unless the way mental powers work is restructured to increase the value of EGO.

Q: Should ECV be removed as something that’s factored from EGO?
ECV has always been a bit of an odd duck anyway; unlikely DCV, there's little genre evidence for mental powers 'missing'. Instead, there's mostly evidence for mental powers being 'resisted' fairly easily, and that seems something that should be more linked to the power of the attack than to the ego of the attacker.

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?
Yes. Redefine it as Levels with Presence skills with a limitation that they only work against certain classes of people.

Q: Should PD and ED be combined into one Characteristic called DEF? If not, should objects be given separate PD and ED ratings?
No; I've found merging them to be annoyingly vanilla in other game systems.

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?
How about making Mental Defense equal to Ego?

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?
It's possible, but I'm inclined to keep it. Something equivalent is needed.


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

Yes. I've played a game without END, and it worked very well. For example, I actually saw people take force field, which is currently a weak sister to armor (under the current rules, never take force field -- take armor with Visible and Not Persistent).

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?
There are some simulations problems that would be improved with a generic Scale attribute. At the human scale, 'twice as big' bumps you from Str 10 (2d6) to Str 15 (3d6), which is a big deal. At 1,000x human scale, 'twice as big' bumps you from Str 60 (12d6) to Str 65 (13d6), which is much less significant.

A generic scale attribute would probably be '+1 DC to all your attacks. -1 DC to all attacks against you' and is probably worth 25-30 points as a bare ability, less if it's coupled with growth.

[Eosin]

Nitpick -- I didn't build Martin Riggs.

The math example still stands as an exact example of what I am talking about. It is more accurate than building a 20 DEX character but it is also very inefficient and no PC at our table would throw points away like that. We value our points. :drink:

[steamteck]

Having been in a variety of games, I'll state that I see them all the time [so, experience is a wash]. Further, I'll state that if you are using skill levels it isn't efficient to build a character with less than a 20 DEX under the current rules set -- in the exact same way that 13 & 18 are so frequently seen. An 18 DEX character with one 5 point skill level is throwing away points. It is hard to get around the math.

Now, you can say that "keeping with the spirit of the genre" or maybe "stats reflecting experience" should trump math but that doesn't fly real well at our game table. What that means to me (I've tried), is that I get to sit back and watch the team tackle people who would eviscerate me. PCs have to spend points effectively unlike when you build someone without regard to points (like the majority of characters on your site which I love to use for NPCs because they are built without regard for point efficiency instead focusing on simulation. Quick example to show you what I mean -- Martin Riggs buys a 17 DEX and 4 SPD instead of the much more effective 20 DEX. He spends 17 points in skill levels to make up for that bump (+1 All Combat x 2, and Lightening Reflexes)). Inefficient building of PCs is like handing points back to the GM and saying, "here I'll take a 15 point handicap." When we get all into the "character concept leads to build" at the table then everyone starts coming up with Wolverine-like backgrounds. It is just to plain effective to build a 20 DEX character and tack on some WF.

Note: You also get into the realm of the GM arbitrarily deciding your stats. See something like, "Iceman, you are an accountant. I really can't see your character having more than a 12 DEX and 2 SPD." As mentioned, at our table that means Iceman goes back to the origin sheet an suddenly grew up training for the UFC.


I guess it depends on your group. My group has always built to concept. I don't see you can fight what you describe. If you change the dynamic they'll all just push to the edge of the new one.

[Susano]

The math example still stands as an exact example of what I am talking about. It is more accurate than building a 20 DEX character but it is also very inefficient and no PC at our table would throw points away like that. We value our points. :drink:

Which is why we went to "build to concept" for our last game. DEXes range from... 11? to 21.

[mayapuppies]

Just some quick bullet points:


I like Figured Characteristics.
I like Comeliness as a Perk.
I like breaking DEX into multiple stats (I currently have Accuracy, Reaction and Agility replacing Dex).
I Also have SPD based on Reaction and Intelligence rather than just DEX.
I like the concept of Size as a characteristic.
I like the concept of characteristics starting at 0.
Why not make Strength a figured characteristic?


I have a concept I've been kicking around that makes a base strength the average of Size and Con.

[steamteck]

The math example still stands as an exact example of what I am talking about. It is more accurate than building a 20 DEX character but it is also very inefficient and no PC at our table would throw points away like that. We value our points. :drink:


Martin is more what my group would come up with and think he was a good build. Probably a "combat psychologist" gamer wouldn't last very long with us. I think a group hyped on point efficiency will find a perceived perfect build and go for that even if things are changed around.

[steamteck]

J
Why not make Strength a figured characteristic?
I have a concept I've been kicking around that makes a base strength the average of Size and Con.


I could go with that assuming of course you could buy it up after that. interesting thought.

[Eosin]

I guess it depends on your group. My group has always built to concept. I don't see you can fight what you describe. If you change the dynamic they'll all just push to the edge of the new one.

There is some truth in this. The problem as I see it is that DEX is just so damn effective and point efficient. We have a little of this problem with STR & CON but not nearly so bad. I'd like DEX to be a little less effective. Divorcing CV from DEX via the Von-D Man route seems to overcome my issue with it (the issue isn't someone being a total bad monkey -- it is that everyone is exactly the same bad monkey. 20 DEX and 6 points in WF makes you a sharp shooter, a knife fighter, a knife thrower, an archer, a gunbunny, and a passable HTH combatant). It should cost more than 36 points to be good at all styles of fighting. All being the operative word there.

[Eosin]

Martin is more what my group would come up with and think he was a good build. Probably a "combat psychologist" gamer wouldn't last very long with us. I think a group hyped on point efficiency will find a perceived perfect build and go for that even if things are changed around.

I hope that you will note that I said he was a good simulation - just not built efficiently which is fine if points don't matter. Second point, I didn't mention what was good for your game... I mentioned what was good for my game. How long we would last in your group is of little relevance except maybe to make yourself feel a little better.

[Hermit]

And now, a (hopefully no longer needed) word from the moderators
Please remember that other posters are entitled to their opinions and to express them. As per Steve's request, we are trying to keep things positive, and respectful of even those we disagree with. Try not to be insulting, sarcastic, or dismissive. We're here to discuss the rules changes, not the posts of others (Unless they've brought up a rules idea), but if you must, it is one thing to say "I don't find your post convincing", it is another to say "Your post IS unconvincing". On the other hand, the point of this section of the forum is to bring forward what changes, if any, you think would be a good idea, or a bad idea, and then state why. It is meant to be constructive. Declaring how if X changes, you shall "quit", or (flipside) how you plan to "buy a million copies", are certainly reactions you're entitled to but they aren't very constructive, and in fact might distract from the purpose of this section of the forums so this isn't the spot for them. Such statements are best said in another part of the forum if they must be said at all. Please keep in mind Steve's rules of conduct for the 6th Edition, if you need to, go back and reread them, because the moderators will have to enforce them as best we can. Thank you.

[Mesa Virga]

Just some quick bullet points:

I like Figured Characteristics.
I like Comeliness as a Perk.
I like breaking DEX into multiple stats (I currently have Accuracy, Reaction and Agility replacing Dex).
I Also have SPD based on Reaction and Intelligence rather than just DEX.
I like the concept of Size as a characteristic.
I like the concept of characteristics starting at 0.
Why not make Strength a figured characteristic?
I have a concept I've been kicking around that makes a base strength the average of Size and Con.I would totally play in your version of the game - unfortunately I think we are in the minority. Plus, your avatar looks like my best man...

[Chris Goodwin]

Just some quick bullet points:


I like Figured Characteristics.
I like Comeliness as a Perk.
I like breaking DEX into multiple stats (I currently have Accuracy, Reaction and Agility replacing Dex).
I Also have SPD based on Reaction and Intelligence rather than just DEX.
I like the concept of Size as a characteristic.
I like the concept of characteristics starting at 0.
Why not make Strength a figured characteristic?


I have a concept I've been kicking around that makes a base strength the average of Size and Con.

Nice format. If I may:


I like Figured Characteristics. Edit: I'm now OK with losing them, if CHA packages are included as worked examples
I like Comeliness as a stat. I'd be okay with it as a perk; a little sad, but I'd get over it.
In fact, I like the stat block pretty much as is.
I like the stats starting at 10, and having them scaled the way they are.
I'd be okay with unifying CV and skills, making everything be based on CHA/5 or CHA/3 or whatever the end result is; I like 5 myself, because it's a nice round number for the system, but it's not ultra-important.
I like Size as a characteristic (and have tried numerous times to implement it over the years)


Re: the stat block: Look at D&D3; while the important values are the stat bonuses, I think their masterstroke was in keeping the 3-18 range, deriving the important values directly from the 3-18 range, and keeping their stat block as is. Because of that, it still looks and feels like D&D, for all that implies. If they'd instead said "Okay, you mark down the important values instead, so a stat block looks like this: S +2, D -1, C +3, I +0, W -1, CH +4", they'd have had a revolt on their hands.

[novi]

As mechanistically neat as all stats start at zero is, I say leave things at 10. At most, make it obvious that it is an option to start everyone at 8 or 5 for no cost for games where that makes sense.

I could go either way on negative stats. It's wonky and strange, but makes certain other things work out better.

"Every point matters?" Nice in concept, impractical in execution. The biggest offender here is Int, and there have already been some proposals as to little things to officially encourage non-breakpoint values.

I like figured characteristics, but I'm one of those wacky people who have little trouble with math. I think you may be right in that figured characteristics as they currently stand need to go, but I think the reality is that if you keep CV coupled to DEX, damage coupled to STR, and so on, you still have number on the sheet that are derived from other numbers, and I can't see a good argument for completely eliminating that. No other game system does that, and it make it worse to build a character than it is now.

If you pull out leaping and figured characteristics, STR has the correct cost. Maybe it should be 2:1 in Heroic games, but I don't have the experience to say for certain. And taking HtH damage away from STR is just crazy talk.

Less figureds, but keeping everything else, DEX is right. Change anything else about it, and it needs to get cheaper. It may not be perfectly desirable as written, but I think keeping it as is it may be a concession to keeping the system as simple as possible.

I can see splitting off PER from INT, but I'd probably not. I'd keep it as is, and make it clear that enhanced perception is really a type of skill level, not a power.

I say let EGO stand as is, any benefit to changing it brings at least as much downside with it. But tell me more about this Strong Willed talent...

I'm opposed to removing COM from the game. I know it currently does nothing, but that just means that we have to try and do something with it. This is an emotional rather than logical issue for me, I like COM as a stat. It adds a flavor to the game that many others don't have. And as a dramatic realism game, drawing from action movies and stories (pulps), how often is it that attractive or decidedly ugly characters are involved? Others may disagree, but I think you have to go with your source material. As for what COM can do for the game, I think I will recommend one of the few things I liked from Spycraft - skills that can be based on more than one attribute. I would make it so that Interaction skills can be made based on either PRE or COM. I would probably also allow Presence Attacks based on COM. Basically, COM is an adjunct to PRE - it does most of the same things, but is always at the risk of being ineffective or backfiring. A male PC using COM-based Seduction on an NPC usually won't work, and will sometimes cause an adverse reaction. Having said all that, I'm actually more in favor of keeping COM now - Fujiko Mine has been using Interaction skills based on COM for years now, as one example.

Keep PD and ED separate. Often they are the same, but I like the distinction that they add into the core rules of the game. It may not be necessary for all settings, but what rule is? And I think there are enough things that should have different ratings in the real world that it makes sense (wood & plastic - higher PD than ED; glass - lower PD than ED).

SPD, Speed chart, END - by the time we throw these out, we're not playing HERO anymore. And what's the point? At least turning THAC0 into AC kept the feel of the mechanic while making it work better.

I actually like the idea of size as a Stat. It makes everything use the same stats, and would provide a framework to hang Growth and Shrinking on. The only catch being that it would require negative stats - 0 is man sized, positive numbers are bigger (matching the current system) and negative numbers are smaller. It would make for easy math, without having an arbitrary limit on how small something can be. You should add this to the system.

One thing I would add on the subject of redoing stats is that I would pull BODY out of the primary stats. BODY is essentially HP, and I'd like to know the last time somebody made a BODY roll. It looks cleaner to have it listed down by STUN and END, the other stats you consume during combat. It won't change the system at all, but it makes the presentation cleaner.

Also, the cost of CON would have to change. If it no longer provides any figured characteristics, it's probably only worth about .8 CP per point. The alternative is to say that each of the primary stats affects a different set of number elsewhere on the sheet, and each is unique and different and live with it. STR affects HtH damage, DEX CV, and so on, with CON's thing being that it determines your base STUN and END. It's not perfect, but it gets it done quickly without much fuss.

My set of Stats would be:

Stat Base Cost
STR 10 1
DEX 10 3
CON 10 2
INT 10 1
EGO 10 2
PRE 10 1
COM 10 1/2

PD 2 1
ED 2 1
SPD 2 10
REC 4 2
END CON x2 1/2
STUN 10 + CON 1
BODY 10 2

I know that the figured characteristics aren't completely decoupled, but I think it's a good compromise and acknowledges that each of the primary stats is used to derive a number or effect somewhere else in the system.

[Paragon]

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

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



I think this ends up turning on whether you see there as a causal relationship between some attributes and other traits of a character; if you don't, then figured characteristics make no sense, and as you say, they certainly cause some systemic problems; if you do, however (and I'll admit to being among that group) then this seems a very undesirable change, as it will produce results that seem counterfactual, both in terms of reality and fictional "reality" (high Con character with terrible recoveries, stun and endurance, for example).




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

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

Steve’s Thoughts: My feeling on this is no, they should not. I think regardless of the side benefit of getting Figureds, each Primary Characteristic provides one or more valuable functions that justify its current cost. Some argument could perhaps be made for CON, since Skills aren’t based on it, but I think that “resistance to being Stunned” is worth 2 Character Points per point — if I change it I have to re-examine every character built in terms of offense and defense, and so do players.



I have to politely disagree here; while not being stunned is not a trivial value, its really hard to see it as the primary value of Con at 2/point. Among other things, it seems almost inevitable that you'd be unlikely to see anyone in most heroic games buy up their Con until their PD and likely ED was firewalled, since it provides the same benefit and more, and the rare uses of Con rolls don't seem to counterweight that.

[rjcurrie]

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

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

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


I could see this being presented as an optional rule in genre books where the genre may lead to a lot of characters that are not human. But perhaps, it is an option that should be discussed in the campaigning section of the rules -- along with the option of defining a different "template" for a campaign (different base characteristics, different senses, etc.).



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

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

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


I'd definitely eliminate negative characteristics for all but STUN and BODY.


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

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

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

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

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

You've reached pretty much the same conclusions that I have over the years on this issue


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

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

Completely in agreement up to here but then the tricky part.


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

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

Steve’s Thoughts: My feeling on this is no, they should not. I think regardless of the side benefit of getting Figureds, each Primary Characteristic provides one or more valuable functions that justify its current cost. Some argument could perhaps be made for CON, since Skills aren’t based on it, but I think that “resistance to being Stunned” is worth 2 Character Points per point — if I change it I have to re-examine every character built in terms of offense and defense, and so do players.

I agree but I found it interesting in the "Decoupling Figured Characteristics" thread that a significant number of people felt that the cost of CON should be reduced to 1/2 -- largely based on the Automation ability "Cannot be Stunned" which costs 15 points. But perhaps the problem is that the Automaton ability is too cheap.


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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the same character with no Figureds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now with no Figureds:

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

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

That’s a cost increase of 52 points.

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

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

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

Now without Figureds:

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

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

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

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

Yup, that pretty much sums it up.


Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

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

Once again, we agree 100%.



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

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

Can't you come up with something for me to disagree with?



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

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

Pretty much how I see it.



Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

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

Assuming no other changes, I'd agree.



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

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

I'm not sure that it clutters up the charcter sheet that much since most sheets list OCV and DCV anyway.



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

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

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

While a part of me likes the basic idea of splitting off CV, I agree that the pains in other areas may make it not worthwhile.


Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

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

Makes sense. Perhaps a return to earlier days might be in order in regards to INT where it was the characteristic that some Mental Powers were compared against instead of EGO.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: The arguments here are much the same as those for CV and DEX. Logically intelligence and being observant don’t necessarily have any close connection; many highly intelligent people are forgetful and unobservant, while many “stupid” people are keen observers. Since PER is so important in every genre and campaign, converting it to a separate Characteristic (which could then be Adjusted and the like) makes some sense.

On the other hand, there are drawbacks — cluttering the character sheet, possible “PER inflation,” more points required for Characteristics, and so on — much like those for DEX and CV. Additionally, PER as a Characteristic would be sort of an odd duck, in that you’d be buying a Characteristic that was structured like a Skill (or whose sole purpose would be to determine a roll, effectively the same thing).

Making PER a Skill is another possibility, though it would be a bit of an odd duck too. It would start as an Everyman Skill at 11-, costing +2 points per +1 for one Sense Group, +3 points per +1 for all Sense Groups — a structure not quite like any other Skill (though it would allow me to remove Enhanced Perception from the Enhanced Senses list). This makes more sense to me than making PER a Characteristic.

I'm still undecided on the best way to handle this.



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

Steve’s Thoughts: This is an interesting issue. On the one hand, it’s hard to argue that EGO is somehow twice as valuable as STR, INT, or PRE. Furthermore, many, many heroes are supposed to be “strong-willed,” but at 2 Character Points per point of EGO few of them can really afford to be.

On the other hand, changing EGO to +1 point per point would make it veeeeerrrry easy for characters with Mental Powers to obtain outrageously high ECVs (though the counterbalance to that is that, in theory at least, many more characters would have higher ECVs than 3 because EGO’s now cheaper). The cost of EGO is really part of the way that Mental Powers are balanced in the HERO System, and my inclination is to keep things as they are. But perhaps adding a ‘Strong-Willed” Talent through which characters buy EGO only to make EGO Rolls would be a worthy addition to the rules.


Perhaps if somehow INT was factored more into Mental Powers, as briefly mentioned above, it could let you lower EGO's cost and make non-breakpoint values of INT more important.

Another part of the problem may be that EGO serves as both "Mental DEX" and "Mental BODY".


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

Steve’s Thoughts: See the “CV and DEX” question, above, for a general take on this issue; the benefits and problems are largely the same. However, I think that (a) tying ECV to EGO has even more “gaming logic” than tying CV to DEX, and (b) the clutter caused by an ECV Characteristic is even more cumbersome, since most characters use CV constantly but rarely use ECV. Even if CV gets split off from DEX my inclination at present is to keep ECV a part of EGO.

Maybe, maybe not. Still undecided here.


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

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

I like COM as a stat but I can see the arguments in favor of such a change. If COM were to be kept, I would change it to a 1 point cost and keep just give interaction bonuses/penalities based on COM/5 or something. On the other hand, it's not a deal breaker for me.


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

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


I could live with this change.


Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t really think this is necessary, especially since it means adding one more Characteristic to HERO’s already long list, but it’s not beyond consideration.

Nope. I also think that Mental Defense should lose its free base points based on EGO.



Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

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

Absolutely not. Like you, I think the SPD chart is a defining element. And to be honest, it always made more sense to me than most other initiative/multiple action systems that I've seen.



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

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

I agree but I think that END should be reworked in such a way as to remove its 1/2 point cost.


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

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

I like the idea of a SIZE characteristic, but it would take some work to figure out how to work it in. I suspect there would be some benefit in the combat system where the difference in SIZE values would work in but I don't have any specific thoughts on it right now.

[Chris Goodwin]

Okay, I just had an idea for how to keep Figured Characteristics, after a fashion: packages!

Package: Strong and Tough

10 +10 STR
2 +2 PD
4 +2 REC
5 +5 STUN

Total Cost: 21 points

Extra Healthy:

10 +10 CON
2 +2 ED
4 +2 REC
5 +5 STUN
10 +20 END

Total Cost: 31 points

Quick:

2 +1 DEX
1 +.1 SPD

Total Cost: 3 points

Present them like the size packages. You can buy them in multiple levels. 8 levels of Quick, for 24 points, plus 2 more points, gets you 18 DEX and 3 SPD.

If this is included, as a worked example in the book, then I'm sold on removing Figured Characteristics. But the costs of the primaries do need to be modified to reflect the absence.

[Curry Wolf]

OK Steve, I very rarely make my opinion known on Hero issues, but I must say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I have been playing and running Hero since the first printing, and I really feel that the characteristics system is very close to perfect.

I might increase the cost of COM to 1, but never abandon the characteristic.
I often feel that REC is under rated.
Figured Characteristics are what make the Hero characteristics feel organic, and getting rid of figured characteristics would take away one Hero's strong points.

If you do get rid of figured characteristics, than creating characters from Zero instead of base ten suddenly makes some sense.

Negative characteristics are important to the current system, so getting rid of them would change things without improving them.

If the STR scale is changed, the Mechanics would no longer be in scale with themselves in respect to damage or BODY. Unless everything changed form base five to base ten, and then you could expand the fine tuning of lift. This would add to low power games, like Pulp and Modern settings, but probably add nothing to the games for Superheroes and the like. So I see no real advantage here.

Please keep characteristics the same, and keep figured characteristics. It ain't broke.

[Lord Mhoram]

I have to politely disagree here; while not being stunned is not a trivial value, its really hard to see it as the primary value of Con at 2/point. Among other things, it seems almost inevitable that you'd be unlikely to see anyone in most heroic games buy up their Con until their PD and likely ED was firewalled, since it provides the same benefit and more, and the rare uses of Con rolls don't seem to counterweight that.

I agree with this. If con is Decoupled drop it to 1/1. At 2 for you, you can buy 1 PD & 1 ED for the same cost as a point of CON - and in addition to the "not get stunned" you get to not take the damage too.

[Xotl]

I agree with this. If con is Decoupled drop it to 1/1. At 2 for you, you can buy 1 PD & 1 ED for the same cost as a point of CON - and in addition to the "not get stunned" you get to not take the damage too.

What do you think about folding a decoupled CON into BODY?

[Chris Goodwin]

What do you think about folding a decoupled CON into BODY?

That would make sense, plus with Figured Characteristics decoupled we lose the "Take 1 BODY = down 1 STUN" rule. Also would keep BODY at 2 per point.

[Paragon]

That would make sense, plus with Figured Characteristics decoupled we lose the "Take 1 BODY = down 1 STUN" rule. Also would keep BODY at 2 per point.

I think there's some virtue in keeping them seperate, but it mostly turns on things eliminating figured stats has already rendered moot; the issue then turns on how often you use Con rolls for things, as shock and structural integrity aren't directly connected with things like immune system strength and the like.

[Chris Goodwin]

I've come up with numerous game systems and part-systems on my own that include a Body stat that covers physical strength, general health, and resistance to injury. I have no problem with folding them together.

[MicroMike]

Characteristics:

Get rid of COM. Replace with Perk: Ugly/Beautiful. Add levels as needed.

PD/ED. Combine into DEF. Special effects (bullet, fire, etc) will modify as needed.

END. Replace with some other common-sense idea of how often you can punch something or run or whatever before being exhausted.

Speed: An idea I'll put on the table. Keep it. but rename it Action, replace Speed Chart with Action Chart. It's the point at which you can make decisions, attack, activate a power, start or stop movement, make EGO rolls, etc. Divorce all movement from Speed, as Action is a mental stat, not a physical one.

Too Radical?

[Paragon]

I've come up with numerous game systems and part-systems on my own that include a Body stat that covers physical strength, general health, and resistance to injury. I have no problem with folding them together.

Well, at that point it turns into a general argument about lumping/splitting in attributes. I just have to point out that taken to its logical extreme, that can leave you with The Fantasy Trip, or even TWERPS.

[Susano]

Well, at that point it turns into a general argument about lumping/splitting in attributes. I just have to point out that taken to its logical extreme, that can leave you with The Fantasy Trip, or even TWERPS.

Hey, I liked The Fantasy Trip! It was far better than D&D when it came out. I mean, you had Skills and the like that actually let you do stuff!

[Xotl]

Well, at that point it turns into a general argument about lumping/splitting in attributes. I just have to point out that taken to its logical extreme, that can leave you with The Fantasy Trip, or even TWERPS.

I don't think mixing two *extremely* similar stats, one of which would have next to nothing to do if decoupled, is close to the road you're alluding to. I see no other stats that deserve the same treatment. Would would Hero lose, in your opinion, if CON and BODY were folded together in a no-figured char 6th edition?

[rjcurrie]

I don't think mixing two *extremely* similar stats, one of which would have next to nothing to do if decoupled, is close to the road you're alluding to. I see no other stats that deserve the same treatment. Would would Hero lose, in your opinion, if CON and BODY were folded together in a no-figured char 6th edition?

I think what you'll get is a lot of characters with 18-20 BODY (assuming we call the combined stat BODY) since they don't want to be stunned which is going to make characters even harder to kill (at least in my experience, since BODY only occasionally goes above 15 or so) and even harder to be transformed.

What would happen if we folded CON into BODY and had people die at 0 BODY and be transformed at 1xBODY?

[archermoo]

That would make sense, plus with Figured Characteristics decoupled we lose the "Take 1 BODY = down 1 STUN" rule. Also would keep BODY at 2 per point.

I don't see how one follows from the other. Why would having to buy what are currently the Figured Characteristics up from their base rather than getting free points in them when you increase your Primary Characteristics also mean that you would no longer take at least 1 STUN for every BODY you take? I don't see the connection between them.

[Paragon]

I don't think mixing two *extremely* similar stats, one of which would have next to nothing to do if decoupled, is close to the road you're alluding to. I see no other stats that deserve the same treatment. Would would Hero lose, in your opinion, if CON and BODY were folded together in a no-figured char 6th edition?

The ability to distinguish between someone with a lot of body mass and someone who is fit. The former has quite a bit to do with surviving injury, the latter less so (though not nothing), and the former has nothing at all to do with, for example, resisting illness or the like.

Whether this is important to people is another question, which is why I said it turns on where you sit on the lumping/splitting issue; all lumping/splitting questions turn on what distinctions matter and which don't. Note I was originally responding to someone who had nothing against systems that lumped Body and Strength effects together, and I suspect a lot of people have issues with that. But there are other people who have no issues with lumping far more severe, as, for example, TriStat showed.

[mayapuppies]

The ability to distinguish between someone with a lot of body mass and someone who is fit. The former has quite a bit to do with surviving injury, the latter less so (though not nothing), and the former has nothing at all to do with, for example, resisting illness or the like.
This is actually taken into account by adding Size as a stat and determining Base Strength by averaging Size and Con.

[Xotl]

I think what you'll get is a lot of characters with 18-20 BODY (assuming we call the combined stat BODY)

I think you'd have to, since BODY is so widely used in the system, while CON is pretty rare outside of character creation as it is. Referring to old CON functions as BODY is very intuitive, so I don't think anyone would have any trouble with it.


since they don't want to be stunned which is going to make characters even harder to kill (at least in my experience, since BODY only occasionally goes above 15 or so) and even harder to be transformed.

I honestly don't see this as an issue for the same reason I don't see the common desire and practice to buy up piles of oh-so-useful DEX or STR as an argument to reduce those stats in scope or increase it in price. It's up to the GM to arbitrate general power levels, as well as the problem of stat inflation. We handle such situations fine right now, and a new decoupled CON/BODY mix wouldn't be as bad as the current troublemakers.

[rjcurrie]

I honestly don't see this as an issue for the same reason I don't see the common desire and practice to buy up piles of oh-so-useful DEX or STR as an argument to reduce those stats in scope or increase it in price. It's up to the GM to arbitrate general power levels, as well as the problem of stat inflation. We handle such situations fine right now, and a new decoupled CON/BODY mix wouldn't be as bad as the current troublemakers.

All I'm saying is that if players buy CON/BODY to CON levels, then you get harder to kill and harder to transform characters and if they buy CON/BODY to BODY levels then you get characters that are easier to stun.

[rjcurrie]

I don't see how one follows from the other. Why would having to buy what are currently the Figured Characteristics up from their base rather than getting free points in them when you increase your Primary Characteristics also mean that you would no longer take at least 1 STUN for every BODY you take? I don't see the connection between them.

I think he may be working on the assumption that you lose the STUN because the BODY value that goes into calculating STUN is now one less.

Of course, the fact that draining STR, for example, does not reduce PD, REC, and STUN would seem to indicate that is not the case.

[Chris Goodwin]

Going back and rereading the messages, I get the feeling CON and BODY are going to stay separate. I could easily be wrong, but that's how it looks to me so far.

[Xotl]

All I'm saying is that if players buy CON/BODY to CON levels, then you get harder to kill and harder to transform characters and if they buy CON/BODY to BODY levels then you get characters that are easier to stun.

True, but it's still pretty easy to apply Limited Power stuff such as BODY: only to resist stunning, and such. People do this now with CON all the time.

[rjcurrie]

True, but it's still pretty easy to apply Limited Power stuff such as BODY: only to resist stunning, and such. People do this now with CON all the time.

Fair enough but I thought I would throw my idea out there as well.

[archermoo]

I think he may be working on the assumption that you lose the STUN because the BODY value that goes into calculating STUN is now one less.

Of course, the fact that draining STR, for example, does not reduce PD, REC, and STUN would seem to indicate that is not the case.

Ah. Still seems odd to me. Particularly since you can Recover the STUN while still being down the BODY. Granted I've played quite a bit in games that house ruled that you can't recover it until you recover the BODY, but that isn't the default way the rules work.

[Opal]

If Figured Characteristics are seem as too much of a 'freebie' - getting too much for the cost of the Primary characteristics - one alternative would be to do what something like what was done with ECs when that objection was made against them: Have Drains affecting figured characteristics Drain the corresponding figureds, as well.


For my money, though, Figured Characteristics worked just fine for most of the history of the game - had EC not been 'nerfed' due to it's 'unjstified costs savings' no one would really be that bent out of shape over figureds - they'd be too busying being bent out of shape over ECs, still.


I think there's just a movement in the community to do away with cost breaks of any kind.

[steamteck]

Gotta agree with Opal. here.

[rjcurrie]

If Figured Characteristics are seem as too much of a 'freebie' - getting too much for the cost of the Primary characteristics - one alternative would be to do what something like what was done with ECs when that objection was made against them: Have Drains affecting figured characteristics Drain the corresponding figureds, as well.


For my money, though, Figured Characteristics worked just fine for most of the history of the game - had EC not been 'nerfed' due to it's 'unjstified costs savings' no one would really be that bent out of shape over figureds - they'd be too busying being bent out of shape over ECs, still.


I think there's just a movement in the community to do away with cost breaks of any kind.

I've never had a problem with ECs. But Figured Characteristics are a completely different kettle of fish. But I've already been through this in the "Decoupling Figured Characteristics" thread and have no desire to repeat it here.

[JmOz]

I think there's just a movement in the community to do away with cost breaks of any kind.

got to agree, and i feel that is unfortunate

[BobGreenwade]

If Figured Characteristics are seem as too much of a 'freebie' - getting too much for the cost of the Primary characteristics - one alternative would be to do what something like what was done with ECs when that objection was made against them: Have Drains affecting figured characteristics Drain the corresponding figureds, as well.


For my money, though, Figured Characteristics worked just fine for most of the history of the game - had EC not been 'nerfed' due to it's 'unjstified costs savings' no one would really be that bent out of shape over figureds - they'd be too busying being bent out of shape over ECs, still.


I think there's just a movement in the community to do away with cost breaks of any kind.


Gotta agree with Opal. here.

Same here. Figured Characteristics have a long history and they really haven't been as much of a problem as a lot of people seem to think. There are all sorts of ways characters can get cost breaks, depending on what kind of character they are: Bricks work with STR, Martial Artists work with Martial Arts, Energy Projectors get Multipowers and ECs, Gadgeteers get Focus, and so on and so on. Some of these breaks are "package breaks," and others actually give limitations, but they're still there regardless. Getting rid of Figured Characteristics throws that off, and could seriously unbalance the system.

[BobGreenwade]

This has never been a matter of "balance" or "problems" in the normal sense. Steve's not thinking of getting rid of Figured for these reasons, but because the link assigns a specific Special Effect that may not be logical in all cases to them. And that, I'm all for. I'm also for recreating some of the cost savings, but allowing me to pick what the group of abilities associated with my STR is.I realize that balance isn't the reason Steve's considering the change. I'm just talking about the effect it'll have.

[Soul_Decay]

To be frank, I've been debating weighing in, being a veritable noob and all, but in the end, I suppose the answer is, "Why not." Feel free to disregard at your leisure. :D


Q: Should we get rid of the concept of Figured Characteristics, and just make all Characteristics straightforward purchases?I think I like this. Not only does it do everything that you listed, it helps to simplify character creation.

Honestly, as regards Figured Characteristics, I think that would be an excellent sidebar (as in, letting people know a standard REC should be around STR/5+CON/5, to give people another reference to where they might want their stats to be), or maybe include it in the description of said Characteristics, but Figured Characteristcs should not be a rule, just a guideline/suggestion for balanced character creation.

With that, I figure you get some of the benefits, without the drawbacks.


Sub-Issue #1: If Figured Characteristics are removed, should the costs of any Characteristics be changed to compensate?I think my vote is the re-evaluate the costs, and change them if necessary (I don't really have any real suggestions, since, really, there are far more people on this board with far more Hero GMing and PCing experience than myself). In regards to having to re-examine characters, if we're talking completely new edition, I think to a certain extent that re-examination has to happen anyway.


Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?You pointed out that EGO can be a pain, as strong-willed heroes can be expensive to make -- I think a similar argument could be made for DEX in regards to character concept (in that there are many heroes that are supposed to be more graceful/dexterous/etc. than the norm, but it is expensive to be such).


Q: Should CV be removed as something that's factored from DEX?I like this idea, actually, pretty much because of the "allow characters to affect it with Adjustment Powers" and "make building many powers and abilities easier". Also, I tend to think of it as a Figured Characteristic anyway, and I personally think it'd feel very 'legacy' if it remained around, unchanged, while all the other Figured Characteristics were uncoupled.

And this would probably fall into making DEX cheaper, so people could make more nimble characters without paying an arm and a leg.


Q: Should ECV be removed as something that's factored from EGO?I like this as well, for similar reasons as CV, but I think that the Characteristic block might be getting a bit long. I generally like it because it is pretty much a Figured Characteristic anyway, so why not take the plunge and make it a Characteristic?


Q: Should PD and ED be combined into one Characteristic called DEF? If not, should objects be given separate PD and ED ratings?It would help reduce the number of characteristics potentially appearing on the stat block, and for those who specifically wanted defense vs. a specific attack could still do so by using limitations.

I suppose my question would be, would this be simpler or more complex in the end? Do most characters in games have very similar PD/ED scores, thus making this an overall simplification, or would more characters have DEF: 13 (20 vs. Energy), or something like that that essentially means they'd be better off just having the two, still).

One thought I had in regards to this – I have to wonder if maybe rolling the two together wouldn't actually help customization, by forcing people out of the semi-arbitrary Physical/Energy distinction. Instead, you might end up with DEF 13 (20 vs. Electric-Based attacks, or vs. Metals and Magnetic-Based attacks), or similar.


Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?I'm generally thinking 'yes' on this.

A secondary question: if DEF/PD/ED and Mental Defense become characteristics, would Power Defense become a characteristic as well?


Q: Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?I'd say go sidebar as well. END provides a valuable tool for some games, and helps with representing some genres and settings. It strikes me that END is far easier to shoehorn out than shoehorn in, so it ends up being a benefit to leave it in.


I would also like to see the impact of adding enough starting points to that Brick character on his colleagues, including the Mentalist with NCM and the Energy Projector. Presently, the system balances pretty well. Show me the elimination of Figured will, if not improve balance, at least not jeopardize it! That's… a really good point. And one, I'm sad to say, I hadn't given a lot of thought to. While I like the idea of removing Figureds, I'm more concerned with play balance.

[Querysphinx]

The problem with combining PD/ED into DEF is that you're trading one mechanic that doesn't work like it's supposed to for another mechanic that doesn't work like it's supposed to. The problem is, that PD/ED has been broken for so long that everyone seems to think that it's right and normal for it to be broken.

4pts spent in PD/ED (2/2) makes a character impervious to BDY damage from a 1D6 of a normal attack (which used to cost 5 points)

If you change this to 2pts per one generalized DEF stat you end up with exactly the same issue.

4pts spent in DEF (2) makes a character impervious to BDY damage from a 1D6 of a normal attack (which used to cost 5 points)

The hero system isn't broken up mechanically into Energy Attacks and Physical Attacks. It's broken up mechanically into attacks that do STUN and BODY.

Logically there should be a STUN DEFENSE (1pt. per) and BODY DEFENSE. (2pts. per)

It's worked for me for years,

[Beast]

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

yes but more point will be needed to build characters


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

maybe for some things
it does give you a time factor for adjustment powers

Str: no unless you are going to redo the strength chart for say str 0 pick up nothing and str 20 is max human then goto log for super str

Dex,Con,Pd,Ed,Spd,Rec,Stun,End when they go below zero it more the matter of how long befor they come back than anything else



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

you could go with having the characters buying the base roll on an increasing scale for area
Keeping a 3d6 roll or using a d20
1-6 1pt per lvl
7-12 2pts per lvl
13-15 4pts per lvl
Familiarities cost 1 pt roll vs 1/2 of your base(or 2/3 but this starts getting break points again)
Specific skills cost 3 pts and you get your full base roll
add +1 to a skill for 1 pt

Perception
Knowledge
Dexterity(eye-hand coordination)
Agility(body movement)
Personal interaction(Presence stuff)
Will power(ego stuff)

by doing this you can get rid of some stats(Int,Ego,Pre)
Ego and Pre become more PD and ED

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

again more character points needed

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

yes

[Paragon]

This is actually taken into account by adding Size as a stat and determining Base Strength by averaging Size and Con.

That's the BRP solution, and while it works, all it does in the end is substitute one attribute (Size) for another (Body). If you want to use Size for other purposes (like BRPs usual contribution to damage bonus) that's fine, but otherwise you're not changing the net number any.

[Zane_Marlowe]

I've got a few comments, and some of these are going to be "me too" kinds of things, but I want to start by offering some thoughts on a way to get your intuitions going in regards to figured characteristics.

As with everything, I'd suggest setting aside mechanics questions at the beginning because balanced mechanics is what you need at the end. It's the desired degree of verisimilitude that we should begin with. To that end, I suggest we think about figured characteristics this way: if you can imagine the primary characteristic varying in a way opposite to the figured characteristic in either positive or negative values as appropriately realistic, then divide the two. If not however, then do not.

Let's test this thought out. STR has a HTH damage figured characteristic. Can we imagine someone who was not very strong having a lot of damage? Well, that's kind of a stretch for me, but maybe you think that damage has more to do with other factors all things considered. Can we imagine someone who had a lot of STR having very little damage? Again, this is kind of a stretch for me when I think about a real strong guy connecting with a punch, but maybe you can make an argument here.

Let me be clear, I don't really have an opinion on STR and HtH damage in this case, but the reason I offer the foregoing thinking is because people seem to be spending a lot of time talking about whether they think the mechanics would work better one way or another, or whether it would be easier to get players into the math of it all more easily, and the guiding value I favor is whether it makes sense to divide the values conceptually in the first place.

One way I think figured characteristics could be balanced somewhat where we think they should not be divided is to make the basic stats more expensive (and if you divide them, that's basically just what you're doing). However, failing that, you might just attenuate the values derived from primary characteristics and make people pay them up from there. So for example, a high INT might get you a PER score at 6 (let's just suppose), and you wouldn't leave it there, but the guy who didn't have as high an INT would have to pay more to get it to an acceptable level. When both pay the same points, the high INT guy ends up ahead, and that sounds right, right?

Now an example that I favor keeping undivided: CON and STUN. I have a hard time imagining someone who was really fit failing to absorb system shock more easily than someone who wasn't.

On a related note, I favor keeping BODY and CON divided because BODY represents physical mass, and STUN represents fitness. I like this division because Hero is one of the few systems that can represent the way a big guy who couldn't run a marathon could probably still take a punch; or the way a skinny guy who could run a marathon might fold when he takes a bullet or a stab wound. These are conceptually distinct values, so I favor keeping them so in the system.

I've also heard arguments for COM being turned into a perk or talent, and I'd reject this as well. If COM is a dump stat that isn't worth spending points on because it doesn't affect anything, I'd argue that that just means more should be based on what is clearly a value that conceptually belongs with other physical characteristics such as STR or DEX. Why not an optional rule whereby some social skills might be based on COM rather than PRE? High Society or Seduction seem especially appropriate candidates for this kind of rule. This opens up new ways of putting together a character concept if a player wants a character to be good at the relevant skills without necessarily having a forceful personality.

I do think there is a conceptual difference between physical agility (e.g., an acrobat) and physical coordination (e.g., a watchmaker) that isn't currently distinct in the system. The former would be helpful for defending, dodging, and SPD, but the latter would be helpful for targeting skills.

PD and ED should remain divided on my view, but I can see people simplifying it into one value where they want a simplified game.

This last point brings up an an interesting thought: why not set up a "basic rules" that simplifies by combining a number of values people are considering, and when people are comfortable with that, there could be an "advanced rules" that iterates the rules by dividing characteristics to achieve the conceptual divisions people want.

Okay, there's what I've got. In short, divide or combine per conceptual analysis of the characteristics, not per mechanical or pedagogical implications.

[archermoo]

If Figured Characteristics are seem as too much of a 'freebie' - getting too much for the cost of the Primary characteristics - one alternative would be to do what something like what was done with ECs when that objection was made against them: Have Drains affecting figured characteristics Drain the corresponding figureds, as well.


For my money, though, Figured Characteristics worked just fine for most of the history of the game - had EC not been 'nerfed' due to it's 'unjstified costs savings' no one would really be that bent out of shape over figureds - they'd be too busying being bent out of shape over ECs, still.


I think there's just a movement in the community to do away with cost breaks of any kind.

My objection to Figured Characteristics has nothing to do with cost breaks. Or even costs at all. It has to do with it limiting the characters that can be built. Or making it such that some characters can only be built using limited characteristics as part of their base build, which seems to be over complicated to me.

And you are wrong about the changes to EC having anything to do with it, at least for me. I've objected to the link between Figureds and Primaries since 10 or 15 minutes after I picked up the 1st edition rules. It just seemed so counter to everything else in the rules. "Build whatever you want, unless it comes down to your Characteristics, then you need to put your character together like WE say".

[archermoo]

I've got a few comments, and some of these are going to be "me too" kinds of things, but I want to start by offering some thoughts on a way to get your intuitions going in regards to figured characteristics.


I snipped the actual argument because I'm not really responding to the points so much as the general take on the argument, as well as arguments that I've heard from others. And your post was convenient to respond to. :)

I can only speak for myself, but I want to say that I'm not in favour of removing the link between Primaries and Figureds because the Figureds are called Figureds. Or because I want to have Characteristics not do anything. I am in favour of it because I think that PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, STUN, and Leaping should be normal Characteristics that are not modified by the purchase of a different Characteristic. Note, that list does not include everything that Characteristics do in the game. Nor does it only include things that are called Figured Characteristics in the game. It includes the things that are currently modified by the purchase of Characteristics that I don't think should be.

[dsatow]

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

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

While in an absolute sense this appeals to me, I think it’s probably not necessary. Starting at 10s has been a part of every edition of the HERO System, and it tends to go along with the “dramatic simulation” aspect of the system. I don’t mind being a little humanocentric in this regard, either. ;)
[dsatow]: I don't think its necessary and its probably too drastic a change for most people too. If you do really want to change it though, I would suggest that 0 be normal and that you do bonuses to show above normality and negatives to show below normality.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it would help the HERO System to get rid of the concept of “negative Characteristics,” at least insofar as any negative Characteristic still providing tangible, positive effects (e.g., negative STR, which still allows for lifting small amounts of weight). If we just say that 0 is as low as a Characteristic can go and define that as “no function at all” (can’t lift anything, can’t think for one’s self, can’t resist being controlled/influenced, whatever), it simplifies a lot of things, cuts text out of the book, and is I think more logical. It would require reworking the STR 1-5 lifting scale, and perhaps a special rule for Adjustment Powers, but that’s not difficult.
<snip>
[dsatow]: The concept of the no negative value would add to the complexity of the adjustment powers, which are already a complex and abused power type. I just see it as a large can of worms. I think negative values should be allowed but no negative effects beyond zero. A simple statement that when you are at 0 or negative the effects are the same, you are at a story level disablement and are unable to function.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: Under the current (and all former) incarnations of the HERO System, the rules, which calculate Skill Rolls by dividing Characteristics by 5, tend to encourage people to buy Characteristics that end in 0, 3, 5, or 8 (with some differentiation for DEX due to CV calculations). Aside from bragging rights and offering some protection against negative Adjustment Powers, an INT of say, 14, is meaningless compared to 13 — it offers no additional game benefit. In fact, it’s not until 18 that any additional benefit is received (in the form of +1 to Skill Rolls). This has the effect of making a lot of characters look a little too much the same.
<snip>
[dsatow]: I've thought about that and personally, I think most of the breakpoints should be removed. The question is how without breaking game mechanics. As I have stated elsewhere, in a concept of homebrew variants, the idea I got to was that all stats use the 5=1d6 of power idea (extended, 3 pts =1/2d6, etc.) It increases the number of breakpoints and would work like this. If you have a skill using say int. An int of 13 would give you 2.5d6. Skills would add to your int dice. Targets would either be a challenge or a set number. Numbers set would be based on "body" done or total, though I like the "body" concept more.

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

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

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

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

Steve’s Thoughts: My feeling on this is no, they should not. I think regardless of the side benefit of getting Figureds, each Primary Characteristic provides one or more valuable functions that justify its current cost. Some argument could perhaps be made for CON, since Skills aren’t based on it, but I think that “resistance to being Stunned” is worth 2 Character Points per point — if I change it I have to re-examine every character built in terms of offense and defense, and so do players.
[dsatow]: I agree in principal that it should not change, but if you do separate figured and normal, then I would just say get rid of CON all together and combine its ability with BODY. Generally there is a correlation there anyways.

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

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

<snip>

In light of these examples, assuming we want to keep characters at the same level of power and competence (and I think that’s a safe assumption), some increase in the starting points is going to be necessary. “How much more?” is the obvious follow-up question, and that’s something I’ll have to consider for each character classification.
[dsatow]: I think you are better off changing the starting values of the secondary characteristics for heros in much the same way you change the starting point costs. Then allow the players to buy down or up the values.

Examples (tweeking obviously will need to be done):
PD Normal(2) Hero(4) Superagent(8) Superhero(10) Galactic(20)
ED Normal(2) Hero(4) Superagent(8) Superhero(10) Galactic(20)
SPD Normal(2) Hero(3) Superagent(4) Superhero(5) Galactic(6)
REC Normal(4) Hero(6) Superagent(8) Superhero(10) Galactic(12)
END Normal(20) Hero(30) Superagent(40) Superhero(50) Galactic(60)
STUN Normal(20) Hero(30) Superagent(40) Superhero(50) Galactic(60)

Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

Steve’s Thoughts: Even assuming no other changes, I’m strongly opposed to increasing the cost of STR. To the extent there are problems with the cost of STR, I think that removing Figured Characteristics and Leaping from STR resolves them just fine.
[dsatow]: Also changing the cost breaks the 5 point = 1d6 damage ratio.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think that it should. The correlation between STR and Leaping is one of the few obvious remaining “Champions-isms” in the HERO System — it makes sense in a setting where characters often travel by leaping tall buildings. It makes no sense anywhere else and requires such jiggery-pokery as buying down the Leaping of elephants and giants. It makes more sense to start everyone with Leaping 2” and let them buy it up from there, with an optional “derive base Leaping from STR” rule for genres that need it.
[dsatow]: It breaks as many champion-isms not to detach it from strength. No other movement power is characteristic based.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: While it might solve some difficulties, my thinking is that it should not. The correlation between raw force and damage is one most gamers can understand; it’s “gaming logical” even if it’s not necessarily “realistic.”
[dsatow]: I would not like this, it also sets up a damage scale which relates power to dice. Keep strength and damage as it currently is.

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. Even if we get rid of Figureds, it still provides enough bang to be worth 3 Character Points per point, and I don’t think an increase is necessary. If CV were removed from DEX (see below), then the cost of DEX would probably need to change.
[dsatow]: Question then would be what would it be changed to? It affects major combat skills and position on the speed chart. Personally, I'd keep it the same.

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

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

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

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

However, splitting off CV also poses some problems. It would mean adding one (or possibly two) Characteristics to the character sheet, and generally that seems undesireable to me. Second, by “gaming logic” dexterity and accuracy go together pretty well. Third, it would increase the percentage of their starting points that characters spend on Characteristics. Fourth, unless priced expensively (say, 5-8 points per +1 CV), doing this could easily lead to “CV inflation” in many games. Fifth, doing this might require changing the cost structure of Combat Skill Levels.
[dsatow]: Again, I think this opens a can of worms and is too great a change for most players to accept. It also smacks of 1st ed Marvel Superheroes where fighting was separated from agility. What you end up with was a character who was incredibly clumsy doing delicate kungfu martial arts.

Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

Steve’s Thoughts: Right now, INT in the HERO System is generally defined as the ability to perceive and react to problems and crisis situations quickly. If so, it could be better named, and it should probably factor into how SPD is calculated (see below). And there’s some question as to whether it should be the basis of so many Skills that seem to depend on intellect, memory, and reasoning power. Right now my thinking is we’d be better off to “redefine” it as being basically “thinking power,” and leave the idea of reacting to crises out, or at least only refer to it secondarily.
[dsatow]: Again I go to my own game design thoughts. I believe Int should be set as the Speed at which a character processes and retains information. Thus a 386 computer may have a low INT but its still capable of determining PI out to the Xth place. It just takes it quite a while. This concept also relates to the idea that people can't not learn (awk) to they learn just slowly.

If you keep figured characteristics, then I'd might add INT/10 to speed. I've always though the actions were too few per turn for low levels.

If you take away figured characteristics, just remember that there are a lot of people who act before they think.:D

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

Steve’s Thoughts: The arguments here are much the same as those for CV and DEX. Logically intelligence and being observant don’t necessarily have any close connection; many highly intelligent people are forgetful and unobservant, while many “stupid” people are keen observers. Since PER is so important in every genre and campaign, converting it to a separate Characteristic (which could then be Adjusted and the like) makes some sense.
[dsatow]: If you go with my definition of INT, it is still valid (see previous question).

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

Steve’s Thoughts: This is an interesting issue. On the one hand, it’s hard to argue that EGO is somehow twice as valuable as STR, INT, or PRE. Furthermore, many, many heroes are supposed to be “strong-willed,” but at 2 Character Points per point of EGO few of them can really afford to be.

On the other hand, changing EGO to +1 point per point would make it veeeeerrrry easy for characters with Mental Powers to obtain outrageously high ECVs (though the counterbalance to that is that, in theory at least, many more characters would have higher ECVs than 3 because EGO’s now cheaper). The cost of EGO is really part of the way that Mental Powers are balanced in the HERO System, and my inclination is to keep things as they are. But perhaps adding a ‘Strong-Willed” Talent through which characters buy EGO only to make EGO Rolls would be a worthy addition to the rules.
[dsatow]: Personally, I think you need to up the value of the stat in the game. I see too many people with base EGO and PRE lately. PRE is easily corrected but not EGO without the introduction psionics. I would suggest using an ego roll to over-come fear and hesitation. You get presenced attacked, you can make an ego roll to overcome the fear at -1 per 5 of the effect over your base PRE. Since battling fear is emotionally draining, using EGO this way should cost 1 END per 5 points of EGO. This would only affect the delay portion of presence attacks and not the DCV portion, after all you are still afraid.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: See the “CV and DEX” question, above, for a general take on this issue; the benefits and problems are largely the same. However, I think that (a) tying ECV to EGO has even more “gaming logic” than tying CV to DEX, and (b) the clutter caused by an ECV Characteristic is even more cumbersome, since most characters use CV constantly but rarely use ECV. Even if CV gets split off from DEX my inclination at present is to keep ECV a part of EGO.
[dsatow]: See above.


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think that it should, and I intend to do so unless someone comes up with a good counterargument that I find convincing. ;) COM doesn’t do anything at all in game terms, unlike all the other Characteristics. It can be fun, but it’s not worth cluttering up the character sheet. It makes more sense to eliminate it (and its annoying 1/2-point cost) and replace it with a Talent, Beautiful/Handsome, that’s defined as Interaction Skill bonuses in certain situations (and naturally there’d be a variant form called Ugly ;) ).
[dsatow]: I think it would remove a lot of headaches. I would however suggest it not be a talent. Talents seem to be more an innate ability, almost a power but not quite. It would make beauty a PC or unPC thing to have. beauty is also very subjective. I would suggest just suggesting it be a way to buy PRE with a limitation only vs. the opposite sex.

Side note: In my game variant, the physical, mental, and social stats were divided into groups of three. Physical had Str, Dex, Body/Con. Mental had Will, Int, and Sanity. Social had Pre, Charm, and Popularity. The First stat in each was relative strength, the second was speed, and last was staying power. Thus you can have a strong willpower but at the edge of sanity like many of Arkham's finest residents. The social allow someone who could be very presenceful on stage but a jerk when met up close, and you ability to besmerch his character would be based on his popularity.

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

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

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t really think this is necessary, especially since it means adding one more Characteristic to HERO’s already long list, but it’s not beyond consideration.
[dsatow]: I disagree. I think it would help increase people to buy EGO. If you allow mental defense to add to PRE that would be even better.

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

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

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

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea is attractive in that it eliminates a big chunk of combat book-keeping — but I think it also removes a lot of ability to customize powers, magic systems, and the like. I think that gamers who don’t want to bother with END already just aren’t bothering with it, or build their characters so that it’s not an issue. A sidebar in the book about “eliminating END” is enough to deal with this issue, I’d say.
[dsatow]: I thought ever since 4th edition, END was fine.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

A: At first glance this may seem odd, but it’s not a wholly unattractive idea. If we use something like the Size Templates to define what each Size category gets (with Human-sized as a default, of course), we could then define Growth and Shrinking as adding/subtracting from that. It would also bring Vehicle and Base character sheets a little more in line with standard character sheets. If a character doesn’t want something from Size (like extra reach), he takes a Limitation on it. I’m not entirely sold on the idea, but I think it’s worth considering.
[dsatow]: Yes, the current model of buying everything individually is painful and most people I know stick to the old way with growth and shrinking 0 end always on.
__________________

[Enforcer84]

My objection to Figured Characteristics has nothing to do with cost breaks. Or even costs at all. It has to do with it limiting the characters that can be built. Or making it such that some characters can only be built using limited characteristics as part of their base build, which seems to be over complicated to me.

And you are wrong about the changes to EC having anything to do with it, at least for me. I've objected to the link between Figureds and Primaries since 10 or 15 minutes after I picked up the 1st edition rules. It just seemed so counter to everything else in the rules. "Build whatever you want, unless it comes down to your Characteristics, then you need to put your character together like WE say".
What concepts can you not make with the current Figured characteristics?

[Zane_Marlowe]

I can only speak for myself, but I want to say that I'm not in favour of removing the link between Primaries and Figureds because the Figureds are called Figureds. Or because I want to have Characteristics not do anything. I am in favour of it because I think that PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, STUN, and Leaping should be normal Characteristics that are not modified by the purchase of a different Characteristic. Note, that list does not include everything that Characteristics do in the game. Nor does it only include things that are called Figured Characteristics in the game. It includes the things that are currently modified by the purchase of Characteristics that I don't think should be.

That's fair enough, I think I was suggesting that if you think primary and figured characteristics could vary in opposition to one another realistically (see my last lengthy post above), then they could be reasonably divided, and if not, then they shouldn't.

It's just a decision procedure, but I do think some figured characteristics would (by that procedure) remain figured characteristics. It just seems intuitively right that for some things you couldn't be really "X" without also being at least somewhat "Y" as well.

[steamteck]

Just another cry for COM here.

My wife and I just played tonight and she made multiple COM rolls in several different scenes. One smoothing things out with the Police inspector. Making the NPC strong jawed hero feel protective of her character. Etc. I double cost every 5 points over 20 and cost COM 1 ans she still has thought it worth it to buy it up to 27.

[Hugh Neilson]

Just another cry for COM here.

My wife and I just played tonight and she made multiple COM rolls in several different scenes. One smoothing things out with the Police inspector. Making the NPC strong jawed hero feel protective of her character. Etc. I double cost every 5 points over 20 and cost COM 1 ans she still has thought it worth it to buy it up to 27.

What this says to me is that COM is as useful, or as useless, as the GM chooses to make it. Maybe, just maybe, the answer is not to write COM off as useless, but to provide tools for the GM to make it useful.

[Chris Goodwin]

What this says to me is that COM is as useful, or as useless, as the GM chooses to make it. Maybe, just maybe, the answer is not to write COM off as useless, but to provide tools for the GM to make it useful.

Very good point. We're talking about taking a part of the system out, and replacing it with something else. My preference is to avoid taking things out as much as possible. If we can make COM useful, wouldn't that be better?

[archermoo]

What concepts can you not make with the current Figured characteristics?

Casting it back into the statement that I made, without using limited characteristics you can't make a character that has a high strength but is no harder to physically damage than a normal person, nor recovers faster than a normal person.

There are SFX for being strong that don't make you harder to hurt physically, or make you recover faster or be harder to knock out. There are SFX for being agile that don't include you getting more actions than normal, etc.

Linking Characteristics together makes it much harder to do those things seperately. You have to use limited Characteristics, which by default means that those Characteristics are Powers, not Characteristics. Unlinking them means that you just need to buy all your Characteristics rather than counting on the system to make your choices for you.

[BobGreenwade]

What this says to me is that COM is as useful, or as useless, as the GM chooses to make it. Maybe, just maybe, the answer is not to write COM off as useless, but to provide tools for the GM to make it useful.Okay, count me as on board with this. (Though, as Steve's said, it's the logic of an argument that'll sway him rather than its popularity.)

[Balabanto]

I don't feel there's a need to change the characteristics. The problem with INT is that if you have too many pros from dover, only one person can be the smartest in the world and I run a game with 15 groups or more in it.

Figured characteristics are the same thing. I have to agree that removing them from the game after five editions is going to make all long time players say "Fnark? What the...?" or something similar. I know that the goal is to make the game more accessible to people who can't do math, but if that's the case, the Cost of CON needs to become 1. The Cost of BODY needs to become 1. The cost of EGO stays the same and DEX stays the same because they're active combat stats. I would actually argue for making the cost of EGO 3 because EGO attack is like buying the AVLD power for free for less points, and not all games have free play of Mental Defense. PRE and COM are likewise remaining at 1.

But, all those points that just dropped out of Regular now become part of your "Secondary" Characteristics. Lowering CON and BODY gives you a LITTLE more leeway, because those stats are now MUCH less useful. All Con does now is prevent you from being stunned. It doesn't give you REC, or END, or STUN, or anything, that's ALL it does. What this will do is change the design of EVERY single character in the game, because now massive defenses and low CON become far more plausible and feasible. If the average attack is 12d6, I don't care about my stun total, because the guy who has SUPER attacks, like Doctor Destroyer, is gonna stun me anyway, and that average villain who the PC's face on a daily basis is barely going to be able to hurt me at all. This may work in comic books, per se, but I don't think it really functions as well in a tabletop roleplaying game.

[James Gillen]

I'd be okay with unifying CV and skills, making everything be based on CHA/5 or CHA/3 or whatever the end result is; I like 5 myself, because it's a nice round number for the system, but it's not ultra-important.


I like this idea.




Re: the stat block: Look at D&D3; while the important values are the stat bonuses, I think their masterstroke was in keeping the 3-18 range, deriving the important values directly from the 3-18 range, and keeping their stat block as is. Because of that, it still looks and feels like D&D, for all that implies. If they'd instead said "Okay, you mark down the important values instead, so a stat block looks like this: S +2, D -1, C +3, I +0, W -1, CH +4", they'd have had a revolt on their hands.

Which again, is why messing with things too much creates something that's based on Hero but is not Hero in the same way that True20 is not D20 but is obviously based on it. I like True20 a lot more than conventional D20, but if that's the direction one is (hypothetically) going in, be upfront about it.

JG

[James Gillen]

Also... if they're not based on "Primary" Characteristics anymore, then they're not FIGURED Characteristics, now are they? What are they going to be called?

JG

[rjcurrie]

Also... if they're not based on "Primary" Characteristics anymore, then they're not FIGURED Characteristics, now are they? What are they going to be called?

JG

How about we just have Characteristics and not call any of them Primary?

[Enforcer84]

Casting it back into the statement that I made, without using limited characteristics you can't make a character that has a high strength but is no harder to physically damage than a normal person, nor recovers faster than a normal person.

There are SFX for being strong that don't make you harder to hurt physically, or make you recover faster or be harder to knock out. There are SFX for being agile that don't include you getting more actions than normal, etc.

Linking Characteristics together makes it much harder to do those things seperately. You have to use limited Characteristics, which by default means that those Characteristics are Powers, not Characteristics. Unlinking them means that you just need to buy all your Characteristics rather than counting on the system to make your choices for you.
Sure you can. You buy STR with No figured Characteristics. Why is using limitations "cheating"*?
So a limited skill is a Power? or is that only Characteristics?





*My word not yours

[Markdoc]

What this says to me is that COM is as useful, or as useless, as the GM chooses to make it. Maybe, just maybe, the answer is not to write COM off as useless, but to provide tools for the GM to make it useful.

That to me would be a superior approach to the Perk so often suggested. In my games, it's used frequently. It can substitute for PRE in a variety of interaction skills - though obviously not all.

cheers, Mark

[Enforcer84]

That to me would be a superior approach to the Perk so often suggested. In my games, it's used frequently. It can substitute for PRE in a variety of interaction skills - though obviously not all.

cheers, Mark
Intimidation?

[KawangaKid]

I have an alternative arrangement for the Stat blocks - to make it easier for some local folks to learn the interrelationship between the base stats and the figured stats.

Should I upload the file or e-mail it to HERO Games offices for review? It's in MS Excel.

[Derek Hiemforth]

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

It also appeals to me in the same kind of absolute sense that it appeals to you, but I don't think it would ultimately be desirable. In addition to the arguments against it that you note above, I'd say it would also be more confusing for new players. While some of us would like building characters like Legos, assembling them piece-by-piece starting from literally nothing, the majority of players would probably prefer building them like Mr. Potatohead, starting with a base form, and adding various accoutrements. ;)


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


Q: Should we change the HERO System so that “every point in a Characteristic matters” and to discourage people from buying Characteristics at “breakpoint” levels?
This is a huge "would've" for me. If I were designing the system from scratch, I absolutely would've set up Characteristics this way. But as a change, I think it would be more disruptive than it's worth.


Q: Should we get rid of the concept of Figured Characteristics, and just make all Characteristics straightforward purchases?
Yes. In addition to the reasons you gave, the Figureds also build-in particular SFX for the Primaries that feed them. For just one possible example among many, if a little old lady has a high BODY score due to immense will-to-live, that doesn't necessarily mean she should have a high STUN score. BODY and STUN (for example) measure different things, and assuming they're related in some particular ratio is assuming particular SFX for those things.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: My feeling on this is no, they should not. I think regardless of the side benefit of getting Figureds, each Primary Characteristic provides one or more valuable functions that justify its current cost. Some argument could perhaps be made for CON, since Skills aren’t based on it, but I think that “resistance to being Stunned” is worth 2 Character Points per point — if I change it I have to re-examine every character built in terms of offense and defense, and so do players.
I think the cost of STR should remain the same. It will still be a good deal without the Figureds, but will no longer be so cost-effective that the discussion would mostly center around whether its cost should be increased. ;)

I'd also leave DEX the same. It was, IMO, the most cost-effective element in the game before. Even without 1 point of its cost going to SPD, I think it's still plenty useful.

I would recommend changing CON to 1 point per. I don't think that resistance to being Stunned is worth 2 points per point. Why? Because at 2 points per, it would have the same cost as +1 PD and +1 ED, but less effect (PD and ED would also prevent 1 point towards Stunning, but would also protect against STUN and BODY damage.)

I'd also recommend changing BODY to 1 point per. I've never heard anyone assert that BODY was too cheap at 2 points when 1 of them went directly to STUN, so I have to assume no one would think it was too cheap at 1 point when nothing goes directly to STUN. :)

I'd love to see all half-point costs go away, just from an elegance standpoint. But I can't think of a really good way to do that with END, so I guess I'd leave its cost the same. ;)

I'd leave all other CHA costs the same, including the costs of all other formerly-Figured CHAs.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: This one’s a little trickier. Let’s analyze some caase studies to get an idea of the mathemetical effects. I’ve chosen three: a brick; a high-end martial artist/athlete, and Pulp explorer Randall Irons.
I think a boost in points for character creation is in order. Based on your example builds, it looks like removing Figureds results in a cost increase of about 30-35%. The brick was around 35%, the others were closer to 30%. So increasing the base points by around that much seems like a good ballpark starting point when you consider what to do.


Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?
No, for reasons given above.


Q: Should Leaping be removed as something that’s factored from STR?
Yes. However, its connection to STR might make a bit more sense if a connection to mass was also factored in. If Size makes it as a CHA of some kind, I could see more logic in saying that higher-STR characters can leap farther by default than lower-STR characters of equal Size. For example, if you and I were of equal STR, I would expect you to be able to leap farther than me, because I have much more mass to move.

But even then, it may be more trouble than its worth, and would still be tacitly assuming a particular SFX of STR. It would be just as valid to say that "I'm unusually strong for my mass" is a good rationale for buying extra Leaping. :)


Q: Should HTH damage be removed as something that’s factored from STR?
No. Technically, force = mass * acceleration, and STR simulates neither mass nor acceleration, so it's easy to see why some might argue that HTH damage shouldn't be based on STR. However, I'd counter that -- in a game-simplicity sense -- STR simulates force. It's not simulating force's components, but it is simulating force itself. Plus, I think many people would simply find it counter-intuitive if the big burly guy's punches didn't hurt any more than the wimpy pencil-necked geek's punches do. ;)


Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?
No, (assuming no changes to the functioning of DEX) for reasons given above.


Q: Should DEX be split into two or more Characteristics?
Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?
I think the "realism" objections to having CV based on DEX could be mitigated by splitting DEX up, depending on how you split it. Rather than splitting it into CHAs governing DEX-based rolls, CVs, and SPD (especially if SPD is no longer Figured), perhaps it could be split into three CHAs, all priced at 1 point per, governing OCV, DCV, and Combat Order, and each of the three new CHAs might govern certain Skills that are currently DEX-based. A sample breakdown might be:

ACCURACY (ACC) -- Determines OCV, Lockpicking, and Slight of Hand. This is a measure of aim and fine motor control/precision. It might also be applied to skills like surgery, etc.

AGILITY (AGI) -- Determines DCV, Acrobatics, Breakfall, Climbing, Contortionist, and Riding. This is a measure of balance, flexibility, and overall whole-body control.

REFLEXES (REF) -- Determines Combat Order, Combat Driving, Combat Piloting, Fast Draw, Stealth, and Teamwork. This is primarily a measure of reaction time.

This sort of breakdown appeals to me because it's more granular than DEX, and because it addresses the realism issues of aim and evasion being based on the same thing. However, it definitely adds complexity in the form of extra CHAs (even if each one of the new CHAs is more focused than DEX, and therefore arguably easier to explain/understand). And it would be a change that would make it considerably harder to use older Hero game books.

So ultimately, I remain torn. As a gamer in general and as an admirer of elegance in game design, I like it. But as a Hero fan and collector, I don't like it. ;)


Q: Should INT be “redefined”?
I agree with your proposed redefinition.


Q: Should PER be removed as something that’s factored from INT?
Yes. I actually think the case for divorcing PER from INT is much stronger than the case for divorcing CV from DEX. As you note, PER is something everyone has, and it's of similar utility in games of all genres. That description intuitively sounds like a Characteristic to me. I don't put too much weight on the "cluttering the character sheet" argument in the case of PER, since nearly every character sheet lists the PER roll anyway. A PER CHA would only have the "sole purpose" of determining a roll if you didn't choose to give it any other purpose. I could easily see some Skills being based on PER. PER could also be a logical factor in determining the Combat Order (for much the same reason as you noted INT as currently defined could be a factor in determining SPD).


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

Steve’s Thoughts: This is an interesting issue. On the one hand, it’s hard to argue that EGO is somehow twice as valuable as STR, INT, or PRE. Furthermore, many, many heroes are supposed to be “strong-willed,” but at 2 Character Points per point of EGO few of them can really afford to be.

On the other hand, changing EGO to +1 point per point would make it veeeeerrrry easy for characters with Mental Powers to obtain outrageously high ECVs (though the counterbalance to that is that, in theory at least, many more characters would have higher ECVs than 3 because EGO’s now cheaper). The cost of EGO is really part of the way that Mental Powers are balanced in the HERO System, and my inclination is to keep things as they are. But perhaps adding a ‘Strong-Willed” Talent through which characters buy EGO only to make EGO Rolls would be a worthy addition to the rules.

Q: Should ECV be removed as something that’s factored from EGO?
Rather than making EGO cheaper, perhaps it would be better to separate "strong willed" from "psychically powerful" and put them in two 1-point CHAs:

WILLPOWER (WIL) -- Measures strength of will for purposes of most things currently controlled by EGO Rolls, resistance to Wounding effects, resistance to Mind Control, overcoming Psych Lims, and so on.

PSI (PSI) -- Determines OECV/DECV, resistance to Mental Illusions, resistance to Mind Scan, and resistance to Telepathy. (Optionally, this CHA could be defunct in campaigns featuring no Mental Powers.)

However, the same objections regarding usability of existing material, etc. exist with this idea as exist with splitting up DEX. If EGO isn't split, I'd leave the cost at 2 points per.


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?
(snip)
COM doesn’t do anything at all in game terms, unlike all the other Characteristics.
I'd say COM should either be removed as a CHA and replaced with a Talent or Perk based on Interaction Skill bonuses, or modelled similarly to Reputation, etc., or its definition as a CHA should be changed so that it does have some game effect. I have no strong preference for any of these solutions over any other, but I'd definitely like to see one of them implemented. :)


Q: Should PD and ED be combined into one Characteristic called DEF? If not, should objects be given separate PD and ED ratings?
Again, I think one or the other of these things should be done. I'd favor giving objects separate PD and ED, but would be fine going the other way too.


Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?
No really strong feelings about it, but I'd probably lean toward making it a CHA for the sake of consistency. If it should happen that EGO is split into multiple CHAs, one of which governs most Mental Powers and can be ruled to be defunct in campaigns that don't feature Mental Powers, then I'd say that Mental Defense should function as a CHA in those campaigns and not in others.


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?
I'd say the concept of SPD (that some characters can take more actions than others given some set amount of time) is a core axiom of the system that helps make HERO HERO, and should not be removed.

I'm more open to the possibility of implementing that concept by some means other than the SPD Chart specifically. However, I've seen many, many alternatives proposed over the years, and found them all (at least all the ones I tried) to be notably inferior to the SPD Chart in actual play. So I'm dubious-by-experience that a different implementation would be an improvement, but willing to entertain the idea. :)


Q: Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?
It would make the system substantially simpler in both presentation and play. However, it would also make it much less "realistic." I know that realism isn't high on the HERO System's list of aims (nor do I think it should be), but removing the mechanic for tracking fatigue (at least, without replacing it with another mechanism) would probably make it too cinematic for the baseline "average" campaign.


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?
An interesting idea. It appeals to my endless quest for consistency, since vehicles and bases have it. ;)

[Secret Master]

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

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

My Thoughts: Yes, though you might want to consider Beautiful/Handsome “levels” along the lines of the Money Perk (Well Off, Wealthy, and Filthy Rich). Something like Attractive, Gorgeous, and Monica Bellucci… well, you know what I mean! Anyhow, each “level” of Beautiful/Handsome could have a numerical equivalent, such as Attractive 12-, Gorgeous 14-, and Monica Bellucci 16-. Or maybe a player could buy Power Skill: Beautiful/Handsome based on his PRE to simulate the same effect. Either way, the Talent could be used in conjunction with the Requires A Skill Roll Power Modifier should one want to build a power that is beauty dependent. For example, Seduction: 10d6 Mind Control, Requires A Beautiful/Handsome Roll.

[rjcurrie]

A thought just struck me. Let's make both Mental Defense and Power Defense characteristics that start with a base of 0 and can be ignored in campaigns that don't use Mental and/or Adjustment Powers. This strengthens the idea that these are things that you might want to consider spending points on. I don't like the idea of everyone starting with some Mental Defense because it's usually depicted (at least in comics) as something that you need to learn.

[JmOz]

A thought just struck me. Let's make both Mental Defense and Power Defense characteristics that start with a base of 0 and can be ignored in campaigns that don't use Mental and/or Adjustment Powers. This strengthens the idea that these are things that you might want to consider spending points on. I don't like the idea of everyone starting with some Mental Defense because it's usually depicted (at least in comics) as something that you need to learn.

You know, I would actualy like to see the partial character idea get some attention (like the old spirit rules)

[Hugh Neilson]

I know that the goal is to make the game more accessible to people who can't do math, but if that's the case, the Cost of CON needs to become 1. The Cost of BODY needs to become 1. The cost of EGO stays the same and DEX stays the same because they're active combat stats. I would actually argue for making the cost of EGO 3 because EGO attack is like buying the AVLD power for free for less points, and not all games have free play of Mental Defense. PRE and COM are likewise remaining at 1.

Well, if you want it to be easier to the innumerate (like illiterate, but for math), all characteristics should cost 1. It's easier to multiply. I'd suggest rolling for them, but then they have to add up all the dice and that could be too challenging for them. [Funny...no one suggests that adding up 12 d6 rolls is too tough for the mathophobes]

[Hugh Neilson]

That to me would be a superior approach to the Perk so often suggested. In my games, it's used frequently. It can substitute for PRE in a variety of interaction skills - though obviously not all.

cheers, Mark

I'm really on the fence on this one. On one hand, having a perk you pay, say, 5 points per level and get some rising mechanical effect seems no different, to me, to making every 5 points invested in the stat have the same mechanical effect (+10 COM).

On the other hand, I think the system should have mechanical results for being gorgeous, and also mechanical results for being hideous, and we only have one COM stat. Maybe it should be renamed "Appearance", with 10 being typical and increases deviating from the norm in the direction selected by the player, such that 30 APP could mean Gorgeous or Hideous, at the player's option. Or we ditch the stat and use open-ended perks instead.

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

[Acid_Crash]

I think the problems we've been seeing over the years with Figured Characteristics have come from the fact that they're primarily provided by STR and CON, neither of which are costed appropriately for what they provide. The reason for the rule about only being able to buy one down is a direct result of that; otherwise everyone would buy up their physical stats and buy down the figured ones because, hey, free points.

If you make the Primary Characteristics cost appropriately for what they provide in Figured Characteristics, essentially to the point that buying the Primary Characteristics and buying down the Figured Characteristics doesn't bring you ahead in terms of points, then they're no longer a problem.

Is it better to do away with Figured Characteristics completely or to fix the costs so that you get what you pay for and pay for what you get? If we do away with them, we're changing the costs of everything anyway. Why not minimize the overall changes to the system?

This is an idea I can agree with.

[Acid_Crash]

He doth speak in tongues.

Have you more?

Like the rest of the system?

If so, I'd like a copy.

Me too. Killer Shrike has the best ideas yet, way better than mine. :)

Perhaps Steve can think about getting Mr. Killer Shrike to help, although as radical as it is, talk about wow.

All his ideas would reduce the costs of things, reduce the time it would take to make characters, and still be different than other point based games... and it would still be a roll low game.

[steamteck]

Casting it back into the statement that I made, without using limited characteristics you can't make a character that has a high strength but is no harder to physically damage than a normal person, nor recovers faster than a normal person.

There are SFX for being strong that don't make you harder to hurt physically, or make you recover faster or be harder to knock out. There are SFX for being agile that don't include you getting more actions than normal, etc.

Linking Characteristics together makes it much harder to do those things seperately. You have to use limited Characteristics, which by default means that those Characteristics are Powers, not Characteristics. Unlinking them means that you just need to buy all your Characteristics rather than counting on the system to make your choices for you.


But I do that all the time with no figured characteristics limit! most of my tech based STR guys are based that way. Now you can argue the cost is wrong but you can't rationally argue it can't be done. I still submit its an oddball case and the more more normal should be the default. Why do you want to make simple character concepts harder? it should not be made harder to make the norm to make it the same complexity to do the oddball concepts:idjit:

[Derek Hiemforth]

Why do you want to make simple character concepts harder? it should not be made harder to make the norm to make it the same complexity to do the oddball concepts:idjit:How does making all Characteristics work the same way (you get some flat total for free, and pay for anything above that) make any concepts harder? It might make them more expensive, but I don't see how it makes them any more complex...

[Paragon]

I can only speak for myself, but I want to say that I'm not in favour of removing the link between Primaries and Figureds because the Figureds are called Figureds. Or because I want to have Characteristics not do anything. I am in favour of it because I think that PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, STUN, and Leaping should be normal Characteristics that are not modified by the purchase of a different Characteristic. Note, that list does not include everything that

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

[Paragon]

Not quite true: CON can't be replaced by PD and ED to avoid Stunning because plenty of things that can Stun you are not stopped by PD or ED. In addition, CON rolls are used to resist some form of Mental Powers. As such, I'd be more in favor of increasing its utility a bit rather than decreasing its cost, though currently I have no specific suggestions.



That becomes less and less true the less paranormality there is in a given game. I've seen many pulp adventure games where someone never hit the equivalent of an NND, Ego or AVLD attack; in many others its sufficiently uncommon that the benefit ratio of Con would still be far too low at 2/rank.

[archermoo]

Sure you can. You buy STR with No figured Characteristics. Why is using limitations "cheating"*?
So a limited skill is a Power? or is that only Characteristics?





*My word not yours

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

And yes, if you put a Limitation or Advantage on it, technically it is a Power rather than a Skill or a Characteristic. One effect would be that by putting "No Figured" on a Characteristic points purchased that way wouldn't count towards NCM.

[archermoo]

I would recommend changing CON to 1 point per. I don't think that resistance to being Stunned is worth 2 points per point. Why? Because at 2 points per, it would have the same cost as +1 PD and +1 ED, but less effect (PD and ED would also prevent 1 point towards Stunning, but would also protect against STUN and BODY damage.)


GamePhil already noted it, but I thought I'd throw my thought in as well. There are many ways of taking STUN damage that have nothing to do with either PD or ED. Ego Blast and NNDs being the first things off the top of my head. So yes PD and ED do some things that CON doesn't, but CON does things the PD and ED don't as well.

[archermoo]

But I do that all the time with no figured characteristics limit! most of my tech based STR guys are based that way. Now you can argue the cost is wrong but you can't rationally argue it can't be done. I still submit its an oddball case and the more more normal should be the default. Why do you want to make simple character concepts harder? it should not be made harder to make the norm to make it the same complexity to do the oddball concepts:idjit:

If you'll notice I specifically mentioned "without using limited characteristics", so actually you don't do it all the time, as you point out you need to use limited characteristics to do it.

And I'll second Derek's question: How is just buying your characteristics more complicated? I can see how it is more expensive, but I don't get the more complicated. Is actually having to pay attention to all of your characteristics really that complicated? It never has been for me.

[archermoo]

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

I can understand this. The game has been for years advocating an SFX to Characteristics that a lot of people like, and discouraging anything else. So I can see why people who like that SFX for Characteristics being at least some amount uncomfortable by Characteristics being made SFX neutral.

I just don't see that as a good reason to not make the change. Obviously opinions vary. :)

[Chris Goodwin]

If you'll notice I specifically mentioned "without using limited characteristics", so actually you don't do it all the time, as you point out you need to use limited characteristics to do it.

And I'll second Derek's question: How is just buying your characteristics more complicated? I can see how it is more expensive, but I don't get the more complicated. Is actually having to pay attention to all of your characteristics really that complicated? It never has been for me.

It's actually a good bit less complicated without Figured Characteristics, by a full dozen arithmetical operations.

[archermoo]

It's actually a good bit less complicated without Figured Characteristics, by a full dozen arithmetical operations.

A fine and valid point! :thumbup:

[steamteck]

How does making all Characteristics work the same way (you get some flat total for free, and pay for anything above that) make any concepts harder? It might make them more expensive, but I don't see how it makes them any more complex...

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

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

[Paragon]

I can understand this. The game has been for years advocating an SFX to Characteristics that a lot of people like, and discouraging anything else. So I can see why people who like that SFX for Characteristics being at least some amount uncomfortable by Characteristics being made SFX neutral.



I don't think that's just an issue of Hero, however; I tend to find this an issue in most games that have what appear to me to be related attributes that have no connection in purchase. Hero is just an obvious case because it has a lot of attributes and several of them are related to my view. I'd find someone with a high Body and Con but no Stun worth mentioning, well, freakish, and I don't think that's just an SFX issue. To be honest, I don't see this as "defining SFX" any more than, say, the basic mechanics of some powers already do (for example, Hero makes assumptions intrinsically about mental powers, some of which there is no procedure to avoid within the system).



I just don't see that as a good reason to not make the change. Obviously opinions vary. :)

Yup. As I said, its a pretty fundamental divide, and not really easily addressed with discussion.

[Paragon]

And I'll second Derek's question: How is just buying your characteristics more complicated? I can see how it is more expensive, but I don't get the more complicated. Is actually having to pay attention to all of your characteristics really that complicated? It never has been for me.

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

[GamePhil]

That becomes less and less true the less paranormality there is in a given game. I've seen many pulp adventure games where someone never hit the equivalent of an NND, Ego or AVLD attack; in many others its sufficiently uncommon that the benefit ratio of Con would still be far too low at 2/rank.

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

[Tonio]

Decoupling Figureds is a great idea which I fully support, and which I've supported for some time now, including that dreaded thread in the other forum. It looks like it's gonna happen, so a big YAY from me!

Regarding STR, its cost, and whether HtH should be tied to it... I think the problem is not whether being stronger should give you more damage in hand to hand combat, but whether "being stronger" should be quantified by a single number. Most (I think) games use a strength stat, so we're used to it... but most games are tied to SFX and mostly let you choose between pre-built concepts, even if they offer some flexibility. I think HERO should abandon the concept of a strength stat, and stick to that core HERO concept of creating your character using atomic building blocks. The ability to move stuff and the amount of hand-to-hand damage you can inflict are two entirely different concepts. There's really no relation between them, except for the fact that a very common SFX includes them both. The only real reason I can think of to keep HtH damage tied to STR is "in most other games, I hit harder if I can also lift heavier and more stuff, both of which I can do if I'm stronger".

In fact, a similar argument could maybe be made for most other Characteristics. In HERO, most abilities (covering powers, skills, talents, etc.) let you do one thing. EB lets you do damage at range. Acrobatics lets you jump around. Bump of Direction lets you know which way you're facing. Characteristics, for the most part, break this. STR lets you lift stuff, hit stuff, break stuff, throw stuff. DEX determines how hard you are to hit, how easy it is for you to hit other stuff, how good you are at certain skills. Moreover, some of these ties are based on certain, admittedly common, SFXs. If my major mode of movement is Psychokinetic-based Flight, why must my Acrobatics be based on DEX, rather than EGO? Why is a dim-witted athlete (high DEX, low INT) automatically great at opening a mechanical lock without the key (which should require a substantially good perception (INT) and somewhat decent reasoning power (again, INT)), but terrible at rewiring an electronic lock (which should require substantial manual dexterity (DEX)), while a clumsy genius (low DEX, high INT) automatically bad at riding a horse (which really requires more adaptability (arguably INT) and a feel for the animal (PRE?) than it does actual agility or dexterity), but excellent at throwing his voice (which is a mostly physical skill, I'd say DEX)?

I say get rid of SFX-tied Characteristics, and only keep those that are purely game mechanics based, and adding what's missing (CV, Perception, etc.). This might involve splitting some (STR, into "ability to move stuff" and "hand-to-hand damage"), merging some (PD/ED? CON/BODY?), renaming/reconceptualizing/transforming some (INT becomes just PER, DEX becomes CV), outright getting rid of some (COM), and more.

The line between Powers, Talents, Perks, Skills, and Characteristics is, at times, blurry. I feel the line should not, in fact, exist. That would get rid of "should MD be a Characteristic?". Everything would be an "Ability" and should start at 0. Everyman packages take care of baseline stats (i.e. now, in addition to a bunch of skills, it'd include the base stats). For a mentalist campaign, the Everyman package would include some MD. For a "we're all puny peasants" campaign, it'd have 1d6 of HtH rather than the usual 2d6. Skills should all be based on a default number, rather than calculated off Characterstics, and they could be grouped as the player wished (subject to GM approval, of course), with respects to Skill Levels (this is already works this way in part). Now, instead of taking a higher PRE in order to be good at "Social Skills", you'd take a couple of levels with "Social Skills" and define which skills count as "Social" for your character. (Honestly, though, that part might not work very well, my psychokinetic flying acrobat notwithstanding!)

Size as a stat... eww. What would it offer? Higher STR, Stretching, lowered DCV? Figured stats all over again. Size as a stat would work iff all it defines is your size. Except then you run into "so why is it more expensive to be bigger, if I still have to buy Stretching to define my extra reach?", or a similar argument for being smaller and extra DCV.

Regarding Killer Shrike's proposed changes (or rather, new system!). I like it, for the most part. One problem that immediately stood out, though, was skills. Being good with two DEX skills is as expensive as being good with ALL DEX skills? That part might need some work. In general, though, I like it!