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 stats 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 a slot available), but a skill would work too.

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 univbersal 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 now. COM as it stands now is both limiting and unrealistic.

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 l