Impact of Figured Characteristics

[BeZurKur]

I like figured characteristics. It's not a deal breaker -- and overall I like the tweaks 6e made -- but the rational of figured characteristics simply clicks in my head. So, I'm thinking of going back to those but otherwise using 6e. Here are my questions:


Aside from CSLs (which would go back to a 5e cost), is there anything else that needs adjusting?
Can Hero Designer be easily adjusted to handle the change? (Easily being someone without programming knowledge.)
If is is too hard, I'll probably stick with 6e as written.

[Daltwisney]

Aside from CSLs (which would go back to a 5e cost), is there anything else that needs adjusting?
I cannot think of anything off the top of my head that Characteristic Costs/Figured Characteristics would affect (STR, PD and ED are still 1 point, and are usually the only stats with a Naked Advantage applied).


Can Hero Designer be easily adjusted to handle the change? (Easily being someone without programming knowledge.) Essentially the 6E template for HD removes and replaces the Characteristic definitions from 5E. You would need to customize it to reverse those changes.
I think it should just be a matter for a simple extension template, but I'm not sure how far the ramifications of those changes would reach.

[Chris Goodwin]

You'd be better off using the 5E template and using Custom Power, etc., for anything from 6E that you want to bring in. IMO, of course.

[Tasha]

I like figured characteristics. It's not a deal breaker -- and overall I like the tweaks 6e made -- but the rational of figured characteristics simply clicks in my head. So, I'm thinking of going back to those but otherwise using 6e. Here are my questions:


Aside from CSLs (which would go back to a 5e cost), is there anything else that needs adjusting?
Can Hero Designer be easily adjusted to handle the change? (Easily being someone without programming knowledge.)

If is is too hard, I'll probably stick with 6e as written.

Funny thing is that I like the idea of Figured Characteristics. The idea that you get tougher as you get stronger or faster as your reflexes improve it powerful.

I don't think that HD can be changed in any easy way to bring them back to the 6e template.

Once I started to run a game where players didn't have Figured Characteristics in them, I realized that the game system was dictating to my players how they needed to build characters. Having High Strength/High Dex characters is VERY cost effective under 5e rules. Under 6e my players just set their stats (Primary/Secondary) to the value they needed to both be true to concept and to live up to campaign guidelines. It means that the Players and the GM decide what the stat values and not the Players/GM and game system.

YMMV. Good luck with fooling with HD,

Tasha

[Doc Democracy]

I like figured characteristics. It's not a deal breaker -- and overall I like the tweaks 6e made -- but the rational of figured characteristics simply clicks in my head. So, I'm thinking of going back to those but otherwise using 6e.

If you are going to go back to figured then you might want to think about what the ratios are. The figured characteristics were set to reflect humans gaining superpowers and the costs reflect that bias. You might want to have a few different sets of figureds for different things (vehicles being one of them, robots another, in a fantasy settings there may be a different bias required to get the right balance for each race).

I think that was one of the main arguments in favour of dropping figureds - they promote only one style of character building...


Doc

[Daltwisney]

Aside from CSLs (which would go back to a 5e cost), is there anything else that needs adjusting?

The character point levels in 6E were also increased to account for characters having to purchase all Characteristics from a base value, with Figured Characteristics, you might want to scale back the points available to the 5E levels.

[BeZurKur]

So far, the changes -- within the mechanics -- seem easy enough: lower overall character points and one skill adjustment. The Hero Designer adjustment appears harder. Up to this point, I've used HD as is. I'll be looking into the documentation and see what I can put together. If it is too much work for the return, I'll probably follow Chris' suggestion of a 5e template plus custom powers.

Doc Democracy's observation that the ratios were designed to emulate one type of genre is interesting. Although I'm not sure if those came first. My take is that the ratios were designed for play balance -- whether they were successful or not is another matter -- and a world genre norm emerged from that. But that's all chicken-n-egg stuff. That a standard emerged, regardless of what came first, is undeniable.

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. If anything else comes to mind, please post it as well. This is an experiment, so I'll gladly accept any thoughts on the matter.

[Doc Democracy]

Doc Democracy's observation that the ratios were designed to emulate one type of genre is interesting. Although I'm not sure if those came first. My take is that the ratios were designed for play balance -- whether they were successful or not is another matter -- and a world genre norm emerged from that. But that's all chicken-n-egg stuff. That a standard emerged, regardless of what came first, is undeniable.

Look for previous threads on the hidden template in HERO.

The history of the game shows in relics like the figured characteristics. Most superheroes were super-powered humans. You can see it also in the fact of what characters are presumed to have - such as a need to breathe air and the other things that are in every base character.


Doc

[Rapier]

I will admit that I'm at a bit of a loss about figureds.

In 6E if I have a character with a high DEX and want him to have high OCV/DCV I can simply buy them up to the appropriate level. There is nothing stopping me from doing so. In fact, it would make a great deal of sense in most cases to keep a, lets call it a dotted line link, between some characteristics. High DEX leads towards a higher OCV/DCV. Higher CON leads towards more STUN. But I think it's nice to not HAVE to. I most particularly like this with DCV. I can now have a HUUUUGE character that has a high DEX and OCV, but due to his size has a lower DCV. It's very easy to manage and handle.

The one and only difference I can see between figured and non-figureds is the cost. So it might cost you a little more to get the same thing...that is partly (IMO) why the points went up a bit with 6E.

I just can't help but think this is much ado about nothing.

[BeZurKur]

Thanks for the heads-up, Doc. I'll look for those hidden templates.

@Rapier, I think I get why people like not having figureds. For some, however, it may be harder to grasp. Last week I was making a character with a friend who never played Hero. When it came to the "Figureds" and the CVs, he was at a loss. Without a point of reference of what his character should have, he was in a free-fall. The only way I got him to get it was by defaulting to the old way of handling them. Once he got his bearing, it was easy for him to work it out from there. It's not just him either; I find myself still doing the math to get me in the ballpark. You call it the dotted line link, but that only works for people like us who have that connection to the previous editions. He was able to wrap his head around the benchmarks for the prime characteristics, but the abstract mechanical ones (i.e. figureds) were more confusing. For those characters that go against the norm, like your agile giant, CSLs and SLs handle those occasional exceptions. In fact, I'm not sure CSLs are even worth it now that you can directly purchase CVs; the jury is still out on that one. I'm not saying Figureds are best for everyone, but if I find myself still crunching the numbers -- that HD used to do for me -- then it clearly is better for me. YMMV.

[Tasha]

Thanks for the heads-up, Doc. I'll look for those hidden templates.

@Rapier, I think I get why people like not having figureds. For some, however, it may be harder to grasp. Last week I was making a character with a friend who never played Hero. When it came to the "Figureds" and the CVs, he was at a loss. Without a point of reference of what his character should have, he was in a free-fall. The only way I got him to get it was by defaulting to the old way of handling them. Once he got his bearing, it was easy for him to work it out from there. It's not just him either; I find myself still doing the math to get me in the ballpark. You call it the dotted line link, but that only works for people like us who have that connection to the previous editions. He was able to wrap his head around the benchmarks for the prime characteristics, but the abstract mechanical ones (i.e. figureds) were more confusing. For those characters that go against the norm, like your agile giant, CSLs and SLs handle those occasional exceptions. In fact, I'm not sure CSLs are even worth it now that you can directly purchase CVs; the jury is still out on that one. I'm not saying Figureds are best for everyone, but if I find myself still crunching the numbers -- that HD used to do for me -- then it clearly is better for me. YMMV.

That's why having really good campaign guidelines can help out a lot. This is an issue even with 5e and earlier. I set min and max CV, Damage Class, Def, Special Defs. Also I look at each character to make sure that he/she is survivable in a fight (unless the player want a non combat character for some reason). For new players, I usually help them make a character (ie I usually get a list of what they want the character to do and write them up)

BTW one can buy DCV and OCV CSLs in 5e for 5pts each :D They aren't as good of a buy as DEX in 5e due to getting free SPD.

How I figure how high my stats should be. First I look at the Damage Class of attacks (ie 10DC to make the math easy). 2x that should be average for defenses (ie 10def). Now I figure out what an average shot would do to that character (35stun average on DC10 Blast), then subtract that from the defense (ie 15 stun getting though). So now I know I need at least 16 Con to not be stunned by an average attack. I should be able to take anywhere from 1/2 campaign avg SPD(avg 5), attacks of that level so I can have SOME fun in combat (2.5x15=37 stun) So 20PD/ED, 16 stun min, 37 stun. Those are the hard stats to figure even for a 5e and earlier game. The other stats tend to be set by the campaign average and if you see your character being above or below that number and how many points you can spend.

Hope this helps :D

[Vulcan]

I like figured characteristics. It's not a deal breaker -- and overall I like the tweaks 6e made -- but the rational of figured characteristics simply clicks in my head. So, I'm thinking of going back to those but otherwise using 6e. Here are my questions:


Aside from CSLs (which would go back to a 5e cost), is there anything else that needs adjusting?
Can Hero Designer be easily adjusted to handle the change? (Easily being someone without programming knowledge.)
If is is too hard, I'll probably stick with 6e as written.

Elemental controls would have to come back. They were the balance for figured characteristics for characters that didn't spend a lot in characteristics, but instead spent a lot on powers.

And you'll want to go back to the 5E characteristics costs as well.

[BeZurKur]

Excellent point on the utility of 5pt CSLs, Tasha. I also agree on the importance of campaign guidelines. I'm not entirely on board with making characters for new players. I understand why a GM would want to, but Hero doesn't play very different than other games, other than the Speed chart, and IMO, it is not necessarily a selling point. Where Hero really shines is as the ultimate toolbox. That's what I was showcasing to the new player. Thanks for the insight, though. You gave me a few things to think about. :)


Elemental controls would have to come back. They were the balance for figured characteristics for characters that didn't spend a lot in characteristics, but instead spent a lot on powers.

And you'll want to go back to the 5E characteristics costs as well.

I figured on the 5e costs, but the EC take... that's really interesting!

[Tasha]

I realize that it's a lot of work, but generating a first or second character for a new player can be used to help that person understand how characters are built. You can show how to build powers from concept works. Also once players have that first character they can start to modify that character with Experience. Players can learn Character gen by playing published characters (Which is the way that I tend to teach myself other complex character gen games like 4e D&D and GURPS). They play the published character, see how everything works with the character. They can then use that knowledge to tackle the Character gen to make their own character.

For players who are willing to tackle the system on their own, give them the Campaign guidelines then go over the character with an eye for both powers that are too over the top or ones that are ineffective. Also comparing the writeup to the character concept with an eye toward building a tighter character (ie more point efficient).

I have a rule that runs though our groups games. We allow players to totally rewrite a character after it has been played in a game. At least for the first 3 sessions or so. Because sometimes PC have powers that look OK on the character sheet, but either don't work the way the player envisions them or are totally over the top overpowred in play. This also sets the expectation that the pre session lookover of character isn't the last GM's word on the issue and also the player isn't stuck with a clunky character.

[BeZurKur]

Hey all, FWIW, just thought I'd mention that I decided to go with a straight take on 6e. That is: no figureds but with Rapiers "dotted line link" and Tasha's suggestion for clear campaign guidelines. I'm still not crazy that I bust out the calculator while having HD open. However, the math is not hard and although I can't help think that some players maybe a little lost without the dotted line link reference, that's not an issue with our group. Thanks for everyone's feedback.

[Opal]

It would not be a good idea to go back to Figured Characteristics without also re-introducing Elemental Controls.

Of course, I don't think it was a great idea to nix Figured Characteristics while retaining /any/ frameworks. Elemental Controls were the power-oriented cost break most comparable to Figureds, though.

It would probably be easier to stick with 5th (or 4th, they're not that different) than try to add figured characteristics back into 6th. If you're committed to 6th, I'd definitely advise you to leave Figureds out of it, it's been extensively re-balanced to work without them.

[bigbywolfe]

Why do you feel it would be so difficult to use Figured Characteristics in 6E? Do you have an actual reason?

[Thanee]

Going back to figured characteristics is easy. No point changes necessary at all.

Just require a certain amount of OCV/DCV/OMCV/DMCV/SPD/PD/ED/REC/END/BODY/STUN to be bought when you reach certain thresholds of STR/DEX/CON/INT/EGO/PRE. :)

[JmOz]

I think the dotted line aproach is right on. There should have been IMO a toolbox box in the book saying you could add figured characteristic, or that these values make a good rough estimate of what a character should have

[Rapier]

I think the dotted line aproach is right on. There should have been IMO a toolbox box in the book saying you could add figured characteristic, or that these values make a good rough estimate of what a character should have

For OCV/DCV that is pretty easy. A campaign rule that says OCV/DCV = DEX / 3. It gets a little more complicated for STUN, END, PD and ED. These are stats that are very commonly increased above their base. I believe that a small increase in available points (as suggested in 6E, the points available for the 'category' of game have increased) should just about make up the difference in these costs.

But when building characters, I still eyeball their base OCV/DCV based off their DEX! :) I think I will for probably quite a while.

[Matt Holck]

Dex is worth 2 points a piece so a player could buy it down to 8
that won't penalize the character's dexterity skills at 11- if it has any
use the 4 points buy +1 DCV only while appearing clumsy -1/4 (lock out -5 presence)

the standard 23 has been removed from super heroic games
yes, that elemental package deal that experts of calculated statts rely on
A 23 dexterity was optimal in rounding by 3 and by 5
on got the most bang for their points in dexterity 8 OCV/DCV 14- still roles

that set the campaign bar at 8 Combat Value


a 23 constitution is also standard and that set the range of damage classes


6th edition won't have these set standards for building

with a 400 point builds
I see a lot of characters buying a 100 stun or more in 6th edition
that will prolong combat
one shooting will be less common
endurance may come into play again

[Thanee]

For OCV/DCV that is pretty easy. A campaign rule that says OCV/DCV = DEX / 3. It gets a little more complicated for STUN, END, PD and ED.

How so? Just take the formulas from 5th Edition to set MINIMUM values you have to buy.

For example, someone buys CON 15, then ED has to be at least 3, REC has to be at least 3 (+STR/5), END has to be at least 30 and STUN has to be at least 8 (+BODY +STR/2).

Only difference is, that you actually pay for the "figured characteristics" instead of getting them for free.

Bye
Thanee

[Rapier]

How so? Just take the formulas from 5th Edition to set MINIMUM values you have to buy.

But I want to lower my END. I don't need it. Now what?

Maybe I want to sell off all my ED so that I can replace it with Resistant Protection. Can I do that?

It is very easy to quickly get bogged down in campaign requirements that you end up with half a novel. I'm finding that we are better off to just let them loose and see what turns up.

I was, at first, shocked, dismayed and appalled to lose my precious Figured Characteristics. You might as well suggest that Geddy Lee switch to the ukulele as his instrument of choic! But then I began to play with it and look at it and OMG. The versatility!! If I want to have a character with high CON and high END I just give him both. But I don't have to. I can give him a tiny END, little STUN, minor ED, no PD and be perfectly happy (well, at least until this poor excuse for a hero gets into his first combat! 8P). It's extremely liberating and leads to some truly fantastic builds that are highly effective and very fun to play. I guess a ukulele isn't that bad after all!

At the very most, a simple statement of 'characters with DEXs of 13 - 17, routinely have OCVs/DCVs of 5' is more than sufficient. It should be nothing more than the chart that lists 'Superhuman Intelligence' ranges from 20 - 25.

[Kristopher]

How so? Just take the formulas from 5th Edition to set MINIMUM values you have to buy.

For example, someone buys CON 15, then ED has to be at least 3, REC has to be at least 3 (+STR/5), END has to be at least 30 and STUN has to be at least 8 (+BODY +STR/2).

Only difference is, that you actually pay for the "figured characteristics" instead of getting them for free.

You always did pay for them.

[steamteck]

You always did pay for them.


And at least I could already do all those things rapier mentioned anyway. people just didn't think the cost break was fair i guess because nothing new under the sun except disconnecting CVs.

[dmjalund]

I am trying to figure out the concept of a character with low DEX but high OCV

[Rapier]

I am trying to figure out the concept of a character with low DEX but high OCV

Some super sciencey poindexter who is very clumsy but has a nice targetting computer.

A character who will frequently trip over things and can't seem to avoid walking into walls, but has fantastic hand-eye coordination.

A normal person who has spent the past 20 years practicing with various weapons, and has recently suffered a tragic accident that has rendered him lame.

A retired superhero while, despite his ailing health (eg MS or some other gross muscular/nerve degenerative disease) is still able to attack with accuracy...for now.

The spirit of a dead martial artist inhabiting the body of a woman who died last week. His skills are undiminished but he's still getting used to this body.

Off the top of my head! :)

[Daltwisney]

I am trying to figure out the concept of a character with low DEX but high OCV

Slow but accurate. The kind of guy you don't ask to juggle chainsaws, but might trust to throw knives at your ex-wife while blind-folded. (Heck, for that, you might not want high OCV - unless he's trying to miss).

[Thanee]

But I want to lower my END. I don't need it. Now what?
Maybe I want to sell off all my ED so that I can replace it with Resistant Protection. Can I do that?

Same way you did in the previous editions. Usually with GMs approval only (for selling down characteristics).

Yeah, the post above sounds a bit like you cannot do that, my bad. Maybe replace "MINIMUM" with "TYPICAL", that does sound a bit less absolute? :)


I was, at first, shocked, dismayed and appalled to lose my precious Figured Characteristics. You might as well suggest that Geddy Lee switch to the ukulele as his instrument of choic! But then I began to play with it and look at it and OMG. The versatility!! If I want to have a character with high CON and high END I just give him both. But I don't have to. I can give him a tiny END, little STUN, minor ED, no PD and be perfectly happy (well, at least until this poor excuse for a hero gets into his first combat! 8P). It's extremely liberating and leads to some truly fantastic builds that are highly effective and very fun to play. I guess a ukulele isn't that bad after all!

Well, someone (happens to be the one who opened this thread) actually wants figured characteristics back. I just posted a way to do it without changing the system, by simulating what the earlier editions did.

It is in no way meant to say that now everyone absolutely has to use it. I won't. ;)

All I'm saying is, that by limiting the versatility a bit you get what you aim for, if you want figured characteristics back, that is.


@Kristopher: Well, that's kinda philosophical, but effectively you are right there, of course. You paid for CON and got ED/REC/END/STUN as well. Kinda like a package deal (with the option to sell some of the package later). But you didn't directly pay for them, as you do now. Well you could, but not for the "figured" portion. The difference is only a different order of doing things, which is pretty much exactly my point. ;)

The system doesn't provide you with the figured characteristics automatically, anymore, you have to do it yourself now.

Bye
Thanee

[JmOz]

For OCV/DCV that is pretty easy. A campaign rule that says OCV/DCV = DEX / 3. It gets a little more complicated for STUN, END, PD and ED. These are stats that are very commonly increased above their base. I believe that a small increase in available points (as suggested in 6E, the points available for the 'category' of game have increased) should just about make up the difference in these costs.

But when building characters, I still eyeball their base OCV/DCV based off their DEX! :) I think I will for probably quite a while.

True, and a sa Champions GM I think I will be kind with people who want to use unified power on some of the figured characteristic families (Dex and speed get drained together...including running, yes that makes sense to me)

[Thanee]

I am trying to figure out the concept of a character with low DEX but high OCV

Oh, that's very simple. A professional warrior, who just happens to be more of a big brute than a nimble dancer. :)

Bye
Thanee

[Kristopher]

I am trying to figure out the concept of a character with low DEX but high OCV

The opposite is harder -- high DEX and low CVs.

[Rapier]

The opposite is harder -- high DEX and low CVs.

Gymnast girl that's never thrown a punch!

Extra near-sighted kung fu master!

A pirate! (high dex for running around a heaving ship and no depth perception because of the EYE PATCH! HA!)

A pacifist! (i could hit you, but I just can't bring myself to land a punch...i mean, i KEEP MISSING!)

HA! I like this game! :)

[GamePhil]

It would not be a good idea to go back to Figured Characteristics without also re-introducing Elemental Controls.

Of course, I don't think it was a great idea to nix Figured Characteristics while retaining /any/ frameworks. Elemental Controls were the power-oriented cost break most comparable to Figureds, though.

It would probably be easier to stick with 5th (or 4th, they're not that different) than try to add figured characteristics back into 6th. If you're committed to 6th, I'd definitely advise you to leave Figureds out of it, it's been extensively re-balanced to work without them.

Hmm? Why are Multipowers and VPP's a problem without Figured's? EC's and Figured Characteristics go together because really they have a similar effect, but the other two frameworks work nothing like those two, so why dump them at all? They do actually restrict the powers that are placed in them rather than allowing you to use them all at once.

As for extensive balancing in 6th to be rid of figureds, all I can see that you'd want to do to bring back the older Hero/Champions Characteristic block is reduce the total character points to the older levels and bring back EC's. Everything else is balanced in just about the same way as it always was, for better or for worse.

[bigbywolfe]

GamePhil, wouldn't it be easier to use a template requiring the purchase of "secondary" characteristics to be at least what they would have been using the math for Figured Characteristics rather than dropping the ammount of points allotted and actually handing them out for free again? The result should be similar in most cases and certainly much, much easier...

[GamePhil]

GamePhil, wouldn't it be easier to use a template requiring the purchase of "secondary" characteristics to be at least what they would have been using the math for Figured Characteristics rather than dropping the ammount of points allotted and actually handing them out for free again? The result should be similar in most cases and certainly much, much easier...

First, I am simply adding my input for anyone that wants them back. I am not advocating bringing them back for anyone that doesn't want them, simply offering my opinions of how to do it should it be desirable to the individual player. Obviously, anyone that truly wants them in their old form finds advantage to them that is worth the cost of what you perceive as more complexity. I don't find any particular advantage to them, but that doesn't mean I won't try to help someone that does.

Emphasis on "try", really.

Second, I was disputing that there is some kind of "extensive rebalancing" that prevents their use in 6th, and providing one way of doing it that should cause no headaches once it's done. Three steps that should be dead simple to anyone that played 5th or before extensively and you're done. Even if you didn't want to bring back the old Characteristic block, it should be possible to fiddle with the new one to make it work. Really, DEX is the only problematic Characteristic, since its total cost went up by so much, and even that could be waived if you didn't have any problems with it in the old days (in fact, I have to assume that anyone that liked it before would find it overpriced by quite a lot now, while Ego and the other physical Characteristics took a comparitively smaller hit).

Third, you find it much easier to use the template as you say. Some people would find it to be using the old formulas and then also having to calculate the costs of each secondary stat's base as well, an extra step, so harder than just making a single change to the rules at the start. Some people liked the cost breaks and want them back, whether or not they also think the method you propose would be easier. And so on. So whether it is easier or not, or desirable or not, depends largely on our own points of view.

My personal preference, if I were to want to bring back Figured Characteristics with the attendant cost breaks, as opposed to using them as guidelines, would be to create packages for the Characteristics I wanted to have more abilities based on and then set the cost to what I want it to be, similarly to how you re-create Detective Work (Skill Combinations, 6E1 p54) and let people buy those. I would then create more such packages for everyone so that EGO and INT and PRE based characters could get in on the fun. So, STR +5 PD +1 REC +1 STUN +2 is a 5 point Characteristic Combination. EGO +3 EMCV +1 DMCV +1 is a 6 pointer, +5 INT and +1 OCV w/Ranged Attacks for 5 pts (as a random example), and so on. But that requires more work and is really beside the point, since my original intent was only to dispute that it couldn't be done without unbalancing the game.

[Kristopher]

Gymnast girl that's never thrown a punch!

Extra near-sighted kung fu master!

A pirate! (high dex for running around a heaving ship and no depth perception because of the EYE PATCH! HA!)

A pacifist! (i could hit you, but I just can't bring myself to land a punch...i mean, i KEEP MISSING!)

HA! I like this game! :)

At least some of those might be skills with extra points invested, instead of overall higher DEX.

[Matt Holck]

figure characteristics existed so a player could just focus on the primary statts
and let the math handle the stun, endurance, recovery and combat value
(almost everyone bought up their defense and speed)

[Opal]

GamePhil, wouldn't it be easier to use a template requiring the purchase of "secondary" characteristics to be at least what they would have been using the math for Figured Characteristics rather than dropping the ammount of points allotted and actually handing them out for free again? The result should be similar in most cases and certainly much, much easier...That was prettymuch the argument for not getting rid of figureds, too. Getting rid of them, then trying to guess the right amount of points (closer to the brick that saved 100 points or the egoist who saved 30?) to give everyone to make up for it? Why? Simpler to keep them.

I don't see how it could have been that easy for Steve to come up with the numbers, but he's a smart cookie and I'm willing to take it on faith that 6th works in a balanced way without figureds. 5th worked in a balanced way with them, so if you /really/ like them...

[Hugh Neilson]

Gymnast girl that's never thrown a punch!

Extra near-sighted kung fu master!

A pirate! (high dex for running around a heaving ship and no depth perception because of the EYE PATCH! HA!)

A pacifist! (i could hit you, but I just can't bring myself to land a punch...i mean, i KEEP MISSING!)

HA! I like this game! :)

The wily rogue who's adept at picking pockets, acrobatics, climbing, lockpicking and trap removing, juggling, etc. etc. etc. but can't handle himself in a fight.

[bigbywolfe]

That was prettymuch the argument for not getting rid of figureds, too. Getting rid of them, then trying to guess the right amount of points (closer to the brick that saved 100 points or the egoist who saved 30?) to give everyone to make up for it? Why? Simpler to keep them.

I don't see how it could have been that easy for Steve to come up with the numbers, but he's a smart cookie and I'm willing to take it on faith that 6th works in a balanced way without figureds. 5th worked in a balanced way with them, so if you /really/ like them...

What I said isn't really an argument for keeping Figured Characteristics at all. If anything, the fact that they can be easily simulated with a template is an argument against them as they can be easily simulated, but those of us who don't like how they affect the game (all heroes having at least X amount of DEX just to stay competitive with OCV/DCV for example) aren’t locked into using them.

[BeZurKur]

For better or worse, looking over the Champions in the recently released PDF, it looks like they used the dotted line reference in coming up with the numbers. They're not exact but pretty close -- even to the point of non-mentalists buying OMCVs. Why? Since my original post, I have three games of 6ed under my belt, and so far -- although it is still early -- I am believing it is the best iteration of Hero yet. (FWIW, I've played since 1ed, took a long hiatus after 4th, played a little of 5th, and am back with what is looking to be an ongoing campaign of 6th.) My peeve is not so much that they got rid of Figureds, but that they expect the reader to inherently know about them. That the Champions use the dotted line reference seems to support this. With it, I noticed more use of CSLs, which I like.

[Thanee]

I am believing it is the best iteration of Hero yet.

Yep. :) It still has some rough edges and some things I simply do not agree with, but opinions are widespread and you cannot make it right for everyone. At least, HERO offers all the tools to make the game into what you want.


...but that they expect the reader to inherently know about them.

Yep. On my reading through 6E, I also noticed some lack of guidance in these matters.

There's the optional characteristic maxima table for heroic campaigns, and the characteristic guidelines for power level, but something like the old figured characteristics would also be a useful guideline for new players, I think.

Bye
Thanee

[Tasha]

For better or worse, looking over the Champions in the recently released PDF, it looks like they used the dotted line reference in coming up with the numbers. They're not exact but pretty close -- even to the point of non-mentalists buying OMCVs. Why? Since my original post, I have three games of 6ed under my belt, and so far -- although it is still early -- I am believing it is the best iteration of Hero yet. (FWIW, I've played since 1ed, took a long hiatus after 4th, played a little of 5th, and am back with what is looking to be an ongoing campaign of 6th.) My peeve is not so much that they got rid of Figureds, but that they expect the reader to inherently know about them. That the Champions use the dotted line reference seems to support this. With it, I noticed more use of CSLs, which I like.

What is this "Dotted Line Reference" you are referring to?

Tasha

[Bodkins Odds]

He's referring to a suggestion earlier in the thread that one calculates what the secondary CHARs would have been if there were still figureds and then buys them up to that level. Which is apparently why non-mentalists in Champions have bought up their OMCV.

[Hugh Neilson]

He's referring to a suggestion earlier in the thread that one calculates what the secondary CHARs would have been if there were still figureds and then buys them up to that level. Which is apparently why non-mentalists in Champions have bought up their OMCV.

I'm disappointed that the disconnection of certain abilities has not lead to a rethinking of the character standards. There is no longer any reason, for example, that the starting point for Supers' DEX needs to be 20+, yet the samle characters keep that old 20 - 23 baseline, rather than gravitating back to more "human norm" levels for those characters where agility is not part of their schtick.

Unfortunately, such a change would markedly reduce the compatability of older editions' support material, which could have a backlash that gamers just stick to the old material and ignore the new material (rather than the desired result that they buy all the new material to bring their old favorites up to the new standard).

[BeZurKur]

I'm disappointed that the disconnection of certain abilities has not lead to a rethinking of the character standards. There is no longer any reason, for example, that the starting point for Supers' DEX needs to be 20+, yet the samle characters keep that old 20 - 23 baseline, rather than gravitating back to more "human norm" levels for those characters where agility is not part of their schtick.
That was my original thought as well. For our play group, we don't use pre-published materials and build our game universe from scratch, so the older editions' material didn't matter. We did exactly what you said: kept our numbers around human norm with the exception for powers. I couple things happened. First, CVs still hovered around 8-10, which still seemed somehow contrived. And then one of the players made an agile character -- really agile, like Spider Man. After sinking all those points, we realized it didn't really buy him much, other than a killer skill check (which after 14- starts becoming excessive) and the ability to go before other characters who were buying Dex between 13-18. Big deal, a 23 Dex would have virtually done the same for him. This, coupled with my concerns in the original post, made me rethink Figureds. I decided that they gave the base stats purpose and scope. Now we are playing that we buy up our "Figureds" including OMCV. We are more strict than the characters in the Champions book. If we only want one part of the benefit for an increased stat, we make up the difference with levels or talents. So far it seems to be working.

[The Main Man]

Something weird happened to me yesterday.

I was working on a 5e character when figured CHAR began to feel slightly.... I dunno... kludgy? Like they served up the character on a silver platter? As if it was a waiter who gave you dirty looks for specializing your order?

This is speaking as someone who argued in favor of Figured CHAR during the 6e discussion threads mind you.

[Rapier]

That was my original thought as well. For our play group, we don't use pre-published materials and build our game universe from scratch, so the older editions' material didn't matter. We did exactly what you said: kept our numbers around human norm with the exception for powers. I couple things happened. First, CVs still hovered around 8-10, which still seemed somehow contrived. And then one of the players made an agile character -- really agile, like Spider Man. After sinking all those points, we realized it didn't really buy him much, other than a killer skill check (which after 14- starts becoming excessive) and the ability to go before other characters who were buying Dex between 13-18. Big deal, a 23 Dex would have virtually done the same for him. This, coupled with my concerns in the original post, made me rethink Figureds. I decided that they gave the base stats purpose and scope. Now we are playing that we buy up our "Figureds" including OMCV. We are more strict than the characters in the Champions book. If we only want one part of the benefit for an increased stat, we make up the difference with levels or talents. So far it seems to be working.

I can understand some of your feeling. I can easily believe that you get less bang for your buck when your DEX > 25. The primary purpose of most base characteristics now is for the Skill Rolls and the likelihood of failing isn't that great a difference between 16- and 17-. However, I believe you are also gaming the numbers too strongly.

Have you ever bought up an EGO score on someone without mental powers? Why? There certainly isn't much bang for that buck. It's not like a 4 ECV was going to give you much more benefit than a 3 ECV. You were still going to get totally pwned by any halfway decent mentalist.

Did you ever spend even a single point to raise a COM score? Talk about lack of bang for the buck!

You buy a high DEX because the character's concept says a high DEX is necessary. You don't have to have a high DEX merely to compete any more. You also need to realise that 6E is still pretty new. We've been building characters a certain way for at least 20 years (in my case) and longer in some (and less in others). That is a LOT of momentum to overcome. None of us should expect an instant acclimation to the change. It will take time. Heck, even Steve, the man with the plan heself hasn't fully adjusted (which you can tell by the bought up OMCVs on published characters without mental powers). In the next six months or so I believe you will see this less and less as we all get used to adjusting how we build characters.

I can see how you might be slightly displeased about how ueber stats (eg DEX and STR) are now no more important than any other. But I still think that the game is stronger as a whole for the lack of figureds. If you give it some time to settle in and really percolate, I believe you will find the same.

[The Main Man]

I would like to add that it might be interesting if Figured CHAR were reintroduced in a future APG with new alternatives to boot.

In any case, I agree that all of us who played 5e and earlier have to shake up our old design methods as well as how we define campaign specifications.

[martin4frogs]

I think my biggest issue with removing figureds is that DEX still costs more. Yeah, it might be useful for some skills, but so is PRE. And there's an entire other thread dedicated to that one and how powerful it can be outside of skills. Then there's STR which isn't just something you can ignore. Why go skills heavy when you can build up enough STR to throw a truck at somebody. Sure you'll take penalties, but it's an AOE attack at a range. Or you can just grab beat the ever-lovin' snot out of your skilled character because, by golly, why not? Don't get me wrong, I love skills. I just think that making DEX remain the expensive one and not have as much of an effect (game wise) is a little unseemly. But then again I've been wrong in past, so maybe I'm just missing the whole point here.

[The Main Man]

I'm pretty sure that DEX still costs 2 CP per point because:

1) Going first in combat is quite useful;

2) Agility Skills are more directly useful in combat than Interaction or Intellect Skills. This is similar to why Agility Skill Levels cost more than Interaction and Intellect Skill Levels.


Bundle those two factors together and DEX comes out looking pretty useful.

[Matt Holck]

Perception (based on intelligence) can be overlooked for its combat effectiveness
being able to perceive threats and use the environment is important

[The Main Man]

Perception (based on intelligence) can be overlooked for its combat effectiveness
being able to perceive threats and use the environment is important

No argument here but if there's one thing that makes INT unique amongst all of the CHAR it's that it doesn't mean anything per point - it only means things at breakpoints.

'Tis a shame really, but I'm thinking that that is a key reason why it only costs 1 point per point.

[BeZurKur]

Agreed, Rapier: we'll see what time holds for 6e character design. In the mean time, buying stats up to "figured" levels with only occasional exceptions based on concept is working out very well for our group. Thanks for all the feedback, everyone. :)

[Matt Holck]

No argument here but if there's one thing that makes INT unique amongst all of the CHAR it's that it doesn't mean anything per point - it only means things at breakpoints.

'Tis a shame really, but I'm thinking that that is a key reason why it only costs 1 point per point.

one could always apply the the 5 point doubling standard to intelligence
a 15 intelligence character is as smart as 2 10 intelligence characters
a 20 intelligence character is as smart as 4 10 intelligence characters
a 25 intelligence character is as smart as 8 10 intelligence characters

[The Main Man]

one could always apply the the 5 point doubling standard to intelligence
a 15 intelligence character is as smart as 2 10 intelligence characters
a 20 intelligence character is as smart as 4 10 intelligence characters
a 25 intelligence character is as smart as 8 10 intelligence characters
What does that mean during gameplay? Or even out of game?

[Matt Holck]

meta game, it might suggest how many people should to advise a player on what his character might do.

In game, it could represent a limit on the number of skills that can be executed simultaneously

[bigbywolfe]

No argument here but if there's one thing that makes INT unique amongst all of the CHAR it's that it doesn't mean anything per point - it only means things at breakpoints.

'Tis a shame really, but I'm thinking that that is a key reason why it only costs 1 point per point.


one could always apply the the 5 point doubling standard to intelligence
a 15 intelligence character is as smart as 2 10 intelligence characters
a 20 intelligence character is as smart as 4 10 intelligence characters
a 25 intelligence character is as smart as 8 10 intelligence characters


What does that mean during gameplay? Or even out of game?


meta game, it might suggest how many people should to advise a player on what his character might do.

In game, it could represent a limit on the number of skills that can be executed simultaneously

Even if you consider 5 point doubling to apply to INT it still doesn't really mean anything per point. It just adds 5s and 10s to the breakpoints that sort of mean something. If 10 INT doesn't, in and of itself mean anything (outside of what roll/PER it gives you) than what does doubling it mean?

[The Main Man]

Even if you consider 5 point doubling to apply to INT it still doesn't really mean anything per point. It just adds 5s and 10s to the breakpoints that sort of mean something. If 10 INT doesn't, in and of itself mean anything (outside of what roll/PER it gives you) than what does doubling it mean?

My point exactly, but his idea is actually kinda interesting, even if it still reinforces the fact that INT still would only matter at breakpoints.

[dmjalund]

does this mean if you have a high enough IQ you become as smart as a mob?

[bigbywolfe]

LOL, repped.

[Vondy]

I think my biggest issue with removing figureds is that DEX still costs more.

Change it.

[Hugh Neilson]

I can understand some of your feeling. I can easily believe that you get less bang for your buck when your DEX > 25. The primary purpose of most base characteristics now is for the Skill Rolls and the likelihood of failing isn't that great a difference between 16- and 17-. However, I believe you are also gaming the numbers too strongly.

Have you ever bought up an EGO score on someone without mental powers? Why? There certainly isn't much bang for that buck. It's not like a 4 ECV was going to give you much more benefit than a 3 ECV. You were still going to get totally pwned by any halfway decent mentalist.

Did you ever spend even a single point to raise a COM score? Talk about lack of bang for the buck!

You buy a high DEX because the character's concept says a high DEX is necessary. You don't have to have a high DEX merely to compete any more. You also need to realise that 6E is still pretty new. We've been building characters a certain way for at least 20 years (in my case) and longer in some (and less in others). That is a LOT of momentum to overcome. None of us should expect an instant acclimation to the change. It will take time. Heck, even Steve, the man with the plan heself hasn't fully adjusted (which you can tell by the bought up OMCVs on published characters without mental powers). In the next six months or so I believe you will see this less and less as we all get used to adjusting how we build characters.

We could price Blast at 15 points per 1d6. If you need blast for your concept, pay the freight, right? So who would play Blasters and who would play Bricks? The costs should not penalize one concept and reward another. You buy a high DEX because it's needed for concept, but if it's overpriced, find another concept or play the comic relief sidekick.


I can see how you might be slightly displeased about how ueber stats (eg DEX and STR) are now no more important than any other. But I still think that the game is stronger as a whole for the lack of figureds. If you give it some time to settle in and really percolate, I believe you will find the same.

I don't see the issue as uber stats or figured's. It is the comparative pricing of the effects. DEX, INT and PRE each grant bonuses to a wide array of skills, and they each provide a secondary effect. Yet DEX is priced double INT and PRE. Why? Going first is nice, but it also means attracting the Bad guy's attention. Let the high DEX guy go first, the Big Bad smacks himn, then my low DEX character goes. And the higher DEX guy still goes first, whether I saved 2 points by being 1 DEX lower, or 30 points by being 15 DEX lower. That extra 3 SPD I buy with 30 points likely means I go first, as well as more often. Or I can add 6DC to my primary attack, or 15 PD and 15 ED, or 40 STUN and 10 CON. I'll take my 8 DEX with those advantages over your 23 DEX without them!


I'm pretty sure that DEX still costs 2 CP per point because:

1) Going first in combat is quite useful;

More useful that perceiving your opponent before he gets a Surprise Attack on you (INT's secondary ability) or using and resisting PRE attacks (PRE's secondary ability)?


2) Agility Skills are more directly useful in combat than Interaction or Intellect Skills. This is similar to why Agility Skill Levels cost more than Interaction and Intellect Skill Levels.

Skill levels are also overpriced. 4 points (6 for DEX) to get +1 to any one skill roll based on that stat, or 5 points (10 for DEX) to get +1 to all those rolls at the same time, plus the additional effects of the ability? So +1d6 PRE attack, +5 PRE defense and +1 to all other PRE rolls at the same time is worth 1 point?

And not all skills of any type are equally useful in combat. Is Lockpicking more useful than Analyze Style? Is Sleight of Hand more useful than Power Skill? I think DEX skill levels cost more because it was decided DEX should cost more. I also think that was an error. Now add the APG suggestion to break DEX into 2 1 point stats, one governing combat order and the other governing DEX rolls. Now I can pay 6 points for a skill level that adds one to any one DEX skill at a time, or 5 points to get +1 to all DEX rolls at the same time.

That said, I'm not convinced DEX should be 1:1 rather than PRE and INT getting bumped to 2:1. At that point, we could reasonably have skill levels for any one skill at, say, 3 points (a -2 limitation on +5 STAT), and +1 with all relevant skill rolls cost 5 (-1 limitation). +1 to all PER rolls, +1d6 PRE attack and +5 Lightning Reflexes could also cost 5 each. Where's PRE defense? Move it to EGO - PRE does too much, and being impressive doesn't make you more resistent to others' impressiveness.

Is DEX useful? Sure. Is it twice as useful as INT or PRE? Now I'm not so sure...

[Matt Holck]

I rather have a fast character with a 6 speed and a 13 dexterity
than a slow character with a 4 speed and a 23 dexterity

[NuSoardGraphite]

wait..wait...CV has been decoupled from DEX? Wait wha...?

The more I hear about 6th the more I think it isn't for me....

[Vondy]

wait..wait...CV has been decoupled from DEX? Wait wha...?

The more I hear about 6th the more I think it isn't for me....

Actually, in terms of granularity of heroic level character design, I regard it as a plus. I was skeptical at first, and it affects costs somewhat, but I like the overall effect it has on design at that level. For other levels of play it might not work out as well. But, I don't run those kinds of games so what do I know?

[Vondy]

I rather have a fast character with a 6 speed and a 13 dexterity
than a slow character with a 4 speed and a 23 dexterity

No argument from me.

And in a game where speed variance isn't significant I'd rather have high CVs than a high Dex.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Actually, in terms of granularity of heroic level character design, I regard it as a plus. I was skeptical at first, and it affects costs somewhat, but I like the overall effect it has on design at that level. For other levels of play it might not work out as well. But, I don't run those kinds of games so what do I know?

I tend to run Heroic and low powered Superheroic (really, very powerful Heroic) games mostly. I like the interaction between Dex and CV. It makes sense to me. I understand that from a toolkit approach, decoupling figured characteristics from the primary characteristics makes sense, but for some reason it just doesn't sit very well with me.

[BeZurKur]

Actually, in terms of granularity of heroic level character design, I regard it as a plus. I was skeptical at first, and it affects costs somewhat, but I like the overall effect it has on design at that level. For other levels of play it might not work out as well. But, I don't run those kinds of games so what do I know?
What are those effects? Please offer examples and explanation. I'm not being argumentative. I'd just like to know.


I like the interaction between Dex and CV. It makes sense to me. I understand that from a toolkit approach, decoupling figured characteristics from the primary characteristics makes sense, but for some reason it just doesn't sit very well with me.
Same here. I like that you can decouple them but not the approach that you somehow must. That's why buying them back up to Figureds works so well for me. YMMV. I'm very interested in how those design choices are going to impact characters -- so far not much, and I'm not convinced the way they have is an improvement. Time will tell.

[steamteck]

Same here. I like that you can decouple them but not the approach that you somehow must. ll.

It would have been REALLY nice to have a easy recouple option. Especially if included in Hero Designer for my tech geek in my group who uses it.

[Bodkins Odds]

You're tech geek can't set up Hero Designer to recouple them? There's like twenty threads on how to do it.

[steamteck]

You're tech geek can't set up Hero Designer to recouple them? There's like twenty threads on how to do it.


This guy fixes pretty much all computers of any problem in the whole tax assessment of section of Fairfax county which is over a hundred machines but HERO designer constantly confounds him.;) Right now he finding characters he made in his older version before he just updated only import/convert about 1/2 the time. Personally I just find it slows me down.:doi:

[lemming]

This guy fixes pretty much all computers of any problem in the whole tax assessment of section of Fairfax county which is over a hundred machines but HERO designer constantly confounds him.;) Right now he finding characters he made in his older version before he just updated only import/convert about 1/2 the time. Personally I just find it slows me down.:doi:

I think it's been suggested to not import directly into the 6e template, but retype. That may be one of his problems.

[steamteck]

I think it's been suggested to not import directly into the 6e template, but retype. That may be one of his problems.


Kay, But he's using 5th template for both Just trying to move stuff into the newer versionn of the application

[lemming]

Kay, But he's using 5th template for both Just trying to move stuff into the newer versionn of the application

Hmm. Don't know then since I didn't use HD for a few years until the 6 version and since I'm trying 6 out, haven't checked to see how my first files look like.

[IndianaJoe3]

This guy fixes pretty much all computers of any problem in the whole tax assessment of section of Fairfax county which is over a hundred machines but HERO designer constantly confounds him.

I've done it*. It wasn't trivial, but it was straightforward (if tedious). You should use a text editor that can handle XML, which will help keep track of the tags.

*OK, I've done something much like it. During the 6e design discussions, I created a custom template that used an alternate method for creating figured characteristics.

[Jhamin]

I tend to run Heroic and low powered Superheroic (really, very powerful Heroic) games mostly. I like the interaction between Dex and CV. It makes sense to me. I understand that from a toolkit approach, decoupling figured characteristics from the primary characteristics makes sense, but for some reason it just doesn't sit very well with me.

I was skeptical right up until my group made characters for Lucha Libre Hero. The fact that all stats are decoupled let us balance the combat effectiveness of a character with Str, Dex, OCV and DCV instead of just Str and Dex. We had one really strong Luchadore with a good OCV & Terrible DCV, another that had campaign average OCV/DCV but maxed out Dex to the campaign limits. He is fast and his acrobatics skills are great but he isn't magically a better fighter than the guy whose concept is "skill over talent" and bought a great ocv/dcv but bad Dex.

Having more options is never a bad thing. I have yet to find a situation where 6th gives me fewer options than 5th did. Even if the new choices are sometimes unexpected and go against what used to be "the Hero Way".

[BeZurKur]

Having more options is never a bad thing. I have yet to find a situation where 6th gives me fewer options than 5th did. Even if the new choices are sometimes unexpected and go against what used to be "the Hero Way".
Yeah, but for me, decoupling Dex from CV makes CSL and Lighting Reflexes (there may be others) non-options. Yeah, we still have them, but really... why bother? There are a lot of fine tune adjustments in levels (i.e. options) that are now overlooked. However, I do like the new costs. A 23 Dex with CVs bought up to 8s cost 76 points, a considerable increase over 5e. Those CSL are really looking tempting now. The energy projector who relies on his force field for defense with 5 attack powers in MP is better off with a lower Dex and making up the difference in CSLs. Yeah, he's easier to hit, but high DCVs are the martial artist's gig. I see keeping CV tied to Dex as more options because it opens up all the possibilities of CSL and lighting reflexes, which have largely been ignored throughout all the editions. Now, there have been some convincing arguments through this thread for the fine control between OCV and DCV, and I mostly agree with them. In those cases I like the option to fine tune, but only in those exceptions.

[Hugh Neilson]

Yeah, but for me, decoupling Dex from CV makes CSL and Lighting Reflexes (there may be others) non-options. Yeah, we still have them, but really... why bother? There are a lot of fine tune adjustments in levels (i.e. options) that are now overlooked. However, I do like the new costs. A 23 Dex with CVs bought up to 8s cost 76 points, a considerable increase over 5e. Those CSL are really looking tempting now. The energy projector who relies on his force field for defense with 5 attack powers in MP is better off with a lower Dex and making up the difference in CSLs. Yeah, he's easier to hit, but high DCVs are the martial artist's gig. I see keeping CV tied to Dex as more options because it opens up all the possibilities of CSL and lighting reflexes, which have largely been ignored throughout all the editions. Now, there have been some convincing arguments through this thread for the fine control between OCV and DCV, and I mostly agree with them. In those cases I like the option to fine tune, but only in those exceptions.

Emphasis added. Why have they been ignored? Because DEX was a great deal. Pay 45 points, and get 5 OCV, 5 DCV, 15 Lightning Reflexes, 1.5 Speed and +3 to all DEX rolls. So what's the answer, if not decoupling? Bump the price of DEX to 5 or 6 points? At 5 points, that's 75 for +15 DEX. 15 goes to Speed, so that leaves 60. 25 for OCV and 25 for DCV leaves 10 to pay for +3 DEX rolls (18 points to add to only one at a time) and +15 Lightning Reflexes (15 points). Still 23 points light. Looks like DEX needs to cost 6 or 7 each. I guess we'd see a lot less 23 DEX Supers (for 91 points) or 20 DEX (70 points) Heroic characters anyway.
Unless, of course, some of those components are overpriced. I think Lightning Reflexes are overpriced, Going first is only really major in games where one shot devestation is common, and most Hero games in my experience are set up so the typical character must be hit three or more times to be KO'd. And even in such games, if you take your shot at DEX + LR = 75, my 8 DEX, no LR character can still abort to Dodge (or whatever defensive action he chooses). If he sank some of the points saved into SPD, he'll probably still get his next move before you do.

Skill levels are too expensive if one has complementary skills, or even skills likely to be used in the same phase independently.

And that leaves DEX under the current model overpriced (or, alternatively, INT and PRE, which also give a bonus to a large array of skills and provide an ancillary benefit, underpriced).

BTW, the difference between the old cost of 23 DEX (39 less 13 point speed discount = 26) and a 23 DEX, 8 OCV and 8 DCV (76 points) is the 50 point increase to the starting Supers point base. A Heroic character can't quite pay the spread for a 17 DEX (21 - 7 = 14 before; now 15 + 15 + 14 = 44) with his extra 25 points.

[BeZurKur]

(Interesting point on the increase of points available, genre, and relationship to Dex/CVs. FWIW, I'm grateful to the posts in this thread for highlighting some design choices and game options. As a result, my perspective on this has shifted since the threads's inception.)

I like the decoupling, providing you buy them up to figureds, because you see the points where they go as they're being spent. If it's not to your liking, there are probably other cheaper ways to get what you want as long as you don't mind making compromises in areas that probably don't matter as much. Also, I'm convinced that Int and Pre should be worth 2 points apiece.

[Matt Holck]

strength is still king of the statts

[JamesG]

I'm disappointed that the disconnection of certain abilities has not lead to a rethinking of the character standards. There is no longer any reason, for example, that the starting point for Supers' DEX needs to be 20+, yet the samle characters keep that old 20 - 23 baseline, rather than gravitating back to more "human norm" levels for those characters where agility is not part of their schtick.

I could not be in more agreement with this. It is the first thing I thought when the sample from 6e Champions with the Brick "gallery" was posted. Why the heck was the basic Brick sporting an 18 DEX and the brutish Brick a 15? Those values should be 10 and 8, or maybe less (IMO of course). To my mind one of greatest advantages of decoupling Figured characteristics would be the reining in of Stat inflation, particularly Dex inflation. But it looks like they missed the boat on that one, big time.


Unfortunately, such a change would markedly reduce the compatability of older editions' support material, which could have a backlash that gamers just stick to the old material and ignore the new material (rather than the desired result that they buy all the new material to bring their old favorites up to the new standard).

Hmmm, for me at least it actually has the opposite effect. I'm probably less likely to buy the new material if they are not taking full advantage of the potential changes the rules reboot affords.

[Matt Holck]

reasons to have high dexterity

in the Advanced Players guild,
acrobatics suggest bouncing of a telephone wire for a roll at -6

at 14- less roll in acrobatics is 90% what happens when the character fails an acrobatics roll?
a stealth roll is often contested by a perceptions roll
a thief with slight of hand does not want to fail either

yes I know what a level is

[The Main Man]

Yeah, but for me, decoupling Dex from CV makes CSL and Lighting Reflexes (there may be others) non-options. Yeah, we still have them, but really... why bother? There are a lot of fine tune adjustments in levels (i.e. options) that are now overlooked. However, I do like the new costs. A 23 Dex with CVs bought up to 8s cost 76 points, a considerable increase over 5e. Those CSL are really looking tempting now. The energy projector who relies on his force field for defense with 5 attack powers in MP is better off with a lower Dex and making up the difference in CSLs. Yeah, he's easier to hit, but high DCVs are the martial artist's gig. I see keeping CV tied to Dex as more options because it opens up all the possibilities of CSL and lighting reflexes, which have largely been ignored throughout all the editions. Now, there have been some convincing arguments through this thread for the fine control between OCV and DCV, and I mostly agree with them. In those cases I like the option to fine tune, but only in those exceptions.

CSL's are still useful because you cannot Drain them (of course you cannot Absorb to, Aid, nor Heal them either, but still...), you cannot reallocate OCV/DCV, nor can you combine two of them to add +1 Damage Class.

CSL's and Lightning Reflexes can be more precise and thusly be cheaper in the long run (depending on the character concept) than just buying straight up OCV/DCV and/or DEX.

That their functions are overlooked is the fault of the player, not the system.

[Matt Holck]

I think the variability of DCV and OCV in levels is broken due to the rather short range of CV differences due to the 3d6 curve to hit

for example, a character with 8 levels will be nearly impossible to hit if all those levels are placed in DCV

[Rapier]

I think the variability of DCV and OCV in levels is broken due to the rather short range of CV differences due to the 3d6 curve to hit

for example, a character with 8 levels will be nearly impossible to hit if all those levels are placed in DCV

I can't disagree more. In a campaign where one character has 8 CSLs at his disposal, it is assumed that his opponents will be similarly equipped (with 8 CSLs they can drop into OCV). If you put your 8 levels into DCV and I put my 8 levels into OCV, guess what? Yep, roll an 11 or less and I still hit.

[Matt Holck]

Aiy
combat would be determined by the paper scissors rocks of level allocations

you are correct
The case I presented was when one player comes in with levels and the rest just had a set CV

[The Main Man]

And in the opposite of an earlier point I made, the fact that you can always adjust your OCV or DCV provides interesting new avenues.

[The Main Man]

You also have to assign CSL's, so if your opponent has a higher DEX than you, you may have to rely on your normal OCV and DCV now.

I like the fact that there is no right or wrong answer in that dynamic because it means more options.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I think the variability of DCV and OCV in levels is broken due to the rather short range of CV differences due to the 3d6 curve to hit

for example, a character with 8 levels will be nearly impossible to hit if all those levels are placed in DCV

That guy should be almost impossible to hit. He's the equivalent to a 3rd or 4th degree Black Belt in his chosen form of combat. Unless his opponent is similarly skilled, anyone facing this guy would be seriously outmatched.

I love that aspect of Combat Skill Levels.

[steamteck]

I think the variability of DCV and OCV in levels is broken due to the rather short range of CV differences due to the 3d6 curve to hit

for example, a character with 8 levels will be nearly impossible to hit if all those levels are placed in DCV


I think it simulates the cinematic style of combat pretty darn well myself. That guy with 8 levels is pretty high up the badass zone and is probably the local equivalent of jet Li , batman, etc.

[Hugh Neilson]

You also have to assign CSL's, so if your opponent has a higher DEX than you, you may have to rely on your normal OCV and DCV now.

Or Abort to Dodge and reallocate your levels to DCV. [Or abort to Block with all levels to OCV so you can get the first move in the next phase, asusming you have equal SPD, forcing your opponent to abort to reallocate his own levels.]

[The Main Man]

But as you've just demonstrated, CSL's make combat less static and thusly less certain because they increase tactical variability.

Not that I had not already thought of Defensive reallocation of CSL's.

And a bit OT but I don't use Roll With Punch nearly enough...

[Hugh Neilson]

One of the longstanding problems with pricing skill levels was the discrepancy with Heroic and Superheroic games. Buying skill levels (combat or otherwise) made a lot more sense when you had hit NCM in a Heroic game, which lead to a choice betwen skill levels being overpriced if you weren't hitting NCM's (including most Supers games) or far too cheap if you were.

With 6e eliminating NCM as a core rule, it would seem reasonable to have repriced skill levels based on limited characteristics, which should have lead to a reduced cost for non-combat skill levels, at least in my view. CSL's have aspects of a Multipower that make them harder to price. Consider, however, buying 6 Martial Arts skill levels against buying a Multipower of +6 OCV (30 AP), +6 DCV (30 AP) and +7 Martial Arts Damage Classes (28 AP). This costs 45 points (30 pool + 6 per flexible slot), can enhance CV regardless of whether the character is using martial arts and can enhance DC's by a lot more than 6 skill levels with Martial Arts. Those would cost what, 5 points per, so 30 points for 6? Given that, the 5 point skill levels are a reasonable purchase. What about 8 point "all HTH" skill levels? I guess you could have a MP of +6 OCV, +6 DCV and +30 STR, only for damage. Still about 45 points, and more versatile than 6 skill levels in HTH combat.

Other types of skill levels could be harder to build (enhancing a Swiss Army Multipower of ranged attacks, for example, would require a lot of MP slots). Ultimately, I suppose a Cosmic VPP limited to OCV, DCV and enhancing existing attacks would work.

To the extent I have a point at all, I suppose it's that skill levels' pricing could use another look.

[Matt Holck]

I think combat still levels can be reduced to buying OCV or DCV with limitations
if I character wants either OCV or DCV , they can buy both and use the lock out limitation

oh wait that doesn't account for damage classes

[BeZurKur]

Hugh, what if Dex and CV were not decoupled? Looking at it from a characteristic and skill roll angle, it would cost 32 points for a 14- and only 24 points to achieve the same with Skill Levels (+3 to Agility Skills and +3 to Dex Rolls). That certainly supports your theory that Dex is overpriced, but if we keep Dex tied to CVs doesn't that close the gab between skill levels and straight char buys? Consider the theoretical build of your multipower above versus the CSL build and throw in the adjustment for a 14- roll as well. My numbers came out to be 75 points for the MP version and 72 points through SLs. Throw in some Lighting Reflexes and the two are pretty comparable.

My point is that thrown all together, there is little difference between buying skill levels and straight characteristic buys, but that seems to be true as long as Dex is still tied to CVs. The advantage to CSLs and SLs is not a point break, but that you can pick what you want. For the whole package, the char approach still delivers more for less points overall.

Whoa, wait a minute... Int and Pre aren't attached to any CV. Could that be why they're still at one point? If so, then Dex is overpriced and the CVs underpriced (like you said before). Although the price for Dex and CVs combined seems to be about right.

[Hugh Neilson]

Ignoring the fact that DEX is not appropriately priced compared to INT and PRE (and I am not confident which side is mispriced), let's look at INT skill levels and PRE skill levels.

For 5 points, I can buy +5 INT, so +1 with every INT roll, including PER, straight rolls and every INT skill (including skills used in the same phase, perhaps as complementary skills). Or, for 4 points, I can buy +1 to any one INT skill at a time. That extra point spent to just buy up INT seems a pretty small cost.

For 5 points, I can buy +5 PRE, so +1 with every PRE roll, including straight rolls and every PRE skill (including skills used in the same phase, perhaps as complementary skills), and I get +1d6 PRE attack and +5 to resist PRE attacks.. Or, for 4 points, I can buy +1 to any one PRE skill at a time. That extra point spent to just buy up PRE seems to get an awful lot of benefits. I doubt I'd allow a player to buy +5d6 PRE attacks alone for 5 points.

I find the fact that DEX no longer links to CV at all should justify a price break, but none was provided. DEX has always cost 2 points - the other point when DEX was set at 3 was offset by the Speed it granted, so DEX really only cost 2. That was very cheap to bump OCV, DCV, combat order and DEX rolls. But it's very expensive, IMO, for just combat order and DEX rolls. I'd rather move later and have +1 SPD, or +2 DC's, or +5 PE and ED, or +20 STUN instead.

[dmjalund]

I have come to the opinion that all the stats which are bases of Skill, and have other uses, should be 2 pts.

OTOH if we do go back to Figured Characteristics, we should still be allowed the ability to Buy & Sell OCV and DCV.

[Hugh Neilson]

I have come to the opinion that all the stats which are bases of Skill, and have other uses, should be 2 pts.

This would fix the micro problem that INT and PRE are clearly too cheap compared to DEX. But how does the value of +5 INT, PRE or DEX compare to +1 SPD, or +2 DC's, or +5 PE and ED, or +20 STUN, for the same 10 point (proposed) cost? I think the better answer may be to start at the bottom. What should bonuses to skill rolls cost? Presently, raising one skill roll by +1 costs 2 points. Is that a fair price? Should it be 1 point? Next step - what should +1 to any one skill roll in a small category cost? Clearly, it should cost more than +1 to a single skill. Then, what should +1 to any one skill roll in a broad group at a time cost? Establishing that, what should +1 to all skills (and let's include the raw characteristic roll as well) based on a single characteristic cost - now you can use multiple skills at the same time/in the same phase. Now let's price the ancillary benefits of each of the characteristics - what is Lightning Reflexes really worth (one attack; group; all attacks)? What is +1d6 PRE attack worth? +5 PRE defense? +1 PER rolls? Each of these can be compared against other benchmarks - what else could be acquired for the same point cost?

Once we establish the price of the components, and we know what we want the characteristic itself to grant, we can price the characteristic itself to have a similar cost, with perhaps a small "package discount".

So, if we accept OCV and DCV are worth 5 each, +1 with all DEX rolls at once is worth 5 and +5 combat order with all attacks is worth 5 points, and we want to restore the old Figured system (and keep the ability to buy OCV and DCV up or down independently), what should DEX cost? Well, +15 DEX gave us +5 OCV (25), +5 DCV (25), +3 DEX rolls (15), +15 combat order (15) and +1.5 Speed (15). That's a total of 95 points. Divide that by 15, and +1 DEX must be worth somewhere on the order of 6 points (a 5.26% discount doesn't seem like the end of the world). If DEX granting those benefits is not worth 6 points, then we must have overpriced some of the benefits. Which ones are overpriced?


OTOH if we do go back to Figured Characteristics, we should still be allowed the ability to Buy & Sell OCV and DCV.

Agree 100%. OCV and DCV should be figured characteristics in that model, not just derived from DEX. That was my argument on the 6e Boards in discussing decoupling - that OCV and DCV were as much "figured" as PD, ED or REC - we just didn't show them as characteristics and price them independently, which made them less obvious.

[Matt Holck]

A character must declare they are taking a recovery on their dexterity initiative.
Any damage received before their initiative does not stop the character from recovering stun and endurance.

[BeZurKur]

Personally, I'm not against the idea of decoupling (at least not anymore). Doing so solves the problem with Speed because everyone buys it up anyway. Combat order is what Dex does, so that's okay, and every other stat has char rolls as well so that aspect is inherently balanced with each other. (This is assuming decoupling.) The wall is with the CSL and SL. As is, they seem to be underpowered. Having the "soft" figured between Dex and CV seems to make CSL attractive again, which leads me to think that CVs are underpriced. As for regular SLs, the only thing I can think of is to cut out most of it and leave the parts that affect different char based skill, such as Large Groups and All-Noncombat.

Hugh, you make a convincing argument. Just curious, what was the rationale you came across for the current model?

[Hugh Neilson]

Personally, I'm not against the idea of decoupling (at least not anymore). Doing so solves the problem with Speed because everyone buys it up anyway. Combat order is what Dex does, so that's okay, and every other stat has char rolls as well so that aspect is inherently balanced with each other. (This is assuming decoupling.) The wall is with the CSL and SL. As is, they seem to be underpowered. Having the "soft" figured between Dex and CV seems to make CSL attractive again, which leads me to think that CVs are underpriced. As for regular SLs, the only thing I can think of is to cut out most of it and leave the parts that affect different char based skill, such as Large Groups and All-Noncombat.

Hugh, you make a convincing argument. Just curious, what was the rationale you came across for the current model?

I'm not convinced the current pricing is correct.

I think the current model is driven largely by underpriced characteristics. I can pay 2 points to buy a skill roll up by one point, so that's the lower end of the range. I can pay 5 points to buy my INT or PRE up 5 points, adding 1 to all skill rolls based on those stats. The price of a skill level allowing +1 to any one skill based on those stats can only be 3 or 4, unless we change one of the two end points in the range. The more I look at this, the more I come around to "INT and PRE should cost 2 points, not 1 point".

The DEX issue I find even more puzzling. I'm not sure how it got priced at 2 points when compared to INT and PRE - this implies combat order is far more valuable than PER rolls or PRE attacks (plus defense...which should be exclusive to EGO...and be like resistance to mental attacks). Then we get to skill levels, and decide, I believe, that since DEX costs more than INT or PRE, a level with DEX skills should cost more than a level with INT or PRE skills. I don't buy that logic. I think we should have:

- INT, DEX and PRE priced at 2 each
- +1 to all rolls based on either INT (excludes PER), PRE or DEX - 5 points [-1 limitation on +5 CHAR]
- +1 to any one roll at a time - 4 points [-1 1/2 limitation on +5 CHAR]
- +1 to any one roll in a tighter group of skills - 3 points (-2 limitation on +5 CHAR)
- +1d6 PRE attack - 5 points (-1 limitation on +5 PRE)
- +1 to all PER rolls - 5 points (-1 limitation on INT)
- +5 combat order - 5 points (-1 limitation on DEX; lower cost for fewer attacks)

Ego gives me trouble more...
- +10 resistance to mental powers, including PRE attacks - 8 points (-1/4 limitation on +10 Ego)
- +2 to all Ego Rolls - 3 points (- 2 limitation on +10 Ego)
- +10 PRE defense - 4 points (-1 1/2 limitation on +10 Ego)
- +10 resistance to mental powers, but not PRE attacks - 5 points (-1 limitation on +10 Ego)

This makes "not vs Mental Blasts Attacks" a -1 limitation on mental defense. That seems high. Mind you, I guess it's also not vs AVAD's targeting mental defense. Maybe that's OK. Pricing EGO at 1.5 seems kludgy and 2 is too expensive.

[Matt Holck]

one thing I like about the decoupling of figured is
a character can get limitations ( like x2 endurance) on characteristics without losing the figured.

[BeZurKur]

I'm not convinced the current pricing is correct.

I think the current model is driven largely by underpriced characteristics. I can pay 2 points to buy a skill roll up by one point, so that's the lower end of the range. I can pay 5 points to buy my INT or PRE up 5 points, adding 1 to all skill rolls based on those stats. The price of a skill level allowing +1 to any one skill based on those stats can only be 3 or 4, unless we change one of the two end points in the range. The more I look at this, the more I come around to "INT and PRE should cost 2 points, not 1 point".
This is only true for the relationship between "base" characteristics, (C)SLs, and CV. Making Dex, Int, and Pre 1 point solves their relationship discrepancy with the added benefit that it is sleeker as a whole, and like Matt pointed out before, reduces the gap between the king of stats: Str. I think the end point that should be changed is at the skill end of it. It would probably be easier too, since there is less synergy: no other effects such as pre attacks, perception rolls, etc. to factor in.


The DEX issue I find even more puzzling. I'm not sure how it got priced at 2 points when compared to INT and PRE - this implies combat order is far more valuable than PER rolls or PRE attacks (plus defense...which should be exclusive to EGO...and be like resistance to mental attacks). Then we get to skill levels, and decide, I believe, that since DEX costs more than INT or PRE, a level with DEX skills should cost more than a level with INT or PRE skills. I don't buy that logic. <snip>
I agree the logic for pricing Dex different doesn't seem right. You lost me a bit on the rationale for all three being 2 points. How much do we lose (if at all) if we adjust the points from the skill end? It may be the more elegant point structure and streamline design -- all stats from Str through Presence are 1 point -- can withstand a small discrepancy of costs overall.

[JmOz]

I actualy would have liked to have seen the option in APG on splitting dex to make a difference between agility and inititive

[Matt Holck]

I'll go last

[Hugh Neilson]

I agree the logic for pricing Dex different doesn't seem right. You lost me a bit on the rationale for all three being 2 points. How much do we lose (if at all) if we adjust the points from the skill end? It may be the more elegant point structure and streamline design -- all stats from Str through Presence are 1 point -- can withstand a small discrepancy of costs overall.

How do we adjust the points at the skill end? At present, it costs 2 points for +1 to any one skill roll. It costs 5 points for +5 PRE or INT. The skill levels must fall somewhere between the two. We could reduce the cost of +1 to any one skill to 1 point. So what should it cost for +1 to all skill rolls based on the charactestic, +1 to any one roll based on that char at a time, or +1 to a subset of such skills? The only options are 2, 3 and 4 points, so we end up with 4 points for the CHAR roll effects, or 5 points for the full CHAR. I think +1 to all PER rolls and +1d6 PRE attack are each worth more than 1 point (certainly more than 20% of a 5 point increase to the stat).

I'm not convinced STR is the best benchmark. It comes with its own baggage, mainly comparative DC's. 1 DC at range that can be Spread costs 5 points. Take away Range and Spreading, and it's worth considerably less. STR gets some added abilities to offset those losses. I think STR becomes overpowered primarily where it is also the limiter on free gear that can carried, or when the game is very liberal in allowing access to range, AoE, etc. based on objects of opportunity (eg. "Is there a nice, convenient, balanced hunk of rubble I can throw at minimal penalties and get AoE I didn't pay for so I get all the benefits of the Energy Projector for free, in addition to the benefits of my STR?"

[AnotherSkip]

Have you ever bought up an EGO score on someone without mental powers? Why? There certainly isn't much bang for that buck. It's not like a 4 ECV was going to give you much more benefit than a 3 ECV. You were still going to get totally pwned by any halfway decent mentalist.

Did you ever spend even a single point to raise a COM score? Talk about lack of bang for the buck!

*Reloads the Pro Com shotgun* you CERTAIN you wanna start this?

[Matt Holck]

Beast buys that discriminatory scent
I mean discriminatory smelling

[The Main Man]

*Reloads the Pro Com shotgun* you CERTAIN you wanna start this?
Oh damn it all to hell!*dives behind cover and starts loading new Pro-Striking Appearance gun and frantically putting on Non-COM Tac Gear*

Ready when you are.

I thought that this was about Figured CHAR!

[torchwolf]

*takes a seat with a bowl of popcorn*

[Matt Holck]

striking appearance must be bought as either ugly or attractive
one causing fear and the other admiration
Sunset, the Gold Dragon buys 2 levels ugly 'tooth and nail" and 2 levels attractive "groomed and scaled"

[ghost-angel]

striking appearance must be bought as either ugly or attractive

One - Punctuation: not just for school papers.

Two - no, no it doesn't:

Sultry Voice: Striking Appearance +1D6/+1 when using appropriate skills (Oratory, Conversation, etc) or situations (on the phone, or similar)

Woah, Now That's Charismatic: Striking Appearance +2D6/+2 when in a Leadership situation (leading troops, making speeches, etc)

It's called Striking Appearance, and the primary function would be Appearance. But, meh - that's a name and it's Mechanics are +1D6/+1 in appropriate Presence/Interaction situations; making it an appropriate Mechanic to use for such abilities that would work in that arena.

[Matt Holck]

...cost 3 Character Points, and must be defined as "attractive" or "ugly" when purchased.

6e1 115

I was expecting a sultry voice

[ghost-angel]

I've been known to ignore the rule book on a regular basis. This is no expection.

It's a Mechanic. It does something Mechanically. I will not, refuse to in fact, attach SFX to it.

I will state then - no it mustn't, the book is wrong.
Or "Sultry Voice" is also "Attractive Voice" if you really want to fit it all into the book nice and neat like.

And seriously dude, punctuation. Periods, Commas... your friend.

[torchwolf]

Any version of any game system is susceptible to semantic distortion.

[Matt Holck]

that's why I use them

[torchwolf]

Any version of any game system is susceptible to semantic distortion.
By this obscurely misquoted piece of non-informational wording, I just meant that taking the RAW literally might not necessarily be constructive. That said, a standing joke in my old campaign was that a mentalist projecting into someones mind was taking an "EGO trip".


striking appearance must be bought as either ugly or attractive
one causing fear and the other admiration
Sunset, the Gold Dragon buys 2 levels ugly 'tooth and nail" and 2 levels attractive "groomed and scaled"
True by the book, but still doesn't necessarily use the possible versatility of the Talent. ;)


I've been known to ignore the rule book on a regular basis. This is no expection.

It's a Mechanic. It does something Mechanically. I will not, refuse to in fact, attach SFX to it.

I will state then - no it mustn't, the book is wrong.
Or "Sultry Voice" is also "Attractive Voice" if you really want to fit it all into the book nice and neat like.
Creatively interpreting "Attractive" and "Ugly" should be no further stretch than using COM creatively; signifying a positive or negative response caused by applying it.

While on the Striking Appearance subject:

Fast Talker: Striking Appearance +1D6/+1 when using appropriate skills (Conversation, Persuasion) or situations (on the phone, or similar)

Presto, used car salesman ability or similar concept represented fairly well in game terms.

And for 5ER it can also be used the same way in conjunction with COM of course.

[AnotherSkip]

Oh damn it all to hell!*dives behind cover and starts loading new Pro-Striking Appearance gun and frantically putting on Non-COM Tac Gear*

Ready when you are.

I thought that this was about Figured CHAR!

1. i agree about figured Char
2. Somewhat intended for rapier
3. I dont really have access to the funds for 6th so I havent seen what Steve did.
4. this whole thread is giving me flashbacks to 'the war'.

[Chris Goodwin]

"Grampa, what did you do in the war?"

"The limp I got from a stray bullet in the Battle for Comeliness. I lost the arm, though, in the full fight over Figured Characteristics. There I was, in the trenches at Alsace-Lorraine. We got the orders to make a big push..."

[The Main Man]

1. i agree about figured Char
2. Somewhat intended for rapier
3. I dont really have access to the funds for 6th so I havent seen what Steve did.
4. this whole thread is giving me flashbacks to 'the war'.

*peers over cover*

So it's a ceasefire?

And there I was having one of my flashbacks.

I sleep with a gun under my pillow now.

[ghost-angel]

I like Comliness. I like Striking Appearance too.

An appropriate chance comes up I may try and use both in a game together.

You'll never get me to used Figureds again though.

[NuSoardGraphite]

You can remove my Figured Characteristics when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Or if you're the one running the game, whichever comes first...

[BeZurKur]

How do we adjust the points at the skill end? At present, it costs 2 points for +1 to any one skill roll. It costs 5 points for +5 PRE or INT. The skill levels must fall somewhere between the two. We could reduce the cost of +1 to any one skill to 1 point. So what should it cost for +1 to all skill rolls based on the charactestic, +1 to any one roll based on that char at a time, or +1 to a subset of such skills? The only options are 2, 3 and 4 points, so we end up with 4 points for the CHAR roll effects, or 5 points for the full CHAR. I think +1 to all PER rolls and +1d6 PRE attack are each worth more than 1 point (certainly more than 20% of a 5 point increase to the stat).
Actually, upon closer inspection, the regular Skill Levels won't require much adjustment. The only thing that needs to be done is have Agility skills absorbed into the other types such as Intellect and Interaction because of the false premise that Dex is inherently worth more than the other characteristics.

To reiterate, my position as it now stands (it has changed a little since the start of this thread) is the following:

Str through Pre should be 1 point apiece
There simply isn't enough difference between them to justify the increased cost. Although there is the argument that Dex is more combat effective, the others also offer advantages in combat with the difference being made up outside of combat. The Skill Level costs (providing Agility skills levels are merged into other type skill levels) are inline and effective with all chars being 1 point. It is also more streamlined.
CV and MCV should remain tied to Dex and Ego
Buying them individually is simply too tempting and nerfs most of the CSLs, effectively eliminating some of the interesting specializations and design choices that they offer. Non-agile combat effective characters can still be -- and IMO should be -- built through CSLs. As always, with the GM's permission, CVs can still be purchased up or down.
Other "Figureds" should be used as a baseline
We simply need a point of reference, especially for players who are new to Hero. So far, published characters follow this model.

[Vondy]

I am trying to figure out the concept of a character with low DEX but high OCV

An fairly athletic guy who doesn't rise to olympic level feats of agility, but has achieved 10th Dan in a martial art? Say 14 Dex, 8 OCV, 5 DCV and a bunch of maneuvers to affect the base CVs and Damage?

[BeZurKur]

An fairly athletic guy who doesn't rise to olympic level feats of agility, but has achieved 10th Dan in a martial art? Say 14 Dex, 8 OCV, 5 DCV and a bunch of maneuvers to affect the base CVs and Damage?
Why is he good with a pistol or rifle? FWIW, it is interesting that he still has a DCV of 5, what would have been the derived DCV for a 14 Dex.

[dmjalund]

Why is he good with a pistol or rifle? FWIW, it is interesting that he still has a DCV of 5, what would have been the derived DCV for a 14 Dex.5

[BeZurKur]

5
Yeah, I meant that as a statement. That was poor sentence structure on my part. :doi:

[NuSoardGraphite]

Why is he good with a pistol or rifle?

EXACTLY!

I really liked the old system of figuring out Combat Value. I consider combat value derived from DEX to be a characters fighting potential. A combination of eye-hand coordination and combat agility. However to get better at combat, one needs to purchase Combat Skill Levels. Thus the example of the athletic guy with a Dex of 14 has a combat value of 5 (pretty decent but not overwhelming) but 5 Combat Skill Levels with Martial Arts. I understand that the newer system is somewhat more versatile, but I still prefer the DEX/CV connection.

[ghost-angel]

I consider DEX to be at least partially a function of Reflexes. Hence, it's primary function (in 6E at least) to be allowing one to act first.

I don't consider the ability to hit something to be ness. connected to reflexes. steady hand; hand-eye-coordination; luck (Bill Munney in The Unforgiven "Guess i'm just lucky, I always been lucky. . .");

detaching the two allows for a wider range of SFX to be placed on both.

I really don't see why that's a problem from a system-level Mechanics point of view. If you want a really fast character who can't hit the broadside of a barn or a relatively slow character whose a fighting ace that hits the mark every time (or just always manages to dodge in time)... DEX and CVs are separate.

Yeah, sure go ahead and make all the arguments you want for CSLs. At the end of the day the split allows for greater flexibility in the system. Which is the point. nothing is stopping you from buying High DEX + High CV.

[Vondy]

Why is he good with a pistol or rifle?

This has nothing to do with whether DEX should be coupled with CVs. Its a separate issue altogether: why are native combat values formed with less granularity than skill levels? After all, couldn't I be a natural shot due to eye-hand coordination, but not as good at martial arts because my gross motor control isn't as developed? I couldn't be a honed can-of-whoop-ass martial artists who doesn't know how to handle a gun? I agree its a flaw, but it has nothing to do with the point you were responding to: that there are plenty of concepts that benefit from having DEX and CVs be discreet.

Tangentially, I advocate to hit rolls being 11- adjusted by skill levels (attackers and defenders) and other modifiers. In other words: ditching combat values altogether. It would require a small amount of work to cover a few situations, but not overmuch. Most issues could be handled by applying modifiers to the hit roll instead of adjusting the DCV. And "native combat ability" that's always there could be modeled with persistent or some other apropos modifier. I am aware, however, that its too radical a change for most.


FWIW, it is interesting that he still has a DCV of 5, what would have been the derived DCV for a 14 Dex.

Circumstantial. It could have just as easily been 4 or 6. I wanted the modified value when dodging to be 10.

[Hugh Neilson]

Why is he good with a pistol or rifle?


EXACTLY!

I really liked the old system of figuring out Combat Value. I consider combat value derived from DEX to be a characters fighting potential. A combination of eye-hand coordination and combat agility. However to get better at combat, one needs to purchase Combat Skill Levels. Thus the example of the athletic guy with a Dex of 14 has a combat value of 5 (pretty decent but not overwhelming) but 5 Combat Skill Levels with Martial Arts. I understand that the newer system is somewhat more versatile, but I still prefer the DEX/CV connection.

But, under the old system, the only efficient (cost-effective) way to be good at combat was to buy higher DEX, so you had higher OCV. Pretty much every published martial artist had high DEX, so he was also just as good with a rifle.

Under the new model, we can take the example martial artist proferred and decide we don't want him to be good with a blaster or rifle, so we give him, say, a 5 OCV and +3 OCV, only with martial arts. Now he's not good with a rifle, a blaster or a sword. He's good at martial arts, and not at attacking in other ways.

[JamesG]

First off, I'd like to say I really like the way you think Hugh. Your thoughts in this thread make really, really, wish your ideas had more influence when 6th Ed was being developed.


But, under the old system, the only efficient (cost-effective) way to be good at combat was to buy higher DEX, so you had higher OCV. Pretty much every published martial artist had high DEX, so he was also just as good with a rifle.

Under the new model, we can take the example martial artist proferred and decide we don't want him to be good with a blaster or rifle, so we give him, say, a 5 OCV and +3 OCV, only with martial arts. Now he's not good with a rifle, a blaster or a sword. He's good at martial arts, and not at attacking in other ways.

The problem with the new model is it has just shifted the problem somewhat. Now it is raw OCV/DCV, instead of DEX, that is way more efficient than CSLs. I'm talking about the higher level CSLs here. As in the old system, low level CSLs (3 points or less) can be efficient. But look at the all combat CSL which costs 10 points now. So for 10 points you can have +1 OCV OR +1 DCV, switching between the two as needed on your phases. Alternatively you can spend that 10 points to have +1 OCV AND +1 DCV at the same time, all the time.

Granted, the CSL grants you other benefits that can be chosen instead of CV such as bouncing attacks, adding DC, adding to ECV, etc. But by the same token the raw OCV/DCV has the benefit of being on all the time; you don't need wait for your phase to allocate them. If you are surprised, or merely act on a lower DEX than your attacker on segment 12, your raw CV is active where your CSLs are not.

I'm not really sure why they changed the cost of CSLs. The old cost model for H2H or Ranged CSLs at 5 points seems like it's balanced with raw CV at 5 points a point. 8 points for "all combat" might still be a bit high (7 may be better). But they actually raised the CSL costs keeping CSLs as the weak sister when compared to the raw CV stats.

[steamteck]

You can remove my Figured Characteristics when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.


I'm there also. I just really loved the connection and interaction between them.

[steamteck]

An fairly athletic guy who doesn't rise to olympic level feats of agility, but has achieved 10th Dan in a martial art? Say 14 Dex, 8 OCV, 5 DCV and a bunch of maneuvers to affect the base CVs and Damage?

Sort of lets CSLs out in the cold doesn't it? I would find them sooo much more elegant in that situation

[Vondy]

Sort of lets CSLs out in the cold doesn't it? I would find them sooo much more elegant in that situation

It depends whether you want the option of assigning them or not. I generally do prefer skill levels I can allot, but some of my players have traditionally found that flabbergasting at run time. They freeze up and spend all day trying to decide where to put them. So, when I design characters, my baseline isn't generally how I'd do it for myself - its how I'd do it for them. Like I said, I would prefer we ditched CVs for a base to hit roll adjusted by modifiers (combat skill levels, maneuver or skill induced, or circumstantial).

[BeZurKur]

Yeah, sure go ahead and make all the arguments you want for CSLs. At the end of the day the split allows for greater flexibility in the system. Which is the point. nothing is stopping you from buying High DEX + High CV.
Greater flexibility is not the point for me, or at least not the highest priortiy: a balanced game is. Flexibility emerges from balance. Options that are rarely, if ever, taken because they are not cost efficient don't make the game more flexible. Those options may not as well exist. Also, I'm not convinced the game is more flexible now. CV could always have been raised through CSLs, so those examples of characters with disparate CVs and Dex could still have been built -- albeit, the CVs would have been adjusted through levels, but that shouldn't make a difference. I agree they probably wouldn't have been cost effective, and probably why we didn't see it much, but that's why flexibility emerges from balance.


It depends whether you want the option of assigning them or not. I generally do prefer skill levels I can allot, but some of my players have traditionally found that flabbergasting at run time. They freeze up and spend all day trying to decide where to put them. So, when I design characters, my baseline isn't generally how I'd do it for myself - its how I'd do it for them. Like I said, I would prefer we ditched CVs for a base to hit roll adjusted by modifiers (combat skill levels, maneuver or skill induced, or circumstantial).
Vondy, I think our takes are not so different. To be clear, I'm not arguing solely that CV should be a figured of Dex, but that Dex, along with (C)SL and CVs together offer the most control allowing for small adjustments. However, under the current 6e rules, (C)SLs are downplayed and their potential is not met. In this case, decoupling CV from Dex makes it too easy. Like JamesG pointed out, 6e didn't fix the problem: it just moved it from Dex to CV.

From a game design standpoint, I like your approach of flat 11- to hit modified by levels. It is more consistent with the philosophy of purchasing everything. Heck, for that matter, according to that philosophy, one must wonder why skills are still "figured" and simply not purchased to the level we want. We can practically argue all characteristics out of the equation and play an Aspect driven game like FATE. However, FATE is not Hero. I like the manipulation of values and their relationships that is part of Hero. There lies a game there I enjoy playing. It is one that does a good job of mirroring fiction while letting me move and adjust numbers. It also does so without compromising flexibility -- providing it continues to pursue balance. (BTW: I also like Aspect games.)

[Vondy]

From a game design standpoint, I like your approach of flat 11- to hit modified by levels. It is more consistent with the philosophy of purchasing everything. Heck, for that matter, according to that philosophy, one must wonder why skills are still "figured" and simply not purchased to the level we want. We can practically argue all characteristics out of the equation and play an Aspect driven game like FATE. However, FATE is not Hero. I like the manipulation of values and their relationships that is part of Hero. There lies a game there I enjoy playing. It is one that does a good job of mirroring fiction while letting me move and adjust numbers. It also does so without compromising flexibility -- providing it continues to pursue balance. (BTW: I also like Aspect games.)

If it were up to me, I'd have skills be purchased at a flat 11- and have the current characteristic derived base values be toolkitting option. I'd probably use the option in many games, but I'd approach it from that standpoint.

[Hugh Neilson]

The problem with the new model is it has just shifted the problem somewhat. Now it is raw OCV/DCV, instead of DEX, that is way more efficient than CSLs. I'm talking about the higher level CSLs here. As in the old system, low level CSLs (3 points or less) can be efficient. But look at the all combat CSL which costs 10 points now. So for 10 points you can have +1 OCV OR +1 DCV, switching between the two as needed on your phases. Alternatively you can spend that 10 points to have +1 OCV AND +1 DCV at the same time, all the time.

Granted, the CSL grants you other benefits that can be chosen instead of CV such as bouncing attacks, adding DC, adding to ECV, etc. But by the same token the raw OCV/DCV has the benefit of being on all the time; you don't need wait for your phase to allocate them. If you are surprised, or merely act on a lower DEX than your attacker on segment 12, your raw CV is active where your CSLs are not.

It's debatable what levels should cost, in large part because the possible uses have variant costs. One school of thought suggests an All Combat level is a Multipower including +1 OCV, +1 DCV, +1 MOCV, +1 MDCV and +1/2 DC. 5 AP pool + 5 slots = 10 points.

I could have a 30 point MP with +6 OCV (6 point slot cost), +6 DCV (6 point slot cost), +6 MOCV (4 point slot cost), +6 MDCV (4 point slot cost) and +3 DC (call that a 6 point slot cost) for 57 points, still close to 10 points per, but I could have some OCV or DCV active while my MOCV or MDCV is maxed out, or increase those slots to +10 MOCV/MODCV.

Intuitively, I think 8 points for all combat, 5 points for all "one type" combat (HTH, ranged, mental) and 3 points for a smaller subset feels more appropriate, but that means 3 points for all Martial Arts, or for a Multipower, which seems like a break to the martial artist or multipower user who never uses any other attacks.

Maybe the answer is that a"smaller subset" is either 4 or 3 points, depending on how much versatility is sacrificed. Or maybe it's "more than 3 maneuvers/attacks requires the 5 point levels. Maybe 3 or less costs 3 points, 4 or 5 costs 4 points and any more costs 5 points. A Martial Artist who never uses non-martial maneuvers has no reason to buy HTH levels in any case, and often isn't very limited by the restriction to MA vs all HTH combat. The Multipower user likely has no other ranged attacks, so is similarly paying less for levels with no real reduction in versatility.

The increased cost of CV overall (+9 DEX previously cost 18 points with the other 9 to speed; +3 OCV and +3 DCV now costs 30 and you spend more if you also want DEX) brings the disparity between CV and levels down a bit, but the price increase pushes it back up. I could live with 8 points for all combat (10 point MP with +2 OCV, +2 DCV , +1 DC, +2 mOCV and +2 mDCV would cost 16, now that I think of it, using flexible slots). With 5 for all HTH or all ranged or all mental comat, and smaller costs for more restricted groups, we get a reasonable spread. (MP: +2 OCV, +2 DCV, +1 DC, only HTH -1/2 would cost about 10 points)

[BeZurKur]

Intuitively, I think 8 points for all combat, 5 points for all "one type" combat (HTH, ranged, mental) and 3 points for a smaller subset feels more appropriate, <snip>Or maybe it's "more than 3 maneuvers/attacks requires the 5 point levels. Maybe 3 or less costs 3 points, 4 or 5 costs 4 points and any more costs 5 points.
That sounds reasonable. I wouldn't have a problem with even 4 or more powers costing 4 points. Yeah, it is a break from the 5 point all HTH, but at a one point difference, it would take a whole lot of levels to grant a meaningful point break. A five point save on 5 MA levels doesn't amount to much, and I'm sure the circumstance will arise where the character will recognize his saving will cost him. A small break may be appropriate.


The increased cost of CV overall (+9 DEX previously cost 18 points with the other 9 to speed; +3 OCV and +3 DCV now costs 30 and you spend more if you also want DEX) brings the disparity between CV and levels down a bit, but the price increase pushes it back up. I could live with 8 points for all combat (10 point MP with +2 OCV, +2 DCV , +1 DC, +2 mOCV and +2 mDCV would cost 16, now that I think of it, using flexible slots). With 5 for all HTH or all ranged or all mental comat, and smaller costs for more restricted groups, we get a reasonable spread. (MP: +2 OCV, +2 DCV, +1 DC, only HTH -1/2 would cost about 10 points)
Hugh, you grok the math better than I do. How would your proposed CSL costs match up with the 6e point structure if Dex was tied to CV, but you had to purchase it to the appropriate level? What if Dex was 1 point?

[Hugh Neilson]

Hugh, you grok the math better than I do. How would your proposed CSL costs match up with the 6e point structure if Dex was tied to CV, but you had to purchase it to the appropriate level? What if Dex was 1 point?


I'm not sure I get the concept - how would DEX be tied to CV (what gets purchased and what comes for free)?

[BeZurKur]

I'm not sure I get the concept - how would DEX be tied to CV (what gets purchased and what comes for free)?
I mean the Dotted Line Link that Rapier first mentioned way back on page 1 (post #9) where he suggested buying the stats to the old figured values. Nothing is free. In the case of CV it means if you want a 15 Dex, then you must also buy OCV and DCV up to 5. The theory and ideal would be for the player to buy up the stats to the lowest common denominator where the "complete package" of CV, char rolls, and skill rolls delivers the most bang for the buck. Then buy up the other aspects up to concept. It is less economical, but you don't end up with stuff you don't need so in the end, you still pay less overall.

Let's take for example the gymnast whose agility grants some inherent bonus in combat, but not equal to a highly-trained fighter. The player buys him a 13 Dex and 4 CVs. He then picks up 3 SL with Agility skills (15-) and he is a world class gymnast -- all with just a 13 Dex. Other than in combat, he is indistinguishable from a Martial Artist with a 29 Dex.

[ghost-angel]

Why shouldn't the Gymnast be able to buy their DEX to 29 and leave their CV at 4?

[Chris Goodwin]

Why shouldn't the Gymnast be able to buy their DEX to 29 and leave their CV at 4?

Agreed. 90% of combat is half mental, to slightly misquote. It takes a lot of training to make someone willing to pull the trigger on another human being. I have no problem at all with a character with 29 DEX and 4 OCV.

[Alibear]

Indeed Twinkletoes and his Ballet dancing chums will get chewed up by a platoon of her Majesty's Rifles no matter how graceful they move.

One problem with CV against skill levels for the 10th Dan dude is that CV doesn't discriminate (could limit it I suppose) v weapon type. He'd be all HTH and not so much range combat prowess.

[Vondy]

One problem with CV against skill levels for the 10th Dan dude is that CV doesn't discriminate (could limit it I suppose) v weapon type. He'd be all HTH and not so much range combat prowess.

See my subsequent comments on why I went with CV instead of CSLs when providing what was a one sentence example.

[Hugh Neilson]

I mean the Dotted Line Link that Rapier first mentioned way back on page 1 (post #9) where he suggested buying the stats to the old figured values. Nothing is free. In the case of CV it means if you want a 15 Dex, then you must also buy OCV and DCV up to 5. The theory and ideal would be for the player to buy up the stats to the lowest common denominator where the "complete package" of CV, char rolls, and skill rolls delivers the most bang for the buck. Then buy up the other aspects up to concept. It is less economical, but you don't end up with stuff you don't need so in the end, you still pay less overall.

Let's take for example the gymnast whose agility grants some inherent bonus in combat, but not equal to a highly-trained fighter. The player buys him a 13 Dex and 4 CVs. He then picks up 3 SL with Agility skills (15-) and he is a world class gymnast -- all with just a 13 Dex. Other than in combat, he is indistinguishable from a Martial Artist with a 29 Dex.

This carries a cost of 6 + 5 + 5 + 18 (IIRC DEX levels cost 6 each) = 34. That MA would have to pay a further 32 + 30 + 30 - 18 = 74 points. Seems like the "only skills" character gets a pretty good discount of 40 points. Of course, much of this is because DEX is priced at 2 points. If we reprice it at 1 point, and drop DEX skill levels down to, say, 3 points, we get costs of:

3 + 5 + 5 + 9 = 22 for the gymnast and a further 16 + 30 + 30 - 9 = 67 points. The gymnast still gets a pretty good discount. My issue with the cost of DEX and DEX levels relates to comparison with the very persuasive PRE character, or the very skilled Scientist. I would expect any of these three characters, who are not skilled in combat, to be comparatively inexpensive given the substantial role combat plays in most games.

I find the costs of skill levels to be excessive compared to buying up the underlying characteristics, with combat skill levels a bit less overpriced, but still, I think, somewhat overpriced. Skill levels are easier to compare as combat skill levels carry more options, not all of which can be obtained by buying up a characteristic.


Why shouldn't the Gymnast be able to buy their DEX to 29 and leave their CV at 4?

I see no reason they should not be able to do so. Even under 5e, why couldn't the gymnast buy "+16 DEX, no CV, no figured, no combat order"? What would those limitations be worth? No Figured is -1/2, CV is at least half the value of DEX so it must be at least -1 and combat order, given it is believed to justify DEX costing double the price of PRE or INT, should be at least -1/2. So for 5 points, I can either buy +5 limited DEX, and get +1 to all my DEX rolls, or a Skill Level that grants +1 to any one DEX roll at a time. Seems to be it's pretty clear which one is more cost-effective.

In 6e, what should the limitation for "Dex, no combat order" be? Given the price of lightning reflexes, a -1 seems in order, but I can now buy +5 DEX, only for skill rolls, for 5 points or a DEX skill level that enhances only one roll for 6 points. If the limitation is -1/2, the skill level is 2/3 of a point cheaper (+15 DEX for 20 or +3 levels for 18). Make it -1/4 and the skill level costs 2 points less (at least some discount), but that implies the lightning reflexes are really worth about 2 points, and they are priced at 5.

I think LR is overpriced, but I also think the addition of +1 to one skill at a time is worth a lot less than +1 to every roll based on the characteristic. I think the system would benefit from breaking characteristics into their component parts, determining the value of each part and then using those values to price the characteristic, probably with a discount in the -1/4 range since the characteristic unifies all the component parts, so it's a Unified Power.

[ghost-angel]

The Question really is - what if I want all the benefits of DEX without the combat prowess? I want a quick, agile, world class gymnast (or better) without any combat prowess. Why jump through the hoops of Limitations. It's a waste of time.

The more you make any one aspect of the system do the more troublesome it becomes to model specific ideas.

Anyways, this is the last I have to say on the topic.

[BeZurKur]

Why shouldn't the Gymnast be able to buy their DEX to 29 and leave their CV at 4?
(Although GA is no longer following the thread, the open nature of a forum warrants a reply.)

The example of the gymnast was taken out of context: checking back will see it was to serve as a model for a points/cost question. IF there was a point to be made from it, I suppose, it could be that the elusive build 6e made possible was indeed always available through the use of levels.

I know that many like the decoupling of Dex to CV, but this thread is not so much about coupling Dex back to CV. It is about finding a balanced cost between the related char, skill leves, Lighting Reflexes, and CVs so that no option is left out or made meaningless. Coupling them back is a possibility I'm exploring, but I'm partial to them. However, my preference is irrelevant if we can find a way to make all the options (including CSL, SL, and LR) meaningful.


My issue with the cost of DEX and DEX levels relates to comparison with the very persuasive PRE character, or the very skilled Scientist. I would expect any of these three characters, who are not skilled in combat, to be comparatively inexpensive given the substantial role combat plays in most games.
Isn't that the case if we reduce Dex to 1 point? If we switch out the gymnast with the Dos XX guy, a Pre of 30 is 20 points. That's comparative to the 22 point version of the gymnast. The same goes for a 30 Int scientist. All three have their appropriate skills at 15-. If we give up the Pre Attacks or Perception Bonuses, we can buy it as levels (Interaction or Intellect) for 12 points. The gymnast could be 12 points too, but the example assumed his nimbleness gave him a slight inherent bonus in combat, hence the extra CV and 10 extra points. All this is only true if Dex is 1 point.

[The Main Man]

Once again, and maybe I and others have not been clear enough.

Turning OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV into independent CHAR allows for more precise character builds.

OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV as independent CHAR do not make CSL's obsolete, they only open up new possibilities.

Ballerinas are no longer combat experts and mighty warriors are no longer naturally more flexible due to earlier editions' coupling between CV and DEX/EGO.

From an abstract standpoint, think of it like this: OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV reflect a character's natural physical and mental combat abilities whereas CSL's reflect their trained physical and mental combat abilities.

OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV can be adjusted whether positively (Absorption, Aid, Healing) or negatively (Drain) whereas CSL's cannot unless bought as Powers themselves.

OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV are static whereas CSL's can be rearranged. On the other hand, CSL's have to be assigned, which can always be trouble when Mind Controlled or Drained of INT, EGO, or PRE, amongst other situations.

OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV are generic (Power Limitations not withstanding) whereas CSL's can be granular. On the other hand, increased granularity means fewer options for using individual CSL's. Conversely, decreased granularity means higher costs than just buying up OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV.

OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV are no more and no less of what they are whereas CSL's (depending on level) can be toggled between OCV, DCV, and Damage Classes.





What about any of that doesn't give the impression that CSL's and OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV as independent CHAR doesn't look like they all have their place in the system?

[Hugh Neilson]

Isn't that the case if we reduce Dex to 1 point? If we switch out the gymnast with the Dos XX guy, a Pre of 30 is 20 points. That's comparative to the 22 point version of the gymnast. The same goes for a 30 Int scientist. All three have their appropriate skills at 15-. If we give up the Pre Attacks or Perception Bonuses, we can buy it as levels (Interaction or Intellect) for 12 points. The gymnast could be 12 points too, but the example assumed his nimbleness gave him a slight inherent bonus in combat, hence the extra CV and 10 extra points. All this is only true if Dex is 1 point.

My initial take was to reduce the cost of DEX to 1. However, when I look at skill levels with DEX, INT or PRE skills, they fall well short of the benefits of +5 to the characteristic. For 4 points, I get +1 to any one skill roll based on that Char at a time. For 5 points, I get +1 to all rolls at the same time (nice if I want to do more than one thing in a phase, or use a complementary skill). Shouldn't there be a way to buy +1 with all skills (and, perhaps, the Char roll as well)? How much should that cost? Certainly less than +5 with the characteristic - that has other benefits.

So how much should it cost to independently purchase +1d6 PRE attack or +1 to all PER rolls? If I accept +1 with all rolls will cost 4 points, and +1 with any one roll will cost 3, then I have tacitly acceopted the ancillary benefits are worth only 1 point. I can bump them up to 2 points if I make +1 to all rolls cost 3, +1 to any one roll cost 2, and +1 to a single skill cost 1. But that's as granular as I can get.

Maybe the better answer is that DEX, INT and PRE should cost 2, with the benefits of +1 to all rolls costing 5 and the ancillary benefits also costed at 5. That seems a bit more reasonable to me. Although I will still likely never buy Lightning Reflexes, some people seem to think it has a value commensurate with that cost. +1d6 PRE attack valued at 5 seems reasonable (although I have to discount it if PRE keeps PRE defense as well, but I'd rather see that become the province of EGO). +1 to all PER rolls for 5 points also seems reasonable.

Now we can have a skill level that grants +1 with all rolls priced at 5 points (a -1 limitation on +10 stat), a level that grants +1 with one roll at a time at 4 (-1 1/2) and a level that only allows +1 to a smaller selection of skills priced at 3.

Combat levels also need to be priced in accordance with their benefits, of course. 1 CSL with all combat should not cost the same as +1 OCV and +1 DCV, but given it can also be used for mental CV's and damage, it doesn't need to be too discounted. In fact, the old CSL structure seems about right, as I think I suggested above.

[Tasha]

Actually, upon closer inspection, the regular Skill Levels won't require much adjustment. The only thing that needs to be done is have Agility skills absorbed into the other types such as Intellect and Interaction because of the false premise that Dex is inherently worth more than the other characteristics.

To reiterate, my position as it now stands (it has changed a little since the start of this thread) is the following:

Str through Pre should be 1 point apiece
There simply isn't enough difference between them to justify the increased cost. Although there is the argument that Dex is more combat effective, the others also offer advantages in combat with the difference being made up outside of combat. The Skill Level costs (providing Agility skills levels are merged into other type skill levels) are inline and effective with all chars being 1 point. It is also more streamlined.
CV and MCV should remain tied to Dex and Ego
Buying them individually is simply too tempting and nerfs most of the CSLs, effectively eliminating some of the interesting specializations and design choices that they offer. Non-agile combat effective characters can still be -- and IMO should be -- built through CSLs. As always, with the GM's permission, CVs can still be purchased up or down.
Other "Figureds" should be used as a baseline
We simply need a point of reference, especially for players who are new to Hero. So far, published characters follow this model.


1) I agree with the first one. While going first is a HUGE tactical adventage I am not completly sure that it's worth Dex being a point more expensive to pay for that advantage.

2) I LOVE CV's being untied from Dex/Ego. It allows many, many builds that I always found difficult at best to writeup. I also love that high OCV characters don't always have a high DCV and High DEX. It's making for some interesting heroic level characters.

3) There needs to be a good article in the 6E1 about buying secondary Characteristics. How to figure out how much a character needs. Somewhere (in this post earlier?) I posted how I come up with where my secondaries need to be. There are some simple math equations for figuring this out and they have no relationship to the original minimums for the Secondaries when they were figured from the Primaries. It's all about knowing how much damage is being thrown at your character on average, how tough your character is. Also knowing average CV's in the game and how common mental powers are. Actually the equations are for figuring most of your offensive and defensive stats in the game.

Published characters are following the previous ways of writing characters for 2 reasons. One, many of them are conversions of 5th edition characters and were not written up from scratch. Two Steve (and the other writers) are used to making characters in the older editions, so the way they build characters are roughly the same as in the earlier edition. I believe this will eventually start to change, due to all of the complaints that we see from the conversions and eventually the writers will start to truly rethink "Classic" writeups and will make slightly different decisions about stats.

[dmjalund]

1) Personally I'm thinking of making STR through PRE costing 2 points (including an option for a power that allows you to lift without causing extra damage for 5 pts per x2 Lift (though this extra lift could add to crushing damage, but not Strikes or Move Throughs)

2) If we ever do reattach Figured Characterstics, I would definitely have OCV, DCV etc, be a Figured Characteristic which can be bought up or sold off

3) I totally agree with Tasha

[Hugh Neilson]

1) Personally I'm thinking of making STR through PRE costing 2 points (including an option for a power that allows you to lift without causing extra damage for 5 pts per x2 Lift (though this extra lift could add to crushing damage, but not Strikes or Move Throughs)

I'm not sold on STR. How valuable Lift is depends a lot on whether the game uses encumbrance rules (Fantasy games, for example, where heavy gear is a factor) and how liberal the GM is with improvised weapons allowing freebies for high STR characters. Balancing "lift capacity" and "strike capacity" is a tough area. And why should a character who punches pay the same for his attacks as one who can blast from range? Unless there is no advantage to range and the ability to spread, the guy with the Blast should pay more.

DEX, INT and PRE I agree should cost equal. In order to make that balance out, I think my game would have to make more use of PER rolls, and I think presence defense should still be reassigned to EGO only.

CON? No way. It's sole function is to prevent being Stunned. That's important, but not broad enough to impose a 2 point cost. CON is, to a large extent, a "character tax". You must spend at least enough to prevent the average attack from stunning you, or your character will be useless. If we gave it more functions, so we could drop the value of "just to not be stunned", then I could see it.

[BeZurKur]

My initial take was to reduce the cost of DEX to 1. However, when I look at skill levels with DEX, INT or PRE skills, they fall well short of the benefits of +5 to the characteristic. <snip> Maybe the better answer is that DEX, INT and PRE should cost 2, with the benefits of +1 to all rolls costing 5 and the ancillary benefits also costed at 5. That seems a bit more reasonable to me.
I totally get the deconstructionist approach and respect it. This discussion has made me more aware of the subtle relationships between Char, Skills, and Powers. However, I wonder if the game can be "fixed" to that point while still keeping it HERO. While I agree that Strength and Blast are comparable, I have difficulty accepting that Strength is worth less than Intelligence. That really is apple to oranges, though, and probably more determined by the group's play style.

I'm sure you already considered this, but I'm interested on your take. What if Skill Levels just came in two flavors: 2 points for a characteristic roll and 3 points for skill rolls within the group. Individual skills can be bought up at one for one.


Published characters are following the previous ways of writing characters for 2 reasons. One, many of them are conversions of 5th edition characters and were not written up from scratch. Two Steve (and the other writers) are used to making characters in the older editions, so the way they build characters are roughly the same as in the earlier edition. I believe this will eventually start to change, due to all of the complaints that we see from the conversions and eventually the writers will start to truly rethink "Classic" writeups and will make slightly different decisions about stats.
I think you're right on both points. However, I don't find that very reassuring. The implication is that we're all working this out as we go. Removing the relationships between Characteristics is a more fundamental change than a tweak on how a power works. The game has kept some of the fundamental relationships, such as Char to skills, while removing others. I get the simplicity and ease argument, but why stop halfway then? I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, but I'm not convinced it was the right one either simply on the grounds of ease. I'll certainly be watching.

[Hugh Neilson]

I totally get the deconstructionist approach and respect it. This discussion has made me more aware of the subtle relationships between Char, Skills, and Powers. However, I wonder if the game can be "fixed" to that point while still keeping it HERO.

Some would say the elimination of figured characteristics failed to "keep it HERO". What makes it HERO is very much a subjective thing. I can remember reading D&D 3e and thinking it was an interesting game - but it was changed so much that it was no longer D&D.


While I agree that Strength and Blast are comparable, I have difficulty accepting that Strength is worth less than Intelligence. That really is apple to oranges, though, and probably more determined by the group's play style.

Again, this comes back to pricing the components,as you allude to below. How much granularity is needed for skill levels? How much are Lightning Reflexes, PER roll bonuses or PRE attack dice worth? Do we underprice damage classes across the board? Maybe - most games cap damage classes, but very few cap skill rolls. But skill rolls have a diminishing return, where damage classes do not (or, I suppose, it's reached at a much higher point - once I can kill any opponent in a single shot, I guess further DC's have no further benefit).

To retain DEX, INT and PRE at 1 point, we would have to accept that +1 to all skill rolls (and likely the base stat roll) is worth about 3 points, and the ancillary benefit (+5 combat order for all actions; +1 to all PER rolls; +1d6 PRE attack) are each also worth no more than 3 points. In all fairness, the only one that gives me cause for concern is PRE attacks, and perhaps the answer there is to better specify the short-term nature of PRE attacks. However, I'd also expect the price of defending against PRE attacks to be lower than the cost of an attack, so if 1d6 PRE attack costs 3 points, PRE defense should be obtainable at 2 defense per CP. As noted previously, I think EGO should govern defense from PRE attacks, so we could simply price +1 with EGO rolls at 3 points, and +5 defense against PRE attacks at 2.5 points (or make each EGO with a -1 limitation, and make all the other effects CHAR with -1 limitation as well).


I'm sure you already considered this, but I'm interested on your take. What if Skill Levels just came in two flavors: 2 points for a characteristic roll and 3 points for skill rolls within the group. Individual skills can be bought up at one for one.

As indicated above, I think +1 with all rolls needs to be 3 points if we keep the characteristics at 1 point. With that in mind, 2 points for "add to only one roll at a time" and 1 point for +1 to an individual skill are the only available breakpoints. We could keep more granularity with 1.5 point skill levels (say, for three related skills), although a lot of Hero gamers dislike half points.


I think you're right on both points. However, I don't find that very reassuring. The implication is that we're all working this out as we go. Removing the relationships between Characteristics is a more fundamental change than a tweak on how a power works. The game has kept some of the fundamental relationships, such as Char to skills, while removing others. I get the simplicity and ease argument, but why stop halfway then? I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, but I'm not convinced it was the right one either simply on the grounds of ease. I'll certainly be watching.

I don't see a lot of scope for the published materials to change, for a couple of reasons. First, the sample characters, followed by the material in Champions, has set the benchmarks. A Super with 18 DEX will now be compared against Taurus' 23 DEX and the values established for typical archetype members in Champions. Practically, the ship has already sailed. If a real change was going to be made, it needed to be addressed in the context of the revised rules. I'm disappointed that, after making major changes to the characteristic structure, all it gets used for is to rebuild characters exactly as they worked in 5e and prior editions. If the change was truly needed, or even beneficial, it should result in changes to character design. If it was not, then it was just change for the sake of change.

Second, and probably more relvant to DoJ, making radical changes to the standard sharply reduces the backwards compatability of the new edition. That carries a potential of motivating gamers to buy all the 6e materials to get up to date, but it also carries the risk of a significant backlash of existing Hero gamers refusing to make the switch and invalidate all their old books, meaning they buy little or no 6e product. From a business perspective, significant change carries significant risk.

[torchwolf]

There needs to be a good article in the 6E1 about buying secondary Characteristics. How to figure out how much a character needs. Somewhere (in this post earlier?) I posted how I come up with where my secondaries need to be. There are some simple math equations for figuring this out and they have no relationship to the original minimums for the Secondaries when they were figured from the Primaries. It's all about knowing how much damage is being thrown at your character on average, how tough your character is. Also knowing average CV's in the game and how common mental powers are. Actually the equations are for figuring most of your offensive and defensive stats in the game.
Defenses + CON, and such benchmarks, still need to be addressed per campaign as only the GM has a true handle (hopefully!) on how much average and above-average damage will be, or what the average PRE attack will be, etc.
On a related issue: although the Characteristic Guidelines seem to get a bit overlooked in this respect, they could use some expansion in the descriptions of various benchmarks as well as more real-world examples.


Published characters are following the previous ways of writing characters for 2 reasons. One, many of them are conversions of 5th edition characters and were not written up from scratch. Two Steve (and the other writers) are used to making characters in the older editions, so the way they build characters are roughly the same as in the earlier edition. I believe this will eventually start to change, due to all of the complaints that we see from the conversions and eventually the writers will start to truly rethink "Classic" writeups and will make slightly different decisions about stats.


I think you're right on both points. However, I don't find that very reassuring. The implication is that we're all working this out as we go. Removing the relationships between Characteristics is a more fundamental change than a tweak on how a power works. The game has kept some of the fundamental relationships, such as Char to skills, while removing others. I get the simplicity and ease argument, but why stop halfway then? I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, but I'm not convinced it was the right one either simply on the grounds of ease. I'll certainly be watching.


I don't see a lot of scope for the published materials to change, for a couple of reasons. First, the sample characters, followed by the material in Champions, has set the benchmarks. A Super with 18 DEX will now be compared against Taurus' 23 DEX and the values established for typical archetype members in Champions. Practically, the shop has already sailed. If a real change was going to be made, it needed to be addressed in the context of the revised rules. I'm disappointed that, after making major changes to the characteristic structure, all it gets used for is to rebuild characters exactly as they worked in 5e and prior editions. If the change was truly needed, or even beneficial, it should result in changes to character design. If it was not, then it was just change for the sake of change.

Second, and probably more relvant to DoJ, making radical changes to the standard sharply reduces the backwards compatability of the new edition. That carries a potential of motivating gamers to buy all the 6e materials to get up to date, but it also carries the risk of a significant backlash of existing Hero gamers refusing to make the switch and invalidate all their old books, meaning they buy little or no 6e product. From a business perspective, significant change carries significant risk.
I think it's starting to change already.
Champions 6E features some deviation from what 5th or earlier edition characters would look like; some characters have different OCV and DCV; some have CVs and/or MCVs that don't correspond to DEX and EGO values; etc. In particular, Pulsar 6E have lower CVs than his DEX would give him from the DEX/3 calculation, but I'm not going to go through every character here, just want to bring it up. :)
This new variation also holds true for the Superhero Gallery section. :thumbup:
I haven't read the entire book (OK, pdf) yet but there is definitely new variety that I am happy to see. In any case, Steve Long would probably not have disconnected the CVs if he hadn't already had in mind to use it in publications somehow.

[Hugh Neilson]

I think it's starting to change already.
Champions 6E features some deviation from what 5th or earlier edition characters would look like; some characters have different OCV and DCV; some have CVs and/or MCVs that don't correspond to DEX and EGO values; etc. In particular, Pulsar 6E have lower CVs than his DEX would give him from the DEX/3 calculation

See, I would expect a lot of these characters to have OCV greater than DEX would reflect. In 5e and prior, the only cost-effective way to have a competitive CV was to buy up your DEX. So every Super, regardless of his schtick, had a DEX at or above Olympic gymnast level. Now that DEX is disconnected, I would expect to see characters for whom agility is not part of their superhuman abilities have human level DEX, just like most characters for whom strength, intelligence or willpower is not part of their schtick have tended to have human levels in these characteristics. Not "average 8-10" levels, but "normal human 20 or less" levels.

Being routinely involved in combat, having higher CV's doesn't strike me as overly unreasonable, but why do all but the slowest Supers have 13- or 14- DEX rolls?

By the way, CV is a character tax. If opponents typically have 10-12 DCV, you need a 10-12 OCV - and you need a 10-12 DCV to have a chance of being missed by their 10-12 OCV. If we dropped down to 5-7 OCV's, we'd still hit, and be hit, just as often and we'd have 50 more points to buy other abilities that distinguish our characters, rather than make them look the same.

I'm tempted to consider making characters for a 10-12 CV game with OCV's of 4 - 6 and DCV's of 3 or 4. With the extra 75 or so points, my attacks can be Accurate (+1/4 advantage on a suite of 60 AP attack powers should cost no more than 30) and I can bump up my defenses a lot for the 40 points I save on DCV (if I spend 20 on DCV, I'll still get hit all the time anyway).

[BeZurKur]

Some would say the elimination of figured characteristics failed to "keep it HERO". What makes it HERO is very much a subjective thing. I can remember reading D&D 3e and thinking it was an interesting game - but it was changed so much that it was no longer D&D.
Very true.


To retain DEX, INT and PRE at 1 point, we would have to accept that +1 to all skill rolls (and likely the base stat roll) is worth about 3 points, and the ancillary benefit (+5 combat order for all actions; +1 to all PER rolls; +1d6 PRE attack) are each also worth no more than 3 points. In all fairness, the only one that gives me cause for concern is PRE attacks, and perhaps the answer there is to better specify the short-term nature of PRE attacks. However, I'd also expect the price of defending against PRE attacks to be lower than the cost of an attack, so if 1d6 PRE attack costs 3 points, PRE defense should be obtainable at 2 defense per CP.
I'm okay with that. We can add them as talents, priced as you suggest: 3 pts. for +1d6 and 3 pts. for +5 Presence Def.

I feel much more comfortable with these approches and will be incorporating them into my games. I'll see how they hold up to actual play. Thanks.:thumbup:

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm okay with that. We can add them as talents, priced as you suggest: 3 pts. for +1d6 and 3 pts. for +5 Presence Def.

I feel much more comfortable with these approches and will be incorporating them into my games. I'll see how they hold up to actual play. Thanks.:thumbup:

Under the current model, that makes +5 PRE worth 9 points (3 for +1d6 PRE attack, 3 for +3 PRE defense and 3 for +1 to PRE based rolls). Move PRE defense to EGO and it would work better.

[BeZurKur]

Under the current model, that makes +5 PRE worth 9 points (3 for +1d6 PRE attack, 3 for +3 PRE defense and 3 for +1 to PRE based rolls). Move PRE defense to EGO and it would work better.
Right. So every characteristic -- Str through Pre is 1 point. The characteristic roll is inherent, although it can be bought up with skill levels at +1 per 2 points. The other components of the characteristic can also be broken down into two elements that, if purchased individually, is 3 points for a +5 effect, or in the case of skill levels, 3 points for a +1 to all skills of that type.

Str -- Lifting and HTH Damage
Dex -- Initiative and Skills
Con -- vs. Stunning and ???
Int -- Perception rolls and Skills
Ego -- Pre Defense and vs. Mental Powers
Pre -- Pre Attack and Skills

[Jhamin]

By the way, CV is a character tax. If opponents typically have 10-12 DCV, you need a 10-12 OCV - and you need a 10-12 DCV to have a chance of being missed by their 10-12 OCV. If we dropped down to 5-7 OCV's, we'd still hit, and be hit, just as often and we'd have 50 more points to buy other abilities that distinguish our characters, rather than make them look the same.

I'm tempted to consider making characters for a 10-12 CV game with OCV's of 4 - 6 and DCV's of 3 or 4. With the extra 75 or so points, my attacks can be Accurate (+1/4 advantage on a suite of 60 AP attack powers should cost no more than 30) and I can bump up my defenses a lot for the 40 points I save on DCV (if I spend 20 on DCV, I'll still get hit all the time anyway).

Back when I converted my 4th edition game to 5th I subtracted 6 points of Dex from everyone across the board (along with the figured 2 OCV/DCV it gave). It worked out *really* well. The team Blaster was no longer more agile than an Olympian because she could shoot fire, the Brick was actually slow, and the "20 is an amazing stat for a normal" thing just seemed to make more sense. Most published characters sill worked just fine against the PCs if you mentally removed the appropriate numbers from them when calculating inititive and attack rolls.
I was a really big fan for world-consistency reasons and my players loved the extra 18 points they could spend elsewhere and be no less effective.

I see the ability under 6th for the brick to now run with a 10 Dex, 3 DCV and 6 OCV in a world where 16 dex/5OCV/5DCV is normal as nothing but a good thing.

[Hugh Neilson]

Right. So every characteristic -- Str through Pre is 1 point. The characteristic roll is inherent, although it can be bought up with skill levels at +1 per 2 points. The other components of the characteristic can also be broken down into two elements that, if purchased individually, is 3 points for a +5 effect, or in the case of skill levels, 3 points for a +1 to all skills of that type.

I'm inclined to include the base roll with the skills. Otherwise, the stat costs 5 points to increase and the components cost 8 points. Too esxpensive.


Str -- Lifting and HTH Damage

What about STR rolls? STR is harder to split - does Lift or Damage affect Grabs, breaking grabs, throwing, etc.?


Dex -- Initiative and Skills
Con -- vs. Stunning and ???[/quote]

CON has become a one use stat. Unless you use a lot of CON rolls, but most games don't.


Int -- Perception rolls and Skills
Ego -- Pre Defense and vs. Mental Powers

What about EGO rolls? Those are important for breaking out of mental powers, resisting some abilities and dealing with psychological limitations.


Pre -- Pre Attack and Skills


Back when I converted my 4th edition game to 5th I subtracted 6 points of Dex from everyone across the board (along with the figured 2 OCV/DCV it gave). It worked out *really* well. The team Blaster was no longer more agile than an Olympian because she could shoot fire, the Brick was actually slow, and the "20 is an amazing stat for a normal" thing just seemed to make more sense. Most published characters sill worked just fine against the PCs if you mentally removed the appropriate numbers from them when calculating inititive and attack rolls.
I was a really big fan for world-consistency reasons and my players loved the extra 18 points they could spend elsewhere and be no less effective.

Only really saves 12 - 6 go back into DEX. I've toyed with the same idea, generally looking at 9 DEX and 1 Speed. Net savings 28 points. The "slow Brick" with an 18 DEX drops down to 9. The "Typical EB"drops from 23 to 14. The "Low end MA" falls from 30 to 21 (just a bit higher than that amazing 20). Speeds move from the occasional slow 4 to 3 (still better than Joe Normal), a norm of 4, fast guys with 5s and really fast guys with 6+. You get a recovery more often per action, so END and STUn can drop off a bit too.


I see the ability under 6th for the brick to now run with a 10 Dex, 3 DCV and 6 OCV in a world where 16 dex/5OCV/5DCV is normal as nothing but a good thing.

Agreed.

[BeZurKur]

I'm inclined to include the base roll with the skills. Otherwise, the stat costs 5 points to increase and the components cost 8 points. Too expensive.

What about EGO rolls? Those are important for breaking out of mental powers, resisting some abilities and dealing with psychological limitations.
Here is where we differ. I don't have a problem with the package deal offering more point for point than the separate parts. I agree that if they were equal, it would be a very elegant system, but I wonder how feasible it is to design. The problem is when what the package offers is too sweet a deal and the individual components become superfluous. Identifying those boundaries, which probably shift per player group, is another obstacle. For me, the benefit of the isolated char roll and rare mental breakouts, fit into the perk for buying the characteristic. However, CSLs being largely ignored, makes buying CVs directly too tempting. YMMV.


What about STR rolls? STR is harder to split - does Lift or Damage affect Grabs, breaking grabs, throwing, etc.?
I'd rule that anything not covered in essentially the purchase of buying a Hand-to-Hand Attack is covered by the other half.


CON has become a one use stat. Unless you use a lot of CON rolls, but most games don't.
Yeah, it is a one use stat, and it is a shame too.

[dmjalund]

I vote for more poisons in HERO system adventures!

[Hugh Neilson]

Here is where we differ. I don't have a problem with the package deal offering more point for point than the separate parts. I agree that if they were equal, it would be a very elegant system, but I wonder how feasible it is to design. The problem is when what the package offers is too sweet a deal and the individual components become superfluous. Identifying those boundaries, which probably shift per player group, is another obstacle. For me, the benefit of the isolated char roll and rare mental breakouts, fit into the perk for buying the characteristic.

For mental breakout rolls to be rare, wouldn't mental powers also be rare, such that half the value of Ego could not be in resistance to mental attacks?

At the bigger picture, I think the whole being greater than the sum of the parts is problematic. Under your model, it would cost 3 points for +1 to all DEX skills, 3 points for +5 Lightning Reflexes and 2 points for +1 to base DEX rolls. Why should anyone ever buy two of the component parts? If a player wants his character to have high DEX skill rolls and act quickly in combat, he can either pay 6 points for what he wants, or 5 points to get what he wants and enhance his base DEX rolls. In my view, it should never cost more to get less. "DEX, does not enhance base DEX rolls" should be cheaper than "DEX". Under your model, it's 20% more expensive.

This was the problem with STR and CON "no figured" - you lost far more than you saved.


However, CSLs being largely ignored, makes buying CVs directly too tempting. YMMV.

I think the pricing of CSL's needs to be based on the price of CV, in part. CSL's provide flexibility, which has advantages. They provide enhanced damage (and the fact that many groups don't use that, and often have an unwritten rule against using them to get above the damage cap, makes CSL's less valuable in those groups, but not by the rules). They can provide a few other ancillary benefits, but these aren't used much. That said, I agree that both combat skill levels and other skill levels (the lattter to a greater extent) are presently overpriced compared to the alternatives.


I'd rule that anything not covered in essentially the purchase of buying a Hand-to-Hand Attack is covered by the other half.

In 6e, HTH Atttack is a -1/4 limitation, so 4 points. I assume under your model it would be a greater limitation, such that HTH attack would likely cost 3 points per 1d6. I'd be OK with:

- a -1/4 Limitation for STR that does not Lift. 4 points adds a DC to all HTH attacks. This is not dissimilar from a 4 point Martial Arts damage class, which would not add to non-martial maneuvers, but does add to martial NND's and killing attacks. It seems fair they would cost the same.

- a -1/2 limitation for STR that only adds to HTH damage (not holding, throwing, etc.). However, that depends largely on how much a given game alllows Bricks to use terrain to gain advantages to STR damage. I'd like to see those advantages be difficult to achieve (if you can routinely use terrain to get Range and/or AOE for your STR, why should anyone pay points for ranged attacks and AoE attacks?)

- a -1 1/2 limitation for STR that does not add to HTH damage (you could hold, but not squeeze; lift, throw but not inflict significant damage with a throw, make STR rolls to escape grabs and win arm wrestling matches, etc.) would then seem about right. +15 STR with this limitation would cost 6 points, and +15 STR with the Only Damage limitation would cost 6, so buying STR directly would provides only a very small discount.



Yeah, it is a one use stat, and it is a shame too.

It's no different from STUN, BOD and END in that regard.

[BeZurKur]

At the bigger picture, I think the whole being greater than the sum of the parts is problematic. Under your model, it would cost 3 points for +1 to all DEX skills, 3 points for +5 Lightning Reflexes and 2 points for +1 to base DEX rolls. Why should anyone ever buy two of the component parts? If a player wants his character to have high DEX skill rolls and act quickly in combat, he can either pay 6 points for what he wants, or 5 points to get what he wants and enhance his base DEX rolls. In my view, it should never cost more to get less. "DEX, does not enhance base DEX rolls" should be cheaper than "DEX". Under your model, it's 20% more expensive.
(Emphasis added)
You're right: there is no reason to buy two separate components. The player has the option for fine tuning to one component, but under that model, not two. Still it is more than what the current system offers, so I'm okay with that. Right now, we have some false choices. At least with fine tuning to one component, we have a legitimate choice under that circumstance, but you're totally right: not to two. Personally, I don't need that kind of control; I just need the choices I have to be meaningful. They want to decouple CV from Dex, then completely eliminate CSLs. If they want to get rid of Figureds, decouple skill rolls from characteristics. I bet regular skill levels will get a whole lot more use then. In other words, separate everything to the individual components. Until they do that, there will most likely be a discrepancy at some point. I do, however, get your argument of the "whole being greater than the sum of the parts," but this takes up deep into design philosophy, and no answer will always be right for everyone.