Perks And Talents Issues

[Chris Goodwin]

Dumping it would also go a long way toward removing some of the gripes about HERO from the non-HERO-gamers. "Too many stats" is the easy one. "Stats that don't do anything" is another.

HERO's many stats are a clear connection to HERO's gaming roots. And for many of us here, thats a good thing. But trying to get new gamers in means changing with the times, and that means fewer stats. COM is disposible. Every example of its in game use except one (prettiest in the land) involved COM being used as a supplement to Presence. Removing COM as a CHAR and turning it into a bonus (or reduction) to PRE based skills makes perfect sense.

Good points.

However, when we start translating characters from 5e to 6e, we're going to run into an issue of translating COM. Do we do it straight across for all characters? Are we going to see a translation note of X COM = +Y bonus? For instance, every 5 COM in the old system means you buy +1 to PRE skills (where looks are an issue) in the new system.....

If we're going to do that, why not just grant the bonus to COM directly? Change the cost of COM to fit, if necessary... but I think that deciding that good looking characters get bonuses, then dropping the stat that tells you how good looking they are and having them buy the bonuses, is a tad more complicated than keeping the stat and having it grant the bonuses.

It would be like: if Figured Characteristics are decoupled, as it looks like they will be, dropping the Strength Characteristic entirely and just buying lift and HTH damage, because without Figured CHA and Leaping, that's all STR provides. Yet we could, and it wouldn't be a major change to the system, but we'd be losing a stat that we have a lot of attachment to.

[sbarron]

However, when we start translating characters from 5e to 6e, we're going to run into an issue of translating COM. Do we do it straight across for all characters? Are we going to see a translation note of X COM = +Y bonus? For instance, every 5 COM in the old system means you buy +1 to PRE skills (where looks are an issue) in the new system.....

I'd just have a perk or talent called "Good Looking." Characters with this perk get bonuses, when appropriate, to their PRE based skills. Cost it out at about 2 pts per +1, figuring that +1 to PRE skills is 5 points, and it only applies to the opposite sex and when its appropriate (-1).

As far as translation, yes, I think maybe I'd go every 5 points above 10 COM gets you a +1 level in the "Good Looking" Perk. So, 20 COM would be "Good Looking" +2 to appropriate PRE skills. Since 20 com only costs 5 points anyway, getting a +2 to your skill role (assuming the -1 limit), fits nicely.

The truth is, I'm not that worried about translating 5th Ed. characters to 6th Ed. I think we're in agreement on a good method for that that makes sense. I'm much more interested in how new players coming to the game approach characteristics and make their characters. And for that, if they want their character to be good looking, then they should buy the "Good Looking" perk.

The fact that the good looking perk is doing the same thing as COM did just shows how balanced the system is. This change is mostly just about presentation. COM doesn't do anything other than modify PRE skills. So making it perk or talent that does that makes sense, and it saves a characteristic slot for everyone.

[Victim]

Good points.

However, when we start translating characters from 5e to 6e, we're going to run into an issue of translating COM. Do we do it straight across for all characters? Are we going to see a translation note of X COM = +Y bonus? For instance, every 5 COM in the old system means you buy +1 to PRE skills (where looks are an issue) in the new system.....

Why is a formal, exact conversion mechanic needed or even desireable?

[Netzilla]

Q: Should Followers, Vehicles, and Bases be costed differently?

I'm not sure how I feel about Disadvantages being “free” when it comes to these things (I'm not a fan of it for Summoning). I see the point about how it's not as limiting to the Character in question, but I think that's just as much an issue of the GM letting things slide as a GM letting a character have an over-powered follower. Perhaps the ruling should rather be that the Disadvantage does not count unless it directly impacts the PC in some way. For example, having an experimental car that the Big Evil Corporation wants to get back effectively becomes a Hunted for the PC as much as for the car itself.

Q: Should we add or remove any Talents?

It seems to me that Super Skills and Talents aren't that much different. Especially when compared with things like Combat Luck & Deadly Blow. So, I think the existing Super Skills should be re-defined as Talents just to reduce the number of categories of different things we've got.

Perhaps what we need is The Ultimate Talent book, to collect all of the talents created for the various Genre/Ultimate/Resource books that have been done for 5th edition. It would be nice to have the collection all in one place but I fear the list would get a bit too large for the core rules (especially if you include Super Skills).

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd just have a perk or talent called "Good Looking." Characters with this perk get bonuses, when appropriate, to their PRE based skills. Cost it out at about 2 pts per +1, figuring that +1 to PRE skills is 5 points, and it only applies to the opposite sex and when its appropriate (-1).

As far as translation, yes, I think maybe I'd go every 5 points above 10 COM gets you a +1 level in the "Good Looking" Perk. So, 20 COM would be "Good Looking" +2 to appropriate PRE skills. Since 20 com only costs 5 points anyway, getting a +2 to your skill role (assuming the -1 limit), fits nicely.

The truth is, I'm not that worried about translating 5th Ed. characters to 6th Ed. I think we're in agreement on a good method for that that makes sense. I'm much more interested in how new players coming to the game approach characteristics and make their characters. And for that, if they want their character to be good looking, then they should buy the "Good Looking" perk.

The fact that the good looking perk is doing the same thing as COM did just shows how balanced the system is. This change is mostly just about presentation. COM doesn't do anything other than modify PRE skills. So making it perk or talent that does that makes sense, and it saves a characteristic slot for everyone.

Why is a formal, exact conversion mechanic needed or even desireable?

Ok, maybe translation isn't important, but I was using that as a springboard for where I was going.

Why delete one stat and add a perk to replace it when we could just add utility to the stat?

[sbarron]

Why delete one stat and add a perk to replace it when we could just add utility to the stat?

Ok, what utility to you plan to add to COM?

D&D did a good job giving CHA a purpose in their spellcasting (other than the original purpose of keeping people from playing paladins.) I don't really see how HERO could use that idea to build into the base system, but it might work as a house rule.

Personally, I'd just like to see the number of characteristics reduced to simplify the presentation of the game, and COM seems like an easy target. But if you can find someway to make the COM meaningful to something other than as a part time modifier to PRE and to see "who'z purtiest," I'd love to talk about it.

[Opal]

Why is a formal, exact conversion mechanic needed or even desireable?

If nothing else, it's a courtesy to all the players who have invested time and effort into the existing system.

[Chris Goodwin]

Ok, what utility to you plan to add to COM?

The utility that everyone is trying to add through Perks.

Obviously there's some value to be better looking. The proposals I've seen for doing it with Perks all assume something linear; every level in Good Looking gives +1 to PRE-based Skills and interactions where appropriate. So, why not every +5 COM above 10 gives +1 to PRE-based Skills and interactions where appropriate?

[SSgt Baloo]

Q: Should Followers, Vehicles, and Bases be costed differently?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think the general cost of 1 point per 5 Character Points is fine, but I also think that a couple of specific changes need to be made. First, as with Summon, I don’t think that any of these Perks should get a cost reduction based on their Disadvantages. The Disadvantages generally taken for them typically don’t in any meaningful way inhibit their usefulness to the character.

Second, I think it will simplify things mathematically to get rid of the concept that the cost changes if the points used to build the Perk exceed the character’s own points. That creates annoying math oddities that are best avoided. I’d rather just have the flat 1-for-5 cost throughout and put in a warning note for the GM (and perhaps even a Caution Sign) explaining that it’s probably not a good idea to let a hero buy a Follower who’s significantly more powerful than the hero himself.

I've always ruled that points could only be spent on a follower to bring his base cost up to the character's base cost plus earned experience. After that, he either had to pay points one-for-one to increase his follower's points or use disadvantages to increase above that level. No follower could be built beyond the limits that applied to the character at the time the follower was purchased. Frex: a character built on 200 points plus 100 points of disadvantages with 16 experience points could not have a follower built on more than 216 points plus 100 points of disadvantages. If the campaign started at 200+100 and the PC opted for fewer disads, the follower would be limited to the PCs lower values. Followers earned experience points equal to half what the PC earned. Points spent to double the amount of followers reduced the followers' allowable maximum point base on a one-for-one basis.

Example: Fred Flintstone wants to buy his best buddy Barney Rubble. Fred is based on 25 points with 25 points of disadvantages. Barney costs 5 points plus any more points he has than fred is built on. Barney is still limited to 50 points total. Followers' point totals should rarely, if ever, be more than the main character. If you want a follower whose worth more points than his leader, there's nothing in the rules that says the main character can't be the follower and pay points for his leader (my preferred build for more-powerful-than-my-leader followers.) Maybe the Giant Robot paid points for Johnny Socko?

Q: Should we add or remove any Talents?

Steve’s Thoughts: I like Talents and think they add a lot of flavor to a character, so I don’t mind expanding the core list if it seems helpful. We’ve published some in more than one genre book — like Animal Friendship, Deadly Blow, and Hotshot Pilot — that might be worth including in the main rulebook because they can apply to many genres and character types. The “Strong-Willed” Talent mentioned above is another good possibility.

On the other hand, should we remove any? One could argue that some of them, like Perfect Pitch and Lightsleep, aren’t useful or common enough to justify including in the core rules.

I think all the talents should be evaluated for utility and cost-effectiveness. Some talents, such as Perfect Pitch or Lightning Calculator, need to be explained so those of us who didn't get the memo (or haven't got a clue ) will know how to use it in a campaign.

The talent I have issue with is Universal Translator.

I think it far to inexpensive for what it does (or can do) in a campaign.

The rest, I like as is. Even light sleep and perfect pitch.

I, for one, think it's annoying that your character has to roll versus his skill in the talent to carry on a conversation. In some genres this is too clunky. There needs to be the option of making it function for all languages the character is capable of communicating in, without a skill roll.

I've always thought that COM was a useless characteristic. IMO it can best be represented as a perk. 1 pt=attractive, 2=good looking...5=unearthly beauty or something to that effect.

If COM was eliminated, I'd be all for this. I'd still rather some thought were put into making COM worth its points.

Or to try to simplify the point:

Having a license to practice a profession (or things like Perk: Right to Marry, etc.) is nothing more or less than the SPECIAL EFFECT of having certain skills and/or background elements.

I also postulate that having the appropriate skills but no license is better represented by a social limitation.

And to perpetuate the Comeliness hijack:
I'm strongly in favor of increasing COM to a 1/1 point cost and making it directly add to PRE when sex-appeal is a factor, half it's value could be added to PRE if the potential "victim" is immune to sexual charms (most children, some aliens), and of no value when dealing with creatures with a completely different sense of aesthetics than humans have.

Examples: A member of the opposite sex (or a homosexual of your sex) might find you more intriguing than someone who isn't attracted to your sex. Small children are especially likely to react positively to "good-looking" people, and more likely to be suspicious/fearful of less-attractive folks. Your dog thinks you're wonderful even if you don't look/smell/sound like a pretty dog. The alligator, on the other hand, thinks you look kind of tasty.
[/hijack]

[nexus]

I'd just have a perk or talent called "Good Looking." Characters with this perk get bonuses, when appropriate, to their PRE based skills. Cost it out at about 2 pts per +1, figuring that +1 to PRE skills is 5 points, and it only applies to the opposite sex and when its appropriate (-1).

If we're going to be PC it should be "Appropriate sexual orientation" and I think -1 for appropriate situation might be a little high.

Edit: Actually, the benefits of appearance aren't just sexual in nature and can cross gender lines. Some studies have shown people tend to react better to physically attractive individuals than plain or, well, ugly people particularly of those people are also charismatic. So perhaps the Limitation should be Situational -(whatever the GM feels is appropriate).

[nexus]

What about Absolute Range sense? That Talent always seemed like a kind of turkey for our group. It doesn't really "do" much of anything. It seems like more of a special effect for Range PSLs

Double Jointed is neat conceptually but it really just a special effect of buying up your Contortionist Skill

To borrow from GURPS maybe Eidetic Memory should have tiers with Perfect Recall being at the top and giving a small bonus to Skills in situations where having a perfect recollection would help.

Ambidexterity: I feel this is costed too high at 9 points for Full Ambidexterity. It's cheaper to be PSLs or CSL to off set the difference and in games without hit locations (and Impairing wounds) it doesn't seem to come up enough to warrant 9 points (IMO)

[steamteck]

How I use some talents myself.

I have one character with eidetic memory and lightning calculator make hyperspace calculations in her head. Coupled with speed reading I decrease her computer hacking time accordingly also.

Absolute range sense is used for range finders. Not much use unless you want To figure out how the range is for your artillery or such. Doesn't come up much but I make it a standard on most sets of powered armor. Still mostly flavor.

Absolute time sense is rarely useful except for the infamous countdown scene. Standard powered armor thing as is bump of direction which I use very frequently.

environment movement gets all sorts of cool creative uses. fighting on ice, drunk, high heels ,on a tight rope. you name it. really like that one.

lightsleep is the wary adventurer's friend. Allows me too have the attacked in bed scene with party getting clobbered.

I get resistance but its not used much by me.

I use perfect pitch to make great singers or as a little perk for sonic powers. Mostly flavor but adds depth to characters

I use universal translator but I don't worry about languages much so mainly only if it is conceptual to have it.

I think most talents have to use if nothing else to make a character a little unique so the spread now is pretty good . I see really no big advantage to cutting myself but that's just me. Don't narrow my options seems a reasonable thought.

[Lucius]

Not necessarily. Having the needed knowledge and skills to be a doctor does not automatically grant a license to practice medicine, for example.

Having a Transport Familiarity does not necessarily grant a Driver’s License. Should I have to spend a point on that, too? If you do it for some, why not for all? If people have powers derived from being mutants or aliens, why not require an “exotic background” perk that costs points? After all, it could become very important in the game that someone is a mutant or an alien or a member of the legendary Eskimo Ninja!

If you have the skills, and are NOT licensed, the way to reflect that is with appropriate disadvantages. “Disbarred” or “Defrocked” or “License Revoked” or “Watched by Law Enforcement/AMA/Whatever.”

Remember, there was a time when Hero Syste HAD no “Perks.” People still played doctors and lawyers and Indian chiefs just fine without “license to practice” and “tribal rank.”

Things like Vehicles and Bases and Followers added something to the game that was impossible or awkward before (Batmobile? Would that be, uh, Running and Armor with a focus? Robin? Let’s do that as DNPC…?) Things like “Perk: Right to Marry” or “License to practice a profession” add nothing to the game except to eat up points of characters who should logically have such things.

For certain classes of perk, such as wealth or political perks, the cost should really depend on what it gets you -- i.e. rather than wealth itself costing a lot, you'd just say "Wealth: gives a bonus to certain types of skills, such as Bribery. Is also suitable as a special effect for other bonuses, such as paid followers, a base, etc". A lot of Perks can really be implemented as limited levels with Presence-based skills.

EXACTLY! That’s my point – many perks are nothing really but “special effects” of something else. Want Unlimited Wealth? Buy a big Base with distributed location (homes all over the world) and a big gadget pool (anything you can buy) and a variable Summon heavily limited (anyone you can hire to do something, up to and including mercenaries.) There you HAVE Unlimited Wealth in game terms. Oh, and a big bonus to social skills with a limit “only when being wealthy helps.”

You shouldn’t have to pay X points for “Mutant” before buying powers as “Mutant abilities.” Nor should you be able to pay X points for “Mutant” and then sprout all kinds of powers for free as “Mutant Abilities.” In short, paying points just for being a “Mutant” doesn’t make sense – and neither do a lot of Perks.

I'm not sure how I feel about Disadvantages being “free” when it comes to these things (I'm not a fan of it for Summoning). I see the point about how it's not as limiting to the Character in question, but I think that's just as much an issue of the GM letting things slide as a GM letting a character have an over-powered follower. Perhaps the ruling should rather be that the Disadvantage does not count unless it directly impacts the PC in some way. For example, having an experimental car that the Big Evil Corporation wants to get back effectively becomes a Hunted for the PC as much as for the car itself.

I agree. I think there should be an explicit rule that, since the player character is paying the points for the follower/base/vehicle/whatever, the value of the Disads should be judged based on how they impact the player character.
For example, perhaps “Slavishly loyal” should be the default, and “I Have a Mind of My own” should be a common Disadvantage, and “I Resent You and Only Serve Under Duress” should be a BIG Disadvantage.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary is a very Special Effect of being Lucius Alexander.

[Opal]

You shouldn’t have to pay X points for “Mutant” before buying powers as “Mutant abilities.” Nor should you be able to pay X points for “Mutant” and then sprout all kinds of powers for free as “Mutant Abilities.”

I guess I have to agree. IMC, "Registers on Mutant Detectors" is a distinctive feature, and you get points for it. That establishes you as a mutant.

[Victim]

If nothing else, it's a courtesy to all the players who have invested time and effort into the existing system.

I also think it over constrains the creation of the new rules system by greatly limiting the scope for change. As long as the system is sufficiently flexible (and this is HERO), then rebuilding pre-existing characters by implementing their concept and spirit with the new mechanics will be feasible.