Characteristics Issues

[Steve Long]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the same character with no Figureds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now with no Figureds:

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

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

That’s a cost increase of 52 points.

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

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

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

Now without Figureds:

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

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

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

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


Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

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


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

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


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

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


Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

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


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

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


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

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

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


Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

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

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

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


Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

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


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

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


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

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


Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

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

[JmOz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding COM, consider merging it with positive Reputation Perk

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

that's all for now

[SAVeira]

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

[CourtFool]

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

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

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

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

[pawsplay]

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


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

[nexus]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the same character with no Figureds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now with no Figureds:

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

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

That’s a cost increase of 52 points.

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

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

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

Now without Figureds:

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

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


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

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


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

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


Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

No strong opinion as of yet

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

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

I can see this either way

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

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

Definitely keep Endurance with options to eliminate it.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

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

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

[Lord Mhoram]

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

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

[eternal_sage]

my Char block setup as CHAR, BASE, COST

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Cermak]

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

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

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

[wayneligon]

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

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

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

[nexus]

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

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

[incrdbil]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



To make the list of characteristics shorter

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

Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

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

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

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

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

And without that..STR becomes fairly meaningless.

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

see above in relation to the answer to that.

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

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

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

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

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

And the judges scores..10! Perfect.

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

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

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

[Michael Hopcroft]

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

[SAVeira]

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

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

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

[Andrew Cermak]

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

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

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