Characteristics Issues

[incrdbil]

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

[Lord Mhoram]

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

My views. Ick.

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

[Chris Goodwin]

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

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

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

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

[CourtFool]

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

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

[incrdbil]

We don't need that few stats.

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

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

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

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

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

[voodoo54]

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

[gojira]

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

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

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

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

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

[Enforcer84]

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

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

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

[James Gillen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO.

Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is already similar to how Resistance Talent works.

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

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

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

JG

[devlin1]

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

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

[Jhamin]

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

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

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

[ngross]

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

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

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

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

[Acid_Crash]

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My characteristics would be:
Str
Dex
Body
Pre
Int
Per

Def
M.Def
Rec
SPD
Stun
End

Run
Leap
Swim

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

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

[Enforcer84]

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

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





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

[Toadmaster]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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