Characteristics Issues

[Xotl]

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

I don't see this as necessary or adding any benefit.

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

I think so IF it's not too much effort. Negative characteristics are quite clunky. I would prefer to see base stat numbers increased (for example, STR starting at 20 or 30) which fixes both the need for negative characteristics and provides the granularity that you and others such as myself want.

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

Agreed. No one is going to have trouble with this concept: it's negative Hit Points, which D&D has handled for years without making people wonder about negative Dex or whatever.

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

Strongly agree. As it currently exists it's a clunky element that provides inconsistent, unneeded math for absolutely no benefit. Worse yet, figureds force you to have a certain aspects to your character - when I have high STR and CON I have high other stats, and I can't fix this - the very opposite of the Hero ethos. There is no reason why you cannot have these perform as the rest of the stats, though granted getting the balance right is going to be tricky. I think the effort is worth it, however.

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

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

There's only one particular stat area I see that could be revised; I think this is a very good opportunity to fold CON into BODY. CON is "health and hardiness", while BODY is merely the mechanistic "how much damage a character can take before dying": the rules-equivalent of health and hardiness. They fit together so well, and each stat would be greatly reduced in scope following the removal of figureds (CON is already rather low-profile in 5th, and would essentially be a one-trick pony when figureds are tossed). Most importantly, this cleanup could be done for no real loss of Hero system ability at all. I can convert any character to this change without difficulty, and can make anything with CON/BODY merged that I could make when they were separate, and so I'm aware of no reason not to make the change. Now is the perfect opportunity to toss relics.

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

This seems necessary.

Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

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

With the base assumption that figureds are out, completely agree with your rationale.

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

Yes. This is logical, and at the same time drops STR a peg.

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

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

Agreed.

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

Limited Powers and skill levels already cover this just fine.

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

I think so, but am not dedicated - you can't have a stat for everything after all, and if PER is going to be in anything, it would be in INT. I would prefer it as a stat on its own (if you remove CON and COM there's certainlyl room). I don't like the idea of PER as a skill, however.

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

A Strong-Willed Talent is very much a base-game concept. I like that solution, while leaving the old cost as is.

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Strongly agree. Very illogical for a universal system, as universal attractiveness is not really possible in a base physical-appearance-type manner. There's no reason Joe Crusher should find that female Lizard Queen attractive because she has a COM of 15. An Attractive Talent and various Disadvantages covers COM more logically, and you free up a stat. Hero is supposed to be a universal system, but you simply can't have a universal value for attractiveness/aesthetic value even for humans, let alone all the monsters, aliens etc that Hero regularly deals with. COM as it stands now is both limiting and unrealistic.

As the COM issue turned into a colossal debate, I'm just going to link to my summary post on the issue, which handles my views on a lot of the main arguments for and against COM:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/show...postcount=3450

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

I think the cleanup in defense should be as a reduction in the number of defense powers, not defense stats. The PD/ED separation is quite useful in supers, sci-fi, and fantasy settings.

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Strongly disagree. Some elements of Hero, even if they've been around forever, can be tossed and the game will still be Hero. The Speed Chart, while it has its issues, also has its strengths, and is quintessentially Hero. I see no real reason to do this, unless someone has a system that has all the Chart's strengths, advantages of its own, and doesn't require a massive rewrite.

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

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

Completely agree with your rationale.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

I believe so, as I find it helps other games a lot in making simple, instantly understood comparisons, as well as allowing valuable rules mechanics, and could provide the same benefit to Hero. I'd use numbers instead of words though, as it's much easier to remember if 5 is larger than 4 than it is to recall if Stupendous beats Gargantuan or whatever. This best works with an accompanying size guide illustration.

[nexus]

The Speed Chart should be kept. It's one of the defining elements of Hero, present some optional ways to do away with it maybe but it shouldn't be dropped.

I'm in favor of keeping Com. I use it in my games and there are ways to make it "useful" (some are presented in the Ultimate Skill). As was mentioned up thread, appearance is important. As for "unrealistic" results like Buck Rocket finding the Lizard Queen attractive because she has a 16 Com that more of a gming mistake. If the Lizard people aren't supposed to be ugly, don't give her a high Com.

Yes its "humanocentric" but humans are playing the game and exact same thing would happen if the Gm got her the "Attractive Perk" with express mechanical enforcement (unless it was handwaved or assumed to be/or explicitly to be species based which you can do with Com just as easily). And universal beauty is possible in some genres and settings. Hero doesn't model reality.

[Sean Waters]

You can't please everyone all of the time, but I am pretty astonished at the strenght of feeling here.

Anyway, my take:

0 Characteristics - I'm in favour. It is a more logical starting point and it doesn't stop you having templates for normals and starting characters. I think it might positively encourage more interesting charatcers with a number of lower characteristics.

Figured characteristics - I would like to see them removed, at least as figured, as they enormously complicate costiong and balancing characters, but I'll still be here if you leave them as they are.

NCM - you didn't mention this, but I think it needs looking at. IMO it makes 'nonstandard' characters very difficult to build - for example if elves have a +3 dex, fine, but if they have a max DEX of 23 that is 9 points you have to spend to counter the POTENTIAL for upping characteristics into NCM, making them far less effective overall. I think campaign guidelines are more than enough and a hard and fast rule is not needed.

Negative characteristics - I like 'em! It is nice to have a system for reducing characteristics to start to become unreliable before failing completely. Of course strength doesn't follow that pattern because of the way we calculate it, so it we either need to recalculate lifting capacity some other way or resign ourselves tot eh concept of negative strength.

[Sean Waters]

Personally I'd favour removing COM and INT in favour of talents like 'Ugly as sin (+10 PRE only for intimidation and fear checks, reduced effect on non-humans)' or 'Scientific Genius (+2 SL with science skills)' or 'Hawkeye (+2 with visual PER checks)'.

I do think that the SPD chart is a really useful bit of Hero. If it does bug anyone, wellt hey can just build all their characters with the same speed.

[yamamura]

General Comment:

RPMiller's comment about an increased range for rolling made me think of 3d8. It keeps the bell curve and gives a range of 21. Not that I am for it, just that if we want an increased range, I want my bell curve.

As for the INT/PER argument, I would like to see when designing children a way to allow for them to keep a normal perception. On some note, children are even more perceptive then adults.

Now this is just an idea banging around in my head and I personally have found problems with it but here I go. Divorce Movement from the Speed chart. All characters will have a base amount of movement they can do in a turn. Of course speedsters and others will buy this up while some will keep it at the base. As I said this is a raw idea but to me it avoids the illusion of moving and then stopping.

Anyway just my 2 cents.

[Sean Waters]

PD and ED - whilst it makes sense to have them as a single characteristic, because it is one area where sfx are very much enshrined in the mechanics, I think it would cause more practical problems than it would solve in that it could cause AP problems for characters that did not want to have similar PD and ED values, thus encouraging LESS character customisation.

[Jagged]

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

If we reduced characteristics to 0 wouldn't we lose the ability to represent normal and frail people within the same system? I see no benefit.

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

These changes are starting to sound less and less like Champions and more and more like something completely different.

I don't accept that there is a problem with buying back points or attributes giving too much benefit. Players can always go to extremes but thats where its the refs job to go "nah!"

If you remove figured characteristics you will create an imbalance between character costs and power costs IMO.

[Susano]

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

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

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

I'd say no, as the game needes a recognizable starting point as a baseline. If that base-line is "average hero" than so much the better.

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

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

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

Negative Characteristics have their use if you see a lot of drains and the like in your games. I never have. The useful Negative Characteristics are (IMO) STR, BODY, and STUN. STR as it allows a fairly granulated STR scale. BODY as it lets you know how far you are from dying (and I've seen plenty of PCs saved while at -BODY). STUN is it shows how out of the fight you are.

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

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

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

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

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

It would be nice... but I see your arguement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My gut reaction is "no," but that is mainly due to 20 years of using them. I like Figured Characteristics, as it gives me a sense of what my PC is like as I build him. Once I'm done with the Primaries, then I can adjusted the Figured to taste. Removing Figured in some ways makes it a little harder to build a PC as it adds on more stats you need to think about adding to.

Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

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

I've seen arguments either way. With Figured Characteristics STR = 2 points does seem to make sense, as you get an awful lot for 5 points of STR. Without Figured, STR being 1 for 1 is just fine.

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

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

This works for me. And not all high-str supers are incredible leapers either.

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

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

I agree for the reasons you state. Besides, if you remove damage from STR you sort of eliminate most of the desire to have a high STR.

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

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


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

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


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

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

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

My reaction to all of this is "no, DEX is fine as it." It seems to be perfectly priced for what it does and is used for.

Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

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

This works for me. I've gotten used to INT = "how fast you think" not INT = IQ. "Thining Power" strikes me as a good way to describe it.

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

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

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

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

For comics, high INT = good PER seems to be a given. Not always the case elsewhere. I'd rather not see more Characteristics (aside from Mental Defense -- see below), but making it a Skill reminds me of GURPS (isn't that a GURPS skill?). All characters should have a default PER ability, however (which INT = PER gives us).

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

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

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


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

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

Once again, I think EGO works well for what it is and does. Reducing the price might encourage a high-EGO characters "just because" and reduce the penalties/effect of Psych Lims. Right now there's a happy balance.

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

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

I like COM. It gives a nice realtive value to characters. The biggest problem is it needs more to do. Allowing COM to influence Interaction Skills is a start. As well as some PRE Attacks.

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

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

I like this ruling myself. The split stat allows one to better define certain aspects of a character.

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

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

Personally, I like the idea. If everyone is a little resistent to fire (ED), why not to mental attacks? It would also remove "Mental Defense" as a power, place it in the other characteristics and would be bought just like ED and PD. Realize that Mental Defense has no real granularity. Either you have none, or a lot (since Mental Defense is EGO/5+ points in MD).

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

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

I like the SPD chart.

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

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

I'm currently in a game where END has become a big factor in many ways. So say "no."

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

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

Could "Size" simply be a power? That would eliminate Growth and Shrinking.

[steamteck]

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

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





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

I agree having PD and ED separate allows a greater range of characters.Most of my characters have a different PD and ED

I like COM . Its nice to have a number to compare. The perk system for appearance is one thing I dislike about GURPS

figured characteristics are just so logical, elegant and cool to me. Please don't get rid of them. Don't decouple anything logical from characteristics that will confuse a newbie unneedfully.

Dexterity and Combat Values... I support having CV be a part of Dexterity, just about every other roleplaying game out there has their combat modified by their core characteristics and that makes sense to me.

Like many others have posted I like the core characteristics as they stand pretty well, any changes would have to be pretty good and not violate the current spirit to keep my dollar.

[Susano]

NCM - you didn't mention this, but I think it needs looking at. IMO it makes 'nonstandard' characters very difficult to build - for example if elves have a +3 dex, fine, but if they have a max DEX of 23 that is 9 points you have to spend to counter the POTENTIAL for upping characteristics into NCM, making them far less effective overall. I think campaign guidelines are more than enough and a hard and fast rule is not needed.

I thought they did away with that?

[Susano]

I like COM . Its nice to have a number to compare. The perk system for appearance is one thing I dislike about GURPS.

Actually, I forgot to say that if COM became a Perk, I'd ask for several levels both up and down, much like GURPS.

[yamamura]

Actually, I forgot to say that if COM became a Perk, I'd ask for several levels both up and down, much like GURPS.

Agreed. While Beauty is subjective, I would like to see some indication of level.

[Log-Man]

Wow, this is all very exciting!

I'm very strongly in the camp of eliminating the figured aspect of characteristics and I have been for a very long time. It would smooth things out so much in terms of calculations when buying stats as powers (no more 'No Figured Characteristics', when dealing with adj. powers, when changing size, etc. I give this idea a big thumbs up.

I also would like to see END eliminated or made much less of a hassle. I am of the mind that END and STUN are somewhat redundant. They both reflect stamina; one drains internally, one externally. If powers are non-taxing as a base, then they could be tiring as a limitation. Have it drain STUN rather than END. I believe that reflects the heroic struggle better than having two separate stats.

Ditch COM as a paid stat. I think there's still room for it as a defining trait, but perks better reflect that, if it's needed at all. This is one of those things that I'm not sure even needs to be defined by points at all.

Mental DEF as a stat does make sense to me. If normal DEF is a stat, then having the other DEF nearby as a stat just seems logical. When we look at powers such as transform which require defining a realm of change, physical, spiritual or mental, then it really fits for me. On the other hand, Mental Defense is often SFX limited, so I can see the argument for keep it separate.

Eliminating INT is an intriguing proposition, one that I have considered for a long time. The character's INT has always been reflected in the breadth of skills and actual skill rolls much more than the INT score itself. As it is now, I don't know that INT is necessary.

A SIZE stat is very interesting to me, but it really depends upon how it works with Growth and Shrinking. I can see it making things a heck of a lot easier.

I like a single DEF score to bring it more in line with the real world objects. I see no problem with using limitations to define portions of defense, much like what is done now with certain SFX. However, I like the idea of giving real world objects (and Entangles) differentiating scores, too. I just want synchronization.

I see the argument for eliminating the STR/Leaping connection, and I agree.

[Querysphinx]

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 already do this in my games. Basically Beauty acts like skill levels in certain situations and Ugly doesthe opposite.

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.

Actually I have a much better idea. The way ordinary defenses work in Hero always bothered me for a variety of reasons.

1. No matter how much ordinary PD / ED you have you're still just as vulnerable to "killing attacks" as a normal.

2. Conversely, in a standard superhero type setting it is frequently impossible to actually hurt someone (i.e. do Body) with a 10D6 Punch/EB. Someone with a 50 STR can juggle cars for Peet's sake, his punches ought to carry some threat of physical harm.

3. Sometimes the difference between energy attacks and physical attacks is not clear. Sonic Attacks? Shockwaves? A flaming chunk of lava?

This bothered me so much that I sat down and did some math. After running the numbers it occurred to me that from a mathematical perspective, the only reason to have a distinction between PD and ED is to make defenses slightly more expensive than attacks.

1 D6 of most attacks costs 5 Pts and gets you on average 3.5 ST and 1 BDY
3pts of PD and 3pts of ED together costs 6 points. You logically have to have both because you don't know if the attack thats going to hit you is coming from the physical or energy side.

So 5 pts of attack versus 6 points of defense results in an average damage of .5 STUN per D6 and (this is important) no chance whatsoever of doing Body

It was right about then that I realized why Champions had killing attacks in the first place. It's the fact that under most even-point circumstances there's no chance whatsoever of doing Body. From a math perspective , killing attacks are nothing more than an ad hoc kludge designed to get around this problem.

So how to fix it?

I came up with the house rule.

Instead of the artificial PD/ED distinction (which is based on special effects) we use Stun Defense (SD) and Body Defense (BD) (which are based on game mechanics.)

Stun Defense (SD) costs 1 point per def and defends against the STUN of attacks.

Body Defense (BD) costs 2 points per def and defends against the BODY of attacks.

Now 5 points of Def (3 SD/1 BD) vs. 5 pts of Attack (1D6) yields an average stun of .5 per d6 with a 1/6 chance of actually doing Body.

I've been playtesting this rule for years and have found no significant problems with it. It's even allowed me to get rid of killing attacks in my game.

Instead of having killing attacks per se, characters who want to use guns and swords and other traditional killing attacks can take advantage (so to speak) of the following advantages.

Armor Piercing: just like in the books

Killing (+1/2): This attack is designed to hurt living things. Any BDY that gets by the defender's BD is doubled.

Black-Hat shoots White-Hat with a pistol. The 6D6 pistol does 7 Body vs. White-Hat's 5 BD. 7-5=2 Body, but because the attack is killing that 2 is doubled to 4. Ouch!

Penetrating (+1/4): (I admit I stole this idea from another game system but it works well in this context.) When an attack power with this advantage rolls a 6 for damage, the attacker gets to roll an extra D6 and add the damage. If these extra penetrating attacks also roll 6's there is no additional effect.

Overload shoots his 8D6 penetrating zap at Megaman. He hits and rolls 8D6 scoring, 1,1,2,3,4,4,6,6. Because he rolled 2 6's he get to roll two more penetrating dice. He gets a 3,6. He does not get to roll again for this extra 6. His total damage is 1,1,2,3,3,4,4,6,6,6 for 36 STN and 11 BDY

Whew!

[Andrew Cermak]

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

How so? I see people saying this, but no one says why. Other than saving some points in character creation, what does figuring actually do for the system that's so important? Why can't they be treated the same as primary characteristics?