Characteristics Issues

[JakSpade]

Man. I'm really not a numbers guy, and I'd really like to contribute to 6th edition... at least somehow.

Personally, I think characteristics need to stay the same values that they always have. One of the reasons I feel this way is that Hero does a good job of merging the mundane with the fantastic. Regular humans can play with aliens, superheros, or supernatural creatures. If you change the baseline for normal characteristics, you run the risk of alienating normal characters, and reducing them to story elements, unless that is the true intent. Reducing NPCs to story elements might be better on the GM, it might be worse. But it keeps those NPCs grounded in comparison to how they relate to the PCs. And, yes, it probably keeps the GM in tons of bookkeeping.

I've never had much use for negative characteristics. The only problems I've had with low characteristics is with character interaction, presence attacks and the like. I'd vote to get rid of negative characteristics and revisit, perhaps strengthen, rules and suggestions with character interaction.

I've never thought of figured stats as being a big hindrance on the system. Figured stats, in my opinion, should stay, mostly because they are a finality to defining what the character can do, how well he resists the environment, or how he performs in certain situations. Rolling PD and ED into Defense is a good idea, because it streamlines figures stats a bit, but can be altered easily to fit the situation. Adding base Perception and Mental Defense/Willpower into figured stats is a good idea as well, mostly because it goes with the theme of the character.

And here's where I deviate from the norm just slightly. I think BODY should be moved to the Figured Characteristics category. To me, it doesn't fit the "raw" element that most base characteristics do, and I believe it should be calculated based on Strength and Constitution (i.e. physique and health). This will add a bit of granularity to the general health of the character, and can even be set to a base plus the calculated base characteristic (10+(STR/5+CON/5)). That might not work too well.

Adding Size to figured characteristics gets a big thumbs up from me. Building a size chart with all the modifiers in it is a big help for growth powers as well as players. Being able to pick your size maximum from a chart is a big help, plus it helps players with variable growth to be able to recalc their stats at different levels of growth.

In my opinion, the Speed Chart is a whole other issue. Based on the genre and cinematic level of the game in question, the speed chart can be a help or a hindrance. In a pulp game, there's not much variance between character speeds, so I wouldn't want to use a speed chart to handle all the action. I've removed the speed chart in cases like this, and have asked for anyone who wants to be able to act more spend 20pts on an extra action, which allows them a second (plus) action per turn. Of course, I try to keep it limited to one or two extra actions. The speed chart works well in the superheroic genre, where you have speedsters and the like, or maybe science fiction where you can have very fast alien races, but as you scale down, I think it starts to become a hindrance. So, I think the speed chart needs to be optional, based on what genre is being simulated. It won't work well in all situations.

That's it for now from me. I hope I haven't been too big of a problem...

jak

[Susano]

How so? I see people saying this, but no one says why. Other than saving some points in character creation, what do figureds actually do for the system that's so important?

I find them a huge help in character generation. They don't affect game play any, but when building a character they save steps in deciding what the next set of values would be. Not a big deal, but considering how involved creating a Hero character can be, I think every little bit helps. It's a built-in assist to the player. Sort of "you did X, now let me do y for you." A little thing, but useful.

[voodoo54]

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

I agree 100%. Make COM a perk with levels that have a tangible effect in the game.

[Balok]

I generally regard COM as a worthless characteristic. That kind of thing always seemed to me to be more suitable to an advantage/disadvantage that affects PRE attacks and/or social interaction rolls.

I think a key goal should be to simplify *running* characters even if it makes *generating* them more complicated, because generating happens once (per character) while running is ongoing. Like the incorrect opinion of some software designers that simplifying their job is the only worthwhile goal even if it means the end user must work harder. For that reason math during character generation never really bothered me.

Should "Normal Characteristic Maxima" become more complex? For example, should it become "Normal Physical Maxima" that affects STR, DEX, CON, etc but not INT, EGO - and along side of that would be "Normal Mental Maxima" which is analgous? It could even be separated out by specific characteristic, and it could have stepped values (x1 cost, then x2 cost, then x5 cost, and so on. Another approach would be... I hesistate to say a sidebar because I think it's too complicated for that... some kind of discussion for GMs who simply wish to impose such variable costs as part of their genre. The discussion would cover the broad mechanical implications of such changes. I have long believed that a big advantage of Hero over D&D [1] is that we get to look under the hood more easily here, whereas for D&D you must reverse engineer the metaconcepts or rely on someone you trust who has done so.

[1] Not trying to start any kind of flame war. I like D&D fine, but there are some things it simply doesn't do well, IMO, and one of them is support mechanical changes by the inexperienced.

[Andrew Cermak]

I find them a huge help in character generation. They don't affect game play any, but when building a character they save steps in deciding what the next set of values would be. Not a big deal, but considering how involved creating a Hero character can be, I think every little bit helps. It's a built-in assist to the player. Sort of "you did X, now let me do y for you." A little thing, but useful.

Do you usually leave them at the figured values?

[Susano]

Do you usually leave them at the figured values?

Depends. Sometimes times yes, sometimes no. But even if I end up adding to them, I have a preset value to work from. And with REC, END, STUN, and answer is often "no." The Figured values are usually fine "as is" with no need to alter them -- especially for Heroic-level characters.

EDIT: Uhm.. answer is "no."

That will teach me to drink two Sols with lunch and then post....

[Hugh Neilson]

Only posting detailed answers where the others haven't covered it and/or your comments aren't dead on, I hope.

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

No - keep a baseline. I like the current "a bit better than Joe Normal" baseline. Adding 200 points to all characters and making "normals" 200 point characters serves no purpose.

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.

Yes and no. I think we can keep negative characteristics for purposes of adjustment powers, but once you hit 0, that's it. All the negative does is lengthen the period for recovery. Practically, needing to roll 9- every time you want to do something with the stat is getting pretty close to useless anyway. It would be better to have a mechanic to "push" a nil stat to heroically overcome the reduced ability briefly.

The negative characteristic rules could be retained as optional rules, but should not be in the core rules - they are of limited use, so they should be added only if and when they serve a purpose for a type of character or type of game. The fact I cannot envision one leads me to believe eliminating negative stats is the way to go.

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.

Perhaps these need their own category - "health characteristics", perhaps. Perhaps that's splitting hairs. Under my approach, these stats would be the only ones where negative stats have implications beyond "you need longer to get them back to positive".

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?

Philosophically, yes. Practically, it needs to be worth the effort. I would suggest (core rule or optional rule) the following:

- adopt the more granular damage chart from TuB for both STR and PRE.

- When making a characteristic-based roll, if you fail by one, roll a d6. If that number is equal or less than your stats over the breakpoint, you succeed. EXAMPLE: You have a 15 INT, and make an INT roll of 13. Normally, this fails. You get to roll a d6. If it's 1-2 (since you have 2 points over the 13 breakpoint), you succeed. Practically, you would roll 4d6 (3d6 of one colour for normal success and 1d6 of another for this purpose).

I'm not convinced the added granularity is worth the added effort, so I would place this as an optional rule in the core book.

This has no impact on combat. There are enough rolls in combat already.

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

Like many others, I am not in favour of this approach. I do not find characters are unbalanced due to figured characteristics now, and I fear their removal will create imbalances.

I am in favour of changing the price of REC, STUN and END, and the price of No Figured. Why?

- I think the fact STR and CON grant more in Figured than they cost is an issues.
- I rarely/never see a character buy up REC and STUN, rather than defenses. Same for buying END/REC rather than Reduced END. This implies, to me, that the option less (never) taken is comparatively overpriced.

My draft is as follows:

[quote=posted before]

Rather than raise the cost of STR (and CON - both generate more figured char than they cost themselves), what about reducing the cost of END, STUN and REC so the benefits granted by STR and CON are less costly for a lower STR/CON character to purchase directly.

I'd like to see +15 STR grant +5 stats (and a -1/2 limit for "No Figured"), and +15 CON grant 22 points of figured (with "no figured" priced at -2 3/4). At this point, you could sever them without complications (leaving only BOD). No need to change DEX - it works already.

This would require lowering the price of REC, STUN and END. Changing PD and ED changes the dynamic between other defense powers, so it should be avoided. As a rough guideline, I would consider the following:

Reduce the price of STUN to 1/2 point, REC to 1 point and END to 1/3 point. Declare them "defensive powers" so that adjustment powers do not gain a huge advantage.

Grant figured as follows:

STR grants STR/5 in PD and STR/7.5 in REC.
10 STR grants 2 PD and 1 REC

15 STR grants 3 PD and 2 REC, which costs 5 points otherwise.
No Figured is a -1/2 limitation on STR.

CON grants CON/5 in ED, CON/3.75 in REC, 2/3 CON in STUN and 2x CON in END.
10 CON grants 2 ED, 3 REC, 7 STUN and 20 END.

15 CON grants 3 ED, 4 REC, 10 STUN and 30 END, which costs 22 points otherwise. 30/(30-22) = 3.75, so No Figured on CON is a -2 3/4 limitation (yes, I know, it's more than -2; utter blasphemy - break it down into separate limitations for each figured stat to get them each below -2 3/4 and stop whining).

BOD grants BOD x 1 1/3 STUN.
10 BOD grants 13 STUN

15 BOD grants 20 STUN, which is worth 10 points. No Figured is a -1/2 limitation on BOD.

RESULT: No Figured Char is now mathematically correct - someone might actually take CON - no figured! DEX and SPD are unchanged, so -1/2 works.

We can now eliminate the "can only sell back 1 figured" restriction, since there's no advantage to buying up a stat and selling the figured characteristics back.

A standard (10's across the board) guy has the same base figured's as before.

BOD and CON contribute more, and STR contributes less. Appropriate as STR gives considerably more other benefits.

Potentially, this will cause other changes to the dynamic. For example, since there is no longer a "figured' advantage to high STR and CON, do we need to allow EC's of characteristics for Bricks and other stat-based characters to stay balanced with, say, blasters and others more reliant on frameworks?

I also think CV is a form of "figured characteristic", but we discuss that later.

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.

We'll still fight over limited SPD (I use activation rolls; what is "mental powers only"; which phases are which) and whether something gives you too much, or too little, for its cost. My approach above allows unlimited sellbacks. Of course, there's more math. You could follow the WoTC approach of a chart for those incapable of math (10-11: +0; 12-13; +1, I suppose.

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

I feel they should. CON has lost a lot of utility. If it costs 2 points per, I can buy +1 PD and +1 ED instead, avoiding the damage from many attacks entirely, but taking my chances with exotic attacks. I see a huge drawback in this - players will be trying to reduce damage taken to their 10 (or less) CON score, making STUN (and combat) last forever.

BOD should cost 1 under the "no fig" model. Yeah, not dying is important, but I return to my "buy up defenses" theory. And not getting KO'd wins more fights in most games. hmmm...+8 BOD or 2 BOD Regeneration?

I think a lot of the "sub-parts" of characteristics are overpriced (koffLightningReflexeskoff), and the better fix is to reduce those costs, not raise (directly or indirectly by removal of what they grant) the cost of characteristics.

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.

Your examples highlight this, but they miss a piece. I'd like to compare that Brick to a less stat-based option, such as a Mentalist or EP. Similarly, compare a Warrior to an old Wizard. How many of those extra points the STR/CON character needs just to stay the same becomes available to the low STR/CON character for added powers and abilities? I don't find them unbalanced now.

Steve, I'd suggest rebuilding some character groups (eg. Superteams) who are presently based on the same or similar points under the new model to assess its effectiveness, and impact on balance.

The impact depends a lot on genre. Are there Pulp archetypes with minimal STR/CON? I think they're all two fisted adventurers to some extent, so the change will impact them similarly.

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

Absolutely. Even in Supers, this doesn't connect well. The Hulk and Superman leap, but the Thing and the Juggernaut don't. The link is tenuous at best. There's a case that the stronger guy is better able to leap from rooftop to rooftop, but maybe we can make a STR roll complementary to leaping in some cases to keep the connection, but water it down significantly.

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.

I agree with all comments above. CV is a Figured in all but name anyway, and impacting it with adjustment powers would be a worthy goal. The inability to create a wily rogue without a huge OCV is also often commented on.

I'd like to see OCV and DCV priced as a Figured such that DEX - no OCV (whether a limitation or a sellback) would be a viable (not overpriced) approach to building such a character. Also, most characters who are accurate end up great dodgers, which aren't necessarily linked.

While I see the challenges, I think OCV and DCV at 5 points each is consistent with current skill level structures. That requires a review of the cost of DEX, or a reduction to the cost of CV, however.

Normal Characteristic Maxima

Steve, I think a lot of skill level pricing issues are exacerbated by NCM. Paying 5 points for +1 to all interaction skills when paying 5 for +5 PRE gets you so much more is unreasonable. But lower the cost, and they're huge bargains once you hit NCM. I think NCM needs to be refigured either as:

- something to ditch entirely, or
- something broader, such that it would apply to skill levels boosting abilities beyond NCM's, and to stats with limitations

Example: Samson, with "not if hair cut, -1/4" buys a 35 STR for 25 points. Hercules, with no limitation, pays 40 points. That -1/4 has become much more valuable. Even a -0 limitation technically means the characteristic becomes a power.

Sure, the GM can vet abuses, but the real abuse is that the guy with limitations gets a bigger bang for his buck. -1/4 for IIF seems very reasonable for a magic item, until it bumps STR 20 to STR 30 for 8 points instead of 20 points, amking it equivalent to a -1.5 limitation.

Should STR be repriced?

I agree it should not. However, I think more attention should be paid to using STR to get other benefits for free. Picking up a large object should not convert STR into an AoE with range at no cost. Let's impose some limitations, like:

- stressing that Grab is one attack action and Throw at Someone is a second.

- imposing OCV penalties - we have aerodynamics and balance, but perhaps we should have bulk, mass and non-proficiency penalties.

- no automatic AoE - grant OCV bonuses for size. In Hero, Hulk throws a bus at Spiderman and Spidey goes Squish. In the comics, Spidey leaps over, rolls under or jumps in one window and sails out another. The latter is better suited for genre emulation AND game balance.

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 agree with this. I note that INT is also a characteristic whose sole purpose is skills (presently including PER). The difficulty in building a low-Per high Int character should be resolved. All characters could have a base 11- PER roll or buy enhanced PER. Or maybe we start them with a 8- roll to raise the bar a little. Then we have no stat added.

Adjustment powers? Yes and no. Should a character easily be rendered blind, deaf and otherwise unable to perceive by a 3d6 PER Drain? If so, why should anyone buy Flash?

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.

If we made ECV a figured stat, we could have a -1 "No Figured/No ECV" limitation. That seems to match up with "strong-willed".

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

Although similar to CV and DEX, there is no real world mental combat, so no way to link the two. A separate ECV stat may be desirable if Figured's, including regular CVB, are de-linked from characteristics, as otherwise the "ego/3" mechanic will be wholly unfamiliar. If Ego and ECV are de-linked, maybe ECV starts at 0. I'd rather keep the link, but I'd rather keep Figured's overall.

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Gut feel: no, it should have mechanics like your Talent suggestions. But analysis says:

- high and low COM should both have effects; we can't do that effectively, especially without negative characteristics.

- what non-PRE based effects would COM ever have? If the answer is none, as I think it is, COM is an SFX of PRE.

Q: Should PRE be removed as a Characteristic?

Maybe it should. I'd like to see more on "Inspirational PRE" as opposed to "Frightening PRE". That's similar to "attractive COM" and "ugly COM". We could start with base PRE attacks of 2d6, and interaction skills have no stat link (the one piece I really don't like). PRE attacks get resisted only with EGO, making it more desirable at 2 points per. We can then have talents for bonuses to interaction skills, being more impressive and being resistant to PRE attacks (+X Ego only to resist 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?

No and Yes. In addition to other points you and other posters raise, I don't want a huge array of limited DEF to simulate what we have now. Give objects PD and ED instead.

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

If figured's are eliminated, NO. If not, then no. But the "buy 1 point, add ego/5" should be removed. It should be like Flash and Power defense. It would not break my heart to add it, but most mental defense applications reduce attacks that are already resisted by base Ego, so this is just a 20% bonus to that resistance.

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

I can't properly answer this within the posting guidelines, so I say only "NO".

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.

A sidebar or optional rule is the best approach, in my view. This can be expanded on in genre books and setting books, where customizing the system options fit better, IMO.

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.

What will it do? A characteristic that changes other characteristics is an added layer of complexity (especially if Figured's are removed for everything else). I'd rather see packages of abilities based on changes in size from the template norm.

[JakSpade]

Depends. Sometimes times yes, sometimes no. But even if I end up adding to them, I have a preset value to work from. And with REC, END, STUN, and answer is often "yes." The Figured values are usually fine "as is" with no need to alter them -- especially for Heroic-level characters.

I rarely change the values of Recovery or Endurance, unless it goes with the theme of the character (high Rec for Wolverine, high End for energy blasters). I only raise Stun if it seems low compared to a normal human stat.

jak

[DreadDomain]

I will briefly give you my ideas on your questions and I will try later to organise my thoughts with an example. None of what I say there is well thought out and this doesn't mean I even agree with my ideas

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

I agree it would make a lot of sense and would make application of advantages on characteristics more intuitive. Another idea if you want to remaining human centric would be to centre the characteristics themselves around 0 (lets say human range from -10 to +10). It would connect well enough will opposite powers (Growth and Skinking) but could definitely upset long time gamers. Another less disturbing concept (especially from a retrocon point of view) would be to to ...

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

... have CHAR 0 means "lack of". Of course the STR chart would need some reworking from a slow progression at the lower end (increasing granularity) to a faster increasing slope on the high end. This would potentially change the relation between STR and damage though.

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?

Increasing granularity would be good. Even decoupling figured, every point of STR (damage and lift), DEX (initiative), CON (stun resistance), BODY (well, Body), EGO (presence resistance and mantal resistance) and PRE (presence resistance and presence damage) means something. Only INT and COM really give nothing by themselves. Break points are created by figured characteristics and CHAR/Skill roll. If you decouple and change the CHAR/Skill roll calculation to 7+CHAR/3, you both decrease the importance of break points and add more meaning ful numbers. On the side, youn also increase cohesion by making Skills and CV work more alike (more on that later surely).

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

Yes but... In the base rules, I would like to see Figured decoupled (thus becoming Secondary CHAR) BUT, I also would like a discussion on how to package them back together and how it influences the CHAR cost. So later, in a setting book for instance, the author could choose to package them a certain way (SPD = 1+(DEX+INT)/20; END = CON +EGO, etc...) in accordance with his vision of the setting

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

Yes. By decoupling figured (and maybe even skills as a base line). Every CHAR would be worth about 1/1 in my opinion except :

COM : But this is a non primary characteristic anyway
BODY : Another non primary characteristic. A Primary for me should give at the very least a CHAR Roll and some side benefits (like STR gives damage, INt gives Perception, EGO gives presence and mental resistance). BODY gives only an ablative damage soak number. It is worth 2/1 but it should be a Secondary Characteristic.
STR: Str gives damage which by itself is worth 1/1 and it gives lift/encumbrance resistance which may or may not be worth something. My idea is that in superheroic campaign encumbrance resistance means nothing and lift capabilities is really nice but is mainly only a SFX anyway. STR in superheroic campaigns would cost 1/1.

In heroic campaigns, encumbrance is surely a factor worth something so I would make STR cost 2 points. To cost structure for STR you say? Well it is only a dial no different than equipement costing points or not.

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

Yes.

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.[/QUOTE]

Oups! See my point above. In Heroic, 2 points, in Superheroic, 1 point.

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

Yes.

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

I think not. Damage and lift is very logically tied to STR.

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

Once everything is decoupled from DEX (SPD, Skills, CV), I would say DEX is worth about 1 point (for initiative and CHAR roll). In my mind, CV and Skill rolls should work the same. If you decouple skills, you decouple CV. If skills are based on CHAR/3, CV should be based on CHAR/3.

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

Not necessary in my opinion.

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, if you decouple Skills, you should decouple CV. You would not need extra CHAR becuase you would treat it like skills (base of 10- and +1 for each x point).

Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

For me the trick is to base physical and mental CHAR on the same logics. Power is represented by STR and PRE, resistance by CON and EGO and aptitude by DEX and INT. So I definitely see INT as both depth and quickness of thinking.

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

Tricky one. When reasoning from effect, PER should be out of INT. From a design point of view, I would divorce it from INT only if INT can be made more relevant and if a fouth mental CHAR is needed to balance four physical CHAR. I'd rather see STR, DEX, CON, PRE, INT (with PER factored in), EGO while BODY would become Secondary (yes, I know it is only a aesthetic and organisational change, functionally, it would be the same) and COM would become a perk.

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

Yes, I cannot see as it is EGO being more useful than STR.

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

See DEX and CV.

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

I'd see it as a Talent/Perk or a Secondary CHAR.

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

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

I think, ED is only really useful in Superheroic games. I see really 4 different type of damage Physical, Energy, Mental and Emotional with Power Defense being used to resist other type mainly covered by the for above. I'd rather have PD (combining both PD and ED) and MD (combining both MD and Emotional) as a basis and have them divided as needed in different genre (super might add ED while Horror might add Emotional Defense).

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Absolutely not.

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

A way to decrease bookkeeping would be appreciated. Otherwise, people can choose to use END or not (in most of our games we just don't the speed up things).

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

A Secondary Characteristic at best.

[Susano]

I rarely change the values of Recovery or Endurance, unless it goes with the theme of the character (high Rec for Wolverine, high End for energy blasters). I only raise Stun if it seems low compared to a normal human stat.

jak

Yeah, I'm with you. See my edited post. Sorry.

[steamteck]

I like NCM. Its a nice shorthand for defining a normal person as opposed to a super. The definition could be expanded and better defined probably though.

[Sean Waters]

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.

Entirely a matter of perception - if you start at zero you build to what you want. People are often less willing to sell back than they are to not buy up int he first place. It also makes the system more 'universal' - having a zero baseline for the system doesn't mean there has to be a zero baseline for every character in a given campaign: you could start at 8 across the board, or 15.

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.

Players go to extremes? Surely not!

I think we ought to take the safety off a lot of Hero and give the responisbility to the players and GMs to make it work. Figured characteristics are an example of this. You might need to adgust some of the primary characteristic costs but that doesn't seem problematic.

[steamteck]

I rarely change the values of Recovery or Endurance, unless it goes with the theme of the character (high Rec for Wolverine, high End for energy blasters). I only raise Stun if it seems low compared to a normal human stat.

jak

Same here.

[eternal_sage]

just for those keeping score, this is how my version of retooling the CHAR would turn out, using Steve's examples. looking at them, they came in better for all but the Pulp guy (and much better for the wuxia fellow). i think this is largly a matter of not adjusting the pricing of figured Chars when adjusting primary.

high STR brick via champions

Here’s the same character with no Figureds:

Val Char Cost
60 STR  50
20 DEX  10
30 CON  20
25 BODY 15
10 INT   0
10 EGO   0
20 PRE  10
10 COM   0  105

30 PD   28
30 ED   28
 5 SPD  30
25 REC  42
60 END  20
70 STUN 50  198

 7 CV   12

Total Cost: 315

79 more points

Now here’s a high-end martial artist, such as you might find in a Champions or wuxia campaign

Now with no Figureds:

Val Char Cost
20 STR  10
25 DEX  15
20 CON  10
15 BODY  5
15 INT   5
15 EGO   5
20 PRE  10
10 COM   0  60

15 PD   13
10 ED    8
 6 SPD  40
10 REC  12
40 END  10
40 STUN 20  103

 8 CV   15
Total Cost: 178

That’s a cost increase of 17 points.

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

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  61

 6 PD    4
 6 ED    4
 4 SPD  20
 7 REC   6
36 END   8
39 STUN 19  61

 5 CV    6
Total Cost: 128

so thats 38 points extra

my way of looking at it is that, by severing these connections, all stats should cost less, because they do less. to that end, i think it is then neccessary to think about what stats actually need to stay. personally, i think you will find that severing Chars and adjusting costing appropriately you should come to an area where the differences are similar to the Wuxia example char (as in very little difference)

[JakSpade]

The following is just my opinion, ad nauseum...

Base Characteristics

The way I see it, all characteristics should have at least some affect on the game, otherwise, it takes away from the experience. There's always someone who wants a super-beautiful character, who believes that buying 60pts of Comliness is going to solve all his or her problems, and then be disappointed when the rules system doesn't support their original impressions.

Characteristics are divided into several groups, based on their usage:

• Physical: Health, Power and Coordination
• Mental: Knowledge and Willpower

I always feel like there should be a Spiritual aspect of character development, but that's kind of hard to add tangibility to that, and just fold that under Mental.

Under Physical aspects, we have Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, which cover most of the basics. We could break Dexterity into a group itself, but initiative is rarely an issue, and it can model coordination and fine motor skills fine, or can be modified with talents to fit the bill.

Under Mental aspects, there's Intelligence, and Ego, which I feel should cover Knowledge, and Willpower. Anything else, I just can't quantify, unless you're thinking something along the lines of Wisdom, which just doesn't seem to fit (could be more of a talent).

I would suggest adding another grouping, which would contain:

• Interaction: Presence, Comliness and Perception

Presence and Comliness deal with outward interaction, where Perception deals with being aware and interpreting ones surroundings. These could even be considered Figured Characteristics, having a base value based on the above base attributes.

If characteristics were to change, I'd like to see them set up something like this:

• Physical: STR, DEX, CON
• Mental: INT, EGO
• Interaction: PER, PRE, COM

Figured Characteristics

I'm all for adding Size to figured characteristics, as well as combine PD & ED into Defense. I'm still thinking Speed is a toss up. The Speed Chart has it's uses, and is quite useful at distinguishing characters in combat. I'd probably roll Mental Defense into Figured Characteristics, and call it something like Willpower, but that might or might not work with the scheme of the system.

I'd like to set Body and Stun in figured characteristics, mostly because I think they fit the best here. Defining how much damage, lethal and non-lethal, that someone can take should reside in the figured characteristics.

Endurance and Recovery can be optional systems to deal with powers, magic, and other special abilities.

I think Figured Characteristics should look something like this:

• Resistance: DEF, WILL
• Physical: SIZE, STUN, BODY, SPD

Movement Types

Just keep all the standard movement types (Run, Jump, Swim, Flying, etc) the way they are, but disconnect the base numbers from powers.

Just thought I'd throw that out there...

jak