Characteristics Issues

[gregghelmberger]

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

I strongly agree here. As currently written, Dexterity applies to such diverse factors that it really hurts granularity. A "fast" character is also inherently better with things that require fine manipulation and agility, which doesn't track either from real world experience or from fiction. At the very least there ought to be two characteristics, one that governs speed/agility/nimbleness and another that governs manual dexterity. If you continue the system of basing skills on characteristics (which I like a lot) then the first characteristic could govern things like Breakfall and Riding, while the second governs things like Sleight of Hand and Lockpicking. That is to say, you could then create a slow, clumsy guy who happens to have naturally nimble hands, without resorting to buying lots of levels.

[Vondy]

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

No. It makes a certain kind of sense, but having to purchase up to "normal guy" or better strikes me as tacking on "empty points" to the character just to get to the normal baseline. On the other hand, it does eliminate buying back characteristics and negative characteristic cost, which has always left me with a sort of neurotic suspicion, but then unnatural and irrational numbers do that do me. If you did go this route, however, you could do the following....

Base Package (Everyman)
+X Design Points.

So a superheroic character would get the base package for a normal joe + 350 character points. If he wanted a stat that was lower than normal joe he would deduct the points and add them into his design points. It keeps us working with positive numbers.

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

In 17 years of heroing I've never once used them, or run across a situation where they counted. Almost every GM I've gamed with (and myself) ran with the default assumption of "negative means it doesn't work." Aside from Stun and Body 0 should be "no effect." However, negative characteristics do have one important utility that has to be dealt with if you go this route: recovering from drains. You could write the rule thus "negative characteristics are only for determining recovery time," and then implement a stun-like system for recovering from drains (i.e., 0 to -10 recover per turn, -11 to -20 recover per minute, -21 or more GM's discretion (or whatever works).

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?

I like the idea, but I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't rip out the guts of the system and open up a can of potential worms.

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

Please do. The only argument in favor of them is that it "makes sense" for most characters (but not all) with certain primary characteristics should have a commensurately high characteristic that is currently figured from the primary characteristics. The argument is pretty weak, however, because it a point based system I can just buy the commensurately high "figured characteristic" and call it a day. On the other hand, for some concepts I'm forced into buy back mode because I didn't want the figured characteristic as high as it came out to be (and we currently have rules limiting buy-backs).
However, making this change raises a couple of sub-issues:

Sub-Issue #1... in general the pricing will still feel right. I might, however, consider making all the current primary characteristics 2 points except comeliness, which I would consider making 1 point. The potential problems with this are: 1) does that make dex too cheap (I think dex has too big an impact on combat values and would like to see this change), and 2) why should comeliness be worth so much? In terms of the second, I'll address it below.

Sub-Issue #2... this is the reason I still use figured characteristics: I don't want to do the math for reworking this aspect of the system. I don't mind someone else doing it, however...

If you decide to can figured characteristics you pretty much have to give people the points to buy the newly minted primary characteristics with. The math brains should be able to come up with a metric for you.

Q Should the cost of STR be changed?

IMO, strength is costed correctly for superheroic games and incorrectly for heroic level games. I would like to see it at 2 points per point, but that's because I play heroic level games and generally avoid the caped crusaders.

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

If you are removing figured characteristics then I would argue you have to do so to be consistent. Also, its the only movement power that is figured. My running and swimming aren't affected by my characteristics. What's more, a stronger character who should be able to leap farther can just go ahead any buy the appropriate amount of leaping which would be consistent with the essential logic behind a point based system.

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

I think it creates too many problems to do this.

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

If the current combat value paradigm is unchanged it should remain 3 points. However, I would like to see the impact of DEX on combat values decrease or disappear entirely. This goes along with my "streamline all primaries at 2 points" comment above. I'll cover this below.

[QUOTE=Steve Long;1536934]
Q: Should DEX be split into two or more Characteristics?[quote]

I'm generally against creating more characteristics, but for all practical purposes OCV, DCV and ECV are figured characteristics. We don't call them characteristics, but thats what they amount to. What's more, I don't believe new players would have any more trouble with CV and ECV as formalized characteristics than they have with OCV, DCV, and ECV now. At the same time my issue isn't really how we currently handle DEX-OCV, but how much impact DEX has on OCV. I would like to see the formula changed to match skills DEX/5 and the cost dropped.

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

In principle I'm for it, but in practice I think its going to require redifining large parts of the system with limited benefit. I would rather see the impact of DEX on OCV reduced.

Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

RAM.

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

Yes. We already have a place on character sheets to list perception rolls, so I don't think it clutters anything. Its there and amounts to a figured characteristic already.

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

I say leave it alone. I would rather see the mechanics for mental powers that require "levels of success" (and presence attacks) reworked.

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

I think the "to hit" method should be the same for everything.

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

I've been using a modified version of the reputation perk for this. I think it can go the way of the dodo. First off, its costed with an irrational number and that annoys me. Second, you don't get much utility even at half a point.

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

I have been tempted to use a combined characteristic "tough" in heroic genres, but I think the PD/ED divide is absolutely critical in the superheroic genre.

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

I think having resistance and mental defense cover all potential eventualities cleanly as it is.

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

What is your name?!!!!
What is your mother's name?!!!!
I will now call down the curse of fire on you!!!
Hold me back!!!
Hold me back!!!
Only an INFIDEL would ask this question!!!

More seriously... the speed chart, while taking a little while to learn, is an essential part of the hero-systems character as a role-playing game. It would also be a serious pain in the tuches to replace... let alone dying a horrible, slow death from my fiery curses!

[QUOTE=Steve Long;1536934]
Q: Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?[/qupte]

I fall into the ignore or design around camp. At the same time, it does have uses, and hero is about being a tool-kit. There are times where these things need to be modelled and there are, believe it or not, people who like combat bookkeeping. I say sidebar it.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

Um... I'm head scratching. I can live with size as it currently is. I would really have to see the system you came up with whole cloth before commenting on this.

[Vondy]

Alright Steve... having survived your rubber-hose interrogation I will now RANT.

I run heroic games. My major peeve with hero (though I use it) is the lack of granularity at the heroic level. Over time I've come to consider the presence of a genre universal strength chart the root of all evil. I say this because all characteristics with the exception of strength currently have an abstract measure that could easily be scaled or adjusted to a given genre, while strength has a concrete measure that works very well for the superheroic genre, while limiting the range of the strength characteristic (and therefore strength rolls) for grittier games. If I wan't to have a range of characteristic rolls that runs up to 15- or 17- for my heroic game I can scale the characteristics to 30 or 40, but then I have warriors who can bench many tons!

There is a simple solution for this: have three strength charts: gritty, cinematic action, and superheroic. The superheroic chart can be the default, while the other two can be GM option. This allows more granularity at the heroic level without seriously impacting the mechanics of the system. The only issue you then have is "what about aliens or supernaturals or giants who can lift more?" There are a couple of options: 1) just let them buy over the benchmarks and call it a day (this works for characters like beowulf, or vampires who can't bench mack trucks but can toss conan around, etc), or 2) create an adder or modifier "uses alternate strength chart." Also, you could provide both options.

I REALLY would like to see this option in the book. I've already done it as a house rule, but I really think the "universal" as opposed to modular tool-kit approach to hero creates problems in modelling genres other than the legacy superheroic default (like exponential strength assumptions). I think the guts will always work for supers, but opening the system up a bit would help us lowly mortals whose swords are only as strong as the hands that weild them.

[Chris Goodwin]

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 two me it avoids the illusion of moving and then stopping.

Yes. Not just yes, but hell yes. In fact, consider this to be the Meg-Ryan-in-the-diner of yes.

Grrr. You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours.

[eternal_sage]

actually, what i would want would be two seperate books. not this PHB, DMG thing we're getting, but a SuperHEROic and a HEROic book, each with rules tweaked to make sense for those types of games. this is my major peeve with the RAW, because supers and heros don't really meet well in the middle.

[Chris Goodwin]

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?

Back in 1985, I thought Figured Characteristics were one of the coolest things about the system. Having a higher DEX meant you were faster in a way that mattered in combat. Higher STR meant your muscles were tougher and could help you shrug off damage better. A healthier guy (higher CON) has more energy, just because he's healthier.

My vote: keep figured CHA; make removing them a toolkitting option.

[Susano]

Back in 1985, I thought Figured Characteristics were one of the coolest things about the system. Having a higher DEX meant you were faster in a way that mattered in combat. Higher STR meant your muscles were tougher and could help you shrug off damage better. A healthier guy (higher CON) has more energy, just because he's healthier.

My vote: keep figured CHA; make removing them a toolkitting option.

Chris, thank you for summing up what I saw trying to get across.

[eternal_sage]

i can see that point, really, but i think that its really not consistant with the other ideas of the system (nothing free, etc). i also personally find that Chars are to expensive for the small amount that they do, and that by seperating them out, i pay for what i want without paying for things i don't. and limited Chars are really messy, and totally silly, imho, because they don't really seem to make as much sense as just spliting things to begin with.

my 2 coppers, at least.

[Chris Goodwin]

i can see that point, really, but i think that its really not consistant with the other ideas of the system (nothing free, etc).

So, the question really becomes: does adding consistency for consistency's sake make the game any better? I vote no.

I would totally be okay with recosting Primary Characteristics in terms of what they provide in Figured Characteristics, but I'd prefer to keep Figured in the system. If they're not in by default, I'd like to see them as a toolkitting option, but I'd really prefer they stay.

[Edsel]

I printed off all of Steve's original posts in all of the 6th Edition threads and spent hours reading them last night and thinking. It is amazing how little I came up with to respond with though. However the opinions in this post are based only on what Steve has posted in message #1 of this thread, I haven't been influenced by what others have posted subsequently since I haven't read them yet. I will try to keep my comments brief since there is a hellava lot to read in these discussions.

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

No, this is too radical of a change.

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.

I concur with this line of reasoning. Do away with 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?

I can't think of anything to add to Steve's comments on this issue.

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

I like Figured Characteristics. To me they make logical sense. Someone with a lot of Strength ought to default to a higher PD and STUN. However I can see how eliminating Figured Characteristics would make the rules easier and not drastically alter things. I don't think I can offer a strong argument for keeping the Figured Characteristics.

Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

If you eliminate Figured Characteristics this becomes unnecessary. If you keep Figured Characteristics then it probably ought to be raised to 2 points per +1 STR.

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

If Figured Characteristics go away then this should as well. If you keep Figured Characteristics then it should stay.

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

No. To me a STR based damage system for hand to hand attacks (and generally muscle-powered attacks) makes too much sense.

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

No (especially if Figured Characteristics go away).

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

No, this would be more trouble that it is worth and would be counter to streamlining the rules.

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

No, for the same reasons given to previous question.

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 generally makes sense. Perhaps you could call it Reason instead of Intelligence.

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

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 think I like the idea of making it a Skill.

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

No.

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

No, keep it as it is.

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

I find the idea of making it a Talent to be appealing.

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

No I like the granularity of keeping them separate. Objects should get PD & ED instead of DEF to keep things uniform.

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

No. Keep is as a Power.

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Emphatically No. This is a hallmark of the system and one of the first things that appealed to me in the old, original Champions game. It is a part of what makes the Hero System distinctive from lesser games.

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

I like the END system, especially for Heroic games. It also has dramatic appeal for almost all genre. It gets dramatic when the Hero starts burning STUN to maintain that heroic effort. It adds to the game.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

No.

[Kdansky]

I thought up quick answers to all posed questions, I might comment on other answers another time, not now. This post is too long anyway.

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

Start at "average" for things everyone has, rather than 0. Makes perfect sense to me. Also, it's less hassle, and makes very low values very defining (which they actually are, because everyone else bought them up).

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

Totally! It's complicated and does not help the game at all. If you get drained to 0, that's it, the stat does not do anything anymore. Also, negative comliness is a disaster rules wise. Stun and body into negatives makes sense though. OTOH one could also define 0-10 body "special/dieing but not dead yet" and same for stun, but I think that works less well.

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?

yesyesyes!!!! Less soft spots! And no: I have no good idea how to fix that without changing all (!) scales (which even I don't want, and I am in favour of change).

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

I will cover your back on this one. Figureds are awful and just a leftover from the past.

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

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

I think Con and body are way too expensive, since +1 resistant def (pd and ed) for 3 is not much more expensive than +1 body, and it's a lot (!) better. I believe if you get hit 2 to 10 times, 1 point of defense should cost about as much as 1 point of "pool" (stun/body). I cannot see anyone buying stun if pd/ed is only twice as expensive (because it has to cover two sides, and theoretically we could add mental into that, but these are rare and low-damage). Let's say all three attacks are as common (I would like to see more Mental things, and I think ECV vs DCV and OCV vs ECV would go quite a way for that, I'll write this down somewhere else), and we assume you want to take 3 hits each to make 1 point of def equal 1 point of pool. If defs cost 1/1/1, then that must give us 9 (!) pool for the same three points. Yes, you are right, I think body should cost about 0.5 per body and stun should cost about 1 per 5 stun.

What do you prefer: 2 stun or 1 pd, 1ed? (definitely defenses for me)
What do you prefer: 4 stun or 1 pd, 1ed? (probably defenses)
What do you prefer: 6 stun or 1 pd, 1ed? (getting interesting here)
What do you prefer: 8 stun or 1 pd, 1ed? (I think I'd take stun now)

Con should be about 1:1 due to defenses being cheaper still, or even 2:3. (1:2 is too cheap, I agree). For 2, I'll buy 1pd 1ed. Same defense against stunning, but I take less damage. Mental Attacks will not stun anyway due to low dice. On the other hand, if con is expensive, we will see a lot more stunning due to high price and low (visible) effect. That might be uncool for beginners, as their characters will be low on con (because they don't see the value) and then have stunned orgies, reducing fun a lot. I'm for 2:3, to make high values possible. You don't get much for it, do you?
PD, only vs getting stunned effect (-1). Really cheap, about correctly priced for defenses. Could be -1.5 Too. Or even -2.

Body currently costs 1, as we take a free stun out of it. Change it to 1 if you uncouple figureds. It's just not worth 2.

If you change Body to 1, that makes converting easier. Same goes for Con if it gets cheaper. And really, it's not worth 2, I'd rather buy limited defenses.

Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

If you decouple figureds, I'm fine with str. It's still extremly highly efficient, but it does not give negative points too (hah, I said it!). If you don't, it's just too good of a deal. If you change the way str adds to damage, this might need looking at again. When in doubt, do something new, we can just play 5ER if we hate it And we can also get used to the new problems, we are used to the current ones

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

Yes, it was weird to begin with. Dex and speed do not add running either

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

Even though I would want to see "add str to KA" changed, I actually see this working out nicely. If only adding up HA + Martial DC + STR + Weapon + Maneuver + Combat levels wasn't so chaotic! Do something about that!

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

If you drop Speed out, make it 2, or else combat levels rise in relative cost efficiency. Buy the way that's actually *easier* to convert, as the combined cost of speed and dex will not change.

Q: Should DEX be split into two or more Characteristics?
Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?

Since we assume disconnecting figureds, I can live with it. Limited DEX (only cv / no cv adjustment) is now an option. We tried the CV approach once, but that wasn't so interesting. Dex became lighting reflexes for many characters.

Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

I like the current definition, because it is NOT "intelligent". If I want to play an intelligent character, well, I just play myself. I can't play more intelligent than I am. If I am stupid, I take a limitation ("Stupid") and then play the idiot. Int has never worked for me at all. I am against this change.

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

Since I see INT more as PER than PER as INT, why not rename INT to PER and don't have an INT stat? That would suit me a lot better. Converting it also makes sense. I don't like the Skill, that's like DnDs Spot Check. Everyone can spot, and you cannot "learn" that (mostly). Or else I want to go to Eye-School and get rid of my glasses. Skill does not fly with me, honestly, it just IS not a skill.

Q: Should the cost of EGO be reduced to 1 Character Point per point?
Q: Should ECV be removed as something that’s factored from EGO?

Why not make EGO cheap (1 or 0.5) and only figure D-ECV off it? O-ECV has to be bought separately (with specialiced levels, I would say). Everyone has decent willstrength (or can have) and mentalists don't get off easy (currently ECV is nearly auto-hit).

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Perk makes sense to me. I hate that statistic.

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

Nooooo! That makes for incredibly simple characters without weaknesses.

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

Naaah, not really necessary. It's rare enough anyway. And if Ego was only 1 point for defense, people will have higher resistances (currently they are lacking I think).

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Speed is complicated
Speed is very complicated
Speed is one of the most defining hero elements and it's interesting. Keep!

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

NO! It's one of the most interesting things in the system. I would actually favour easier to manage long-term END rules, so I can use them easily.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

I am still for the "growth/shrink" table with all variants (advantages and disadvantages) and then just writing that down in the power list, as it's way too complicated to simulate with a single stat. Also, if you start at 10, you can go up a lot but not down a lot. That's impractical. Cost is also very chaotic.

[Toadmaster]

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

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?

The reason you are seeing this reaction is because we are talking about certain things that are the essence of the HERO system. Figured characteristics and the speed chart are pretty much unique to HERO. It would be like adding classes or using a d20 in place of 3d6. It might make a good game but it would not be HERO anymore. There are more similarities than differances between HERO and GURPS, the current characteristics and speed are two critical differences that give the two games their personality.



Yes it is true that in play figured characteristics don't make much difference between coupled to primary or seperately purchased as secondary characteristics, but figured characteristics are very much are a part of character creation, design and concept. It has nothing to do with point costs, "free" stats (which they are not since you are paying more for certain primary stats do to their impact in figured).

Figured characteristics are a safety valve or cheat sheet. They help you create an "average" tough guy, long distance runner or weakling. Now certainly you can adjust the figured characteristics and most people do some tinkering here as most people are not creating "average" characters. They help ensure that the strong character with low stun was intended to be a tough guy with a glass jaw instead of a damn I forgot to buy a bunch of stun.

Say I build a brick, high Str, Con & Body but figured characteristics become secondary characteristics, how should these high primary stats fit with the secondary? Is 30 stun alot? How much endurance do I need?

Now compare this to figured characteristics, I have a Character with 30 Str, 20 Con and 18 Body. Taking these stats I now have a ballpark of what my Stun, End, Rec, PD etc should and I can adjust for an even tougher or perhaps weaker concept.

I know just semantics right? No its not this is where character concept comes in, again lets take that 30, 20, 18 character described above.

What is the concept, is this just a big strong tough "normal" human?

If so then the figured characteristics can probably remain pretty close to what they are, but what if instead of the typical big strong fantasy fighter I'm building Steve Austen the 6 million dollar man? Well we know he is pretty healthy because he survived a pretty hellacious plane crash, so the Con and Body figured stats should probably stay pretty close to what the base figured stats, but the Str comes from mechanical replacements (bought as Characteristics instead of powers because they are basically an integral part of him) so maybe some of the figured Characteristics based on Str should be lowered a bit, since we were really aiming at lifting and damage from the bionics not a huge mass of muscle and the associated benefits of extra protection that muscle mass brings.

Lets take a third example what if I have designed a huminoid lizardman character, he may be big and healthy like my Conan clone in the first example but instead of flesh and bone he has a tough scaly hide, not quite enough to call it armor but quite a bit tougher than the typical human "squishy" so I want to buy up his Stun and PD / ED even higher, but End and Recovery can stay the same, he his really tough but his cardio vascular system is basically "human".

Without figured characteristics how do you know what the baseline is?

[Enforcer84]

Do you usually leave them at the figured values?

Very often yes, is this wrong?

[nexus]

Yes. Not just yes, but hell yes. In fact, consider this to be the Meg-Ryan-in-the-diner of yes.

Grrr. You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours.

I think it's an interesting idea but how will Half and Full moves be calculated or would that concept be ditched?

[Chris Goodwin]

I think it's an interesting idea but how will Half and Full moves be calculated or would that concept be ditched?

Half moves might be one of the sacred cows it's time to slay. Though we can keep the notion that performing a combat action ends your Phase; once you've done something, you're done. Maybe moving more than half your "per Phase" movement gives you a combat penalty, but you can still do it.