Characteristics Issues

[Spudboy]

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

Eh...not sure about this. Leaning towards No.

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

No

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?

No

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

YES

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

Yes- CON should be 1 pt.

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

Yes- I'd estimate 450 for starting Champions characters

Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

No

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

No

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

That's a tough one. I'd like to see some playtesting where it's done at 2pts per pt of DEX

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

I like COM, but I understand your reasoning. Maybe making COM more useful and making it 1 pt per point? COM rolls to add to seduction or persuasion? Just a thought....

[incrdbil]

Just a thought--without figured characteristics, REC may cost too much at two points per 1 to bring it up to even minimal combat levels. How about 1/1 REC?

[steamteck]

You had only made one post on this thread at the time I made the comment you were originally responding to, and in that post you hadn't said much on this topic.

I can't be blamed for not taking future posts of yours into account.

Ditto.

[caris]

Ok, pretty much everything here does not interest me in the least. I don't have a need for any of the changes, but could pretty much ignore the truly annoying ones except one.

Dropping SPD/Speed chart is a deal breaker for me. The Speed chart is one of the few ways in any RPG system where I have truly felt that I as a player was able to make truly significantly meaningful tactical decisions that weren't just manipulating bonuses to my roll to hit or picking out how much damage I did.

[Fedifensor]

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

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

This, by itself, would ensure that I skip 6E. As it is, I don't believe CON with the -1/2 No Figured Characteristics limitation is worth the points. Leaving it at 2 CP per point without figured characteristics means that defenses like PD and ED are hugely undervalued. Active Point limits aside, it's more efficient to buy up PD and ED (which means you take less STUN) than to buy up CON (which limits how much STUN you can take before being stunned).

Really, CON is the lost stat in HERO. In other games, it determines "hit points", resistance to debilitating status effects (poison, disease, etc), long-term endurance, and much more. Almost all of that is handled in HERO by END and STUN. Instead of dropping CON down to a simple resistance to being stunned while leaving the cost the same, it needs to do more.

[vincemcd]

Wow, I'm glad I started this post in Notepad, because it's gotten long....

Starting with a 0 score in every Characteristic gives a much more flexible "starting point." Obviously, characters would be based on more points to compensate. Packaage Deals, such as "Normal Human," can be then used to specify a typical starting value and the corresponding costs. This has the side-effect of making Multiform, Summon, and similar powers more expensive, but that can probably also be compensated for somehow - perhaps a "minimum effect" for a certain cost, then 1:5 for additioanl CPs desired.

If negative characteristics are kept, they need to be explained better. Other than STR, STUN, and BODY, negative characteristics never made much sense to me, and even negative STR isn't all that useful.

Decoupling figured stats makes sense to me. Nothing should be "free" to such a degree that it already is. Include "suggested" levels for what are currently Figured Characteristics, based off the corresponding Primary Characteristics, but don't make it something that everyone "gets" unless they "sell it back." The cost of certain "Figured" Characteristics may need to go down, but the Primary Characteristics seem to be costed right, excepting the other change I suggest below. Said guidelines can help the player in building, and the GM in knowing when to ask "Are you sure you want a STR and CON that high with that little STUN?"

I would't mind seeing the COM stat go, in favor of the Beautiful/Handsome and Ugly talents which would actually do something. It should be possible to buy multiple levels in any of these talents - and perhaps it may make sense to have both, with certain Limitations on one or both. (Adorable Catgirl: Beautiful x3, only to humans (very common, -0); Ugly, only to Ogres (uncommon, -1/2)) "Unattractive" might become a Disadvantage, with penalties inverse of Beautiful/Handsome but none of the benefits of Ugly.

I think mixing PD and ED into a single DEF stat is a good idea. If you need to have someone who's notably more resistant to energy damage, add it as DEF with a Limitation - probably a -1 Limitation to arrive at the same end. If there are enough "sample" characters in the main rulebook that show off this kind of a split, it won't seem quite so unusual to someone whose first taste of HERO doesn't separate the two kinds of defense.

I feel that CV should be moved into a Skill or set of Skills. CV is simply too effective to be as tightly coupled to DEX as it is, and "Combat Levels" never really made a whole lot of sense to me. DEX could then be dropped in cost to 2:1. Having CV as a set of Skills allows DEX to have some impact on combat capability without being overwhelming; this might include "HTH Combat" and "Ranged Combat" skills, with the possibility of using a "Power Skill" roll in the place of these, especially for Multipowers or Elemental Controls that contain both ranged and melee Powers. I've seen this split up, for instance, as "HTH Attack" and "HTH Defense," but I'm not too fond of this split-up. This also helps to avoid "DEX inflation," since it becomes much more cost-effective to up the skill than to up DEX. Making CV into a skill also sidesteps the problem with ECV, since you might use a "Mental Combat" skill based off EGO, and keeps mentalists on the same scale of point-spending as their more physical counterparts.

It might also be worth eliminating REC as a separate stat, letting CON fit its place. This would better justify CON's 2-for-1 cost. You want recovery without being harder to stun, or the other way around? Limited CON. Such concepts are perfectly valid, though I don't think are very common.

I'd really like to see all of the primary characteristics cost the same amount. At the same time, I realize how difficult this would be to balance.

I feel that Perception should still be tied to INT, but should probably be a skill.

I see mixed reactions on adding Mental Defense as its own stat. Perhaps make this a campaign-specific option.

Removing END should probably be an option, as should folding it into STUN. I think END-tracking makes perfect sense for superheroic campaigns, and many (but not all) heroic campaigns.

The Speed Chart, while it's a core of HERO, gives me headaches until I get used to it again after not playing HERO for a while. I think it's a good thing to keep, but it could use some work. Two things in particular don't make sense, and could do with some tweaking:
- Why does Mr. Zoom (SPD 6) have to burn three times as much END than Super Average Guy (SPD 2) to keep their equivalently-costed Force Field powers active for the same period? Perhaps Persistent powers need to have a cost-per-Turn, rather than a cost-per-Phase.
- How come Mr. Zoom only has to pay a third of what Super Average Guy for Flight to end up with the equivalent speed, particularly out-of-combat? Similarly, perhaps movement Powers need to be bought on a per-Turn basis, with their per-Phase movement rate determined from that and their actual speed.

Making a "size chart" and better detailing what benefits size entail, whether being "larger" or "smaller," is full of win. Size is likely one characteristic which should be expressed as positive or negative, with 0 as "human average."

I'm also in favor of putting BODY on the same scale as STUN, an opinion I don't expect to be popular. This has the obvious side-effect of needing to rework "killing damage" entirely, though I can't say this is a bad thing. It would make it much easier to compare a "normal" attack to a "killing" attack, and might make it easier to either bring the "stun lottery" under control or to get rid of it altogether.

[buzz]

I think END-tracking makes perfect sense for superheroic campaigns, and many (but not all) heroic campaigns.

Funny, I'd say the opposite.

Honestly, I'd love to see END go away. Have being exhausted be an exception rather than the rule. I.e., let "exhausted" be a condition that can be inflicted upon a PC, be it by themselves (via a Limitation) or by an NPC or environmental effect.

[ghost-angel]

I'm pretty indifferent to changing Characteristics. I think there are vices and virtues to Negative Characteristics, but I do agree that STR0 means No Lifting, it's weird that -STR still lets you have that ability.

The only loss I would mourn as a Primary Characteristic is Comliness. Sure - we haven't defined a lot of Game Mechanics for it, now we have an opportunity to look at it. What does it add? I think it adds a lot of flavor to the system, it's one of those little quircks that tells me Hero isn't just trying to simulate Combat Effects.

I really like COM, and would like to see it stick around. If it becomes a Perk I'll just cry softly for a while.

As for Figured, I'm all for just decoupling. Remove the math step, add some more points to the Base Character and help bring them to the front. Make them Secondary Characteristics and we'll have more ability to customize a character exactly as we want them.

Looking at Characteristic Costs... Base it on what/how much it provides.
STR - 1pt. (eh, I like 2pts but it's legact and would honestly mess up more than it fixes)
DEX - gets you OCV/DCV, Initiative, DEX Skills - 3pts/lvl
CON - gets you Stunning 1pt/lvl
BODY - gets you your life level 1pt/lvl
INT - gets you PER (I'm against separating the two) and INT Skills 2pts/lvl
EGO - gets you ECV, Mental Effects Resistance - 2pts/lvl
PRE - gets you PRE Skills, PRE Attack Resistance - 2pts/lvl
COM - I like it OK! *sniff* 1pt/lvl

Secondary Characteristics - despite Steve's demonstration, I think we should look at the costs here too.
SPD - 10pts/lvl (it's important!)
PD/ED - 1pt/lvl (no change)
STUN - Keeps you in the fight 1pt/lvl (or if you want to encourage Dramatic Realism 1/2pt/lvl)
REC - Stun,END,BODY regeneration 2pts/lvl
END - 1/2pt/lvl (Make it cheap encourage END)

Just my .02 at the Characteristics debate.

[Hugh Neilson]

If figured characteristics go away:

STR only provides lift and Hand-to-hand damage. (Assuming Leap is divorced from STR.)

DEX only provides CV, fodder for DEX-based Skills, and initiative.

CON only provides STUN resistance.

BODY only provides hit points.

In that case, CON and BODY absolutely should be folded together.

I think I've posted this, but I think that PD and ED should be folded into DEF. If we're doing all this other stuff.

COM is being eliminated.

As it is, INT only provides PER as well as fodder for INT-based Skills. There have been proposals floated to remove it or replace it with PER.

There have been proposals to divorce CV from DEX, which means one of DEX's functions goes away.

There have been proposals to divorce Skills from Characteristics entirely, which removes one of INT's two functions and one of DEX"s remaining two. We would then replace INT with PER and replace DEX with Initiative.

PRE's purpose so far is Presence Attacks, defense against PRE Attacks, and PRE-based Skills. Divorcing Skills from Characteristics removes one of those things, and defense against PRE attacks can be handled by EGO. Because we need something for it to do...

We could, if we wanted, divorce hand-to-hand damage from STR (because if it doesn't make sense for a character with high STR to be extra tough automatically, why does it automatically make sense for a guy who can lift a lot to hit harder? And we have a Power to represent hitting harder), and it would then make sense to remove Presence Attacks from PRE; Presence Attack could easily turn into a Power as well. So we've eliminated PRE and turned STR into Lift.

That leaves us with:

LIFT
INIative
BODY
PER
EGO
nDEF
SPD
REC
END
STUN
CV
ECV


Now, am I going to far with "divorce X from Y"? It depends. If we're taking some things out because they don't make sense, why draw a line? Any line we draw is arbitrary. So why not take out everything from everything?

I think this is an end of the spectrum to explore. If linking things is bad, de-link them. But don't go half way by saying "Not all strong people are tough (PD), hard to knock out (STUN) or have staying power (REC)" while leaving all agile people as great HTH and ranged combatants (OCV and DCV), or even everyone who's good at avoiding being hit (DCV) also good at hitting (OCV).

I agree with Chris - any line is arbitrary. In the absence of a strong reason to change the arbitrary line, leave it where it is.

I would also like to see the impact of adding enough starting points to that Brick character on his colleagues, including the Mentalist with NCM and the Energy Projector. Presently, the system balances pretty well. Show me the elimination of Figured will, if not improve balance, at least not jeopardize it!

[Chris Goodwin]

I think the problems we've been seeing over the years with Figured Characteristics have come from the fact that they're primarily provided by STR and CON, neither of which are costed appropriately for what they provide. The reason for the rule about only being able to buy one down is a direct result of that; otherwise everyone would buy up their physical stats and buy down the figured ones because, hey, free points.

If you make the Primary Characteristics cost appropriately for what they provide in Figured Characteristics, essentially to the point that buying the Primary Characteristics and buying down the Figured Characteristics doesn't bring you ahead in terms of points, then they're no longer a problem.

Is it better to do away with Figured Characteristics completely or to fix the costs so that you get what you pay for and pay for what you get? If we do away with them, we're changing the costs of everything anyway. Why not minimize the overall changes to the system?

[GloryFox]

Posted by Ghost Angel
The only loss I would mourn as a Primary Characteristic is Comliness. Sure - we haven't defined a lot of Game Mechanics for it, now we have an opportunity to look at it. What does it add? I think it adds a lot of flavor to the system, it's one of those little quircks that tells me Hero isn't just trying to simulate Combat Effects.

I would add PRE to that list as well. We have had some great encounters with the high COM low PRE NPC's. You know the beautiful, intelligent, always stuck up girl behind the counter type scenario's. The only change I would not mind is a x1 cost instead of .5, but that can be a house rule over an edition breaking changing rule. COM is flavor important please don't change it to a GURPS style talent or advantage.

[TSandman]

Whew... just read the whole 7 pages of the thread...

First of all, as I've said somewhere else, I'm a false-newbie... meaning I've played Champion some 15+ years back and only got into HERO some months ago. The only thing I was remembering about my old games was Point Buy, Stun, Body, OCV/DCV and the SPD Chart, you might guess what are some features I think are icons of HERO.

Right now, I'm still reading 5er (just began the Combat part) but got through Sidekick completely. I will give my opinion as a Newbie comming from many other gaming systems (tho mainly D20/WoD)

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

If there are sample "average Joe" character for newbies to base their ideas on, I see no real problems with this. Of course, like you said, there must be some way to "compensate" for having to buy it all (as in more points).

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

Personally, if there are Negative Characteristics, there should be for all of them. But then, I still wonder if I have STR 0, why am I able to do something that need strength??? If I have DEX 0, Am I not literally a fumbling idiot barely able to coordinate mind with mouth? If you need to spread STR to negative just to represent Shrunk characters, small animals and the like, maybe the whole STR scale is just not up to snuff...

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 agree with those, but only because there are Special Events going on when you reach 0 and one or two other further down. If you'd die at BODY 0, then -10 BODY wouldn't be needed. Since it's not the case and you start bleeding/dying instead and cannot continue unaided, it is worth keeping.

Maybe some similar problems could happen at -10 STR, -10 DEX or -10 INT, I don't know.. but would be the only way I personally would justify keeping any 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 have yet to see systems with more than 5 levels in statistics not having breakpoints. (ok, maybe there are, but there are not legions). Short of using percentage for dice rolling, you need to fit a large range of statistics under a single roll, usually meaning that it's CHAR/x for the roll or as a bonus to a roll. Rolemaster had it, D20 has it, others have it. those who don't have a small range of stats in the 0-5 neigborhood (ok, Ars Magika 4th ed had -5/+5)

Just thought of something that could do the trick... or at least help a bit along the way: the Higher stat could win ties in contested rolls by default.

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

They could go away or stay.. I mean I'm not needing them to breath, but it's kinda logical to see that if you're strong (high STR) and have high stamina (CON) that you can take more punishment (STUN) and recover from it faster. If they go away as figured statistics, there should be some explanation on how normally those are affected by other stats. (ie: normally a high CON would indicate also a high STUN, but not necessarily) Else, it would lead - IMHO - to too many illogical built for newbies/powergamers (they do not understand the logic or don't care)

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

If some characteristic have less effect on gameplay, you would be hard pressed to suggest a high cost for them... If they don't, don't change it

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

Well, I say yes... but with "how much" being dependent on the game (more for SuperHeroic, less for Dark and Gritty) It's simply the fact that you have to buy more statistics without more points, you are left with less points to build the rest. Ergo, every player will think that they'll be short changed and have underpowered character compared to before,

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

Leaping shouldn't be solely based on STR if it's based on it at all. Elephants are strong but cannot jump, crickets aren't but jumps very far (compared to their body length)

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

My thinking is that I wouldn't mind being punched by Mini-Me but would avoid Rambo's fist at all cost. If you are stronger, you can use heavier tools/weapons more effectively or simply impart it with more energy than others could. Unless you think that a baseball bat in the hands of a 15 year old kid hurts as much as one in the hands of a major league player... (that's my rational at least...)

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

Urk!

Now that would be quirky! at least for me and the other I play with

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

Normally, for most people, being good at hand/eye coordination generally mean that they know how to aim something reasonably well, be it a fist or a gun. or be able to get their head out of the way of a fist. For me, it should at least be tied with it, but maybe not wholly based on it?

Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

Maybe you should differentiate thinking from knowing?

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

Many of those stupid people that are keen observers mostly lacks knowledge or exposure to experiences. Perception for me does not mean to perceive quickly, but only to perceive, to be aware of your environment. Most people are more aware of things they understand than those they don't (I doubt that Natives of north america paid real attention to the european's guns before having seen what it could do). To that end, knowing things and being able to think things to logical conclusion should help Perception. As someone said, Einstein was absent minded, and there are some stupid but quick thinking people...

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

If EGO is to the mind what DEX is to the body, then the logic of DEX should follow the one of EGO: If DEX doesn't influence CV, EGO shouldn't influence ECV. if DEX does, then so should EGO.

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

I wouldn't mind.

A simple perk saying how good you look relative to your race should do the trick. As some race are better looking than others for humans (Cats vs Toads), GMs could rate each races preferences if they like, even going to having a matrix of "perception" for each races. But the basic idea is that you are rated "for your race", the rest is fluff unless the GMs/players absolutely want it.

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

That's be Great! As mentioned, players could just specify that they are more susceptible to Energy or Physical attack...

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

Why not? It would keep the whole concept of Defence together... lets say: Physical Defence (defending the integrity of the character's body) and Mental Defence (defending the integrity of the thoughts, personality, etc)

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

It's one of the Selling point I used to hook some friends!

For me, it's a much better way than to say "you each have 1 attack/round, fighters gets more, etc" If you run a game of "Normals", you basically go in DEX order, if you have many with more attacks, it evenly spreads them, making things like having three attacks back to back while others have one each turn things of the past (which was something I had problems with in other systems, even when you said "everyone get their first attack, then those with mutliple attacks get their others" you could end up with characters each having 1 attack and one getting a "bonus 2" attack at the end...)

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

It's pretty much Plug'N'Play right now... Don't like it? forget it!. Like it? Use it! Really simple already.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

Could be interresting, but for some games where you have verrra verra small buggers, what would you do? Negative Size???

Or you could have Growth as multiplyer and Shrink as divisor... ex: Human is 1, Ogre is 2, Halfling is 1/2.

Isn't kinda what those powers are right now?

[Shaft]

Some short points:

I like figured characteristics because it appeals to the "builder/munchkin" in me. I like seeing the return that magic numbers give and figured characterisitics is part of the appeal. But simplifying the formulas might make them less offensive to those who don't like them.

I am in favour of removing COM as a stat and replacing it with talents.

I am in favour of dropping BODY and having CON serve this purpose. I'm also in favour of reducing CON to x1.

I am in favour of renaming EGO to WILLpower, and reducing the cost to 1, and having it handle the defensive elements of PRE attacks and be the statistic used to resist mental attacks.

Combine PD & ED into DEFense. ED isn't used enough in Heroic games. Individual PD & ED can be bought up as a defensive power or talent.

I think a new figured characteristic called EGO or MIND should be created and based on the average of INT, WILL and PRE. PRE would be used solely to influence people. This stat would be the base for ECV- and would have the same base cost as DEX (since the three mental attributes each cost 1 pt/pt, raising the EGO attribute by 1 pt effectively costs 3 pts, though it can be done with a combination of INT, EGO and PRE).

I would also be in favour of making STUN based on the average of STR, CON & WILL and adding 10 to this total to give an "average" person a STUN of 25.

PERception should be an Everyman skill with a base 11-.

The cost of attributes in Heroic and Superheroic games should double after 15 (ie, Norm char max should be 15, but don't call it normal characteristic maxima since that confuses things). However, primary attributes exceeding 25 should be considered Superhuman and care should taken to specify that Attributes between 15 and 25 are upper human level, not superhuman.

The SPD chart should be kept, but go from 1 to 6, with 2 being average, 3 being trained and 5 being the upper level of human. I believe combining speeds in this range with two weapon fighting skills and rapid attack skills serve the needs of making fast characters. Superhuman characters needing speeds in excess of 6 can do so, but they start doubling up on the SPD chart. A SPD chart based on 6 allows for a neater division of the 60 second minute.

[TSandman]

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

Seems to me quite a bit like World of Darkness...

Physical, Mental and Social, each having Power, Finess and Resistance, for a total of 9 stats...

Much too alike for me, would seems like a ripoff for wayyy for too many

[Shaft]

Based on what I said above, the characteristics would look like this:

STR x1
DEX x3
CON x1
INT x1
WILL x1
PRE x1

***

DEF ([STR + CON]/10) -> cost x1. double after 5. Above 10, it's "superhuman"
REC (Base DEF x 2) -> cost x2. double after 5. Above 10, it's "superhuman"
SPD (DEX/10 +1 round down) -> cost x10. double after 3. Above 5, it's "superhuman"
END (STR + [CON x 2]) -> cost x1. Never double. Above 50, it's "superhuman"
EGO ([INT + WILL + PRE]/3) -> cost x3. double after 15. Above 25, it's "superhuman"
STUN ([STR + CON + WILL]/3) + 10 -> cost x1. Never Double. Above 50, it's "superhuman"

***

OCV/DCV = DEX /3
ECV = EGO/3