Which is Better, Figured Characteristics or No Figured Characteristics?

[Hugh Neilson]

23 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Other than just dumping END Batteries entirely, it probably would require a bit of a look at the pricing for the power. 

 

I agree with Steve Long's call that END batteries' END is worth more than straight END as it does not disappear on being KOd, and REC is limited.  Whether the ratios are right is another question.

 

23 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

But 5 END for 1 point means that you throw those extra 3 points at the end of build and get +15 END, it really is just too inexpensive.  The low, low, low cost of END has trivialized it; everyone can have enormous END for virtually no points.

 

So why doesn't everyone have enormous END? I still see plenty of Reduced END and few characters with massive END.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

So why doesn't everyone have enormous END?

 

Habit, I suspect.  For 5 points you can have 45 END.  And at 1 point per REC, its dirt cheap too.  6 points gives you 10 REC.  Between them you can just ignore the use of END in a fight effectively, and spent about as much as 2d6 of a blast.

[unclevlad]

14 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Habit, I suspect.  For 5 points you can have 45 END.  And at 1 point per REC, its dirt cheap too.  6 points gives you 10 REC.  Between them you can just ignore the use of END in a fight effectively, and spent about as much as 2d6 of a blast.

 

That depends on SPD, how much END you're using per phase, and how many turns you want to be able to operate without needing to spend a phase recovering.  The latter implies considering how long you should be able to stay in combat continuously.  

 

Also...5 points for 45 END can be done, in a 5E END Reserve...but not in 6E, or at least not with some fairly sizable limitations.  6 points for 10 REC can't be done without limitations.  So how are you building these? 

[Hugh Neilson]

14 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Habit, I suspect.  For 5 points you can have 45 END.  And at 1 point per REC, its dirt cheap too.  6 points gives you 10 REC.  Between them you can just ignore the use of END in a fight effectively, and spent about as much as 2d6 of a blast.

 

45 END and 10 REC seem light for Supers and high for Heroic, but not unreasonable for a very physically fit character.  How much END will that character spend?  IIRC, STR is 1/5 in Heroic, so that very fit character likely spends 4 per phase, and might have a 3 or 4 SPD. Tack on an average of 1 END per phase for movement and he's spending 15 - 20 END per turn. He can last a long time.

 

When did you last read about Conan getting too tired to go on because combat dragged out for a whole MINUTE?

 

For that same "dirt cheap" cost, though, he could make his STR 0 END with a point left over.  Let's put that in REC.  He spends 4 END per turn and recovers 5.

 

Now, which one will be better off when he recovers from -3 STUN?

 

8 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

That depends on SPD, how much END you're using per phase, and how many turns you want to be able to operate without needing to spend a phase recovering.  The latter implies considering how long you should be able to stay in combat continuously.  

 

Also...5 points for 45 END can be done, in a 5E END Reserve...but not in 6E, or at least not with some fairly sizable limitations.  6 points for 10 REC can't be done without limitations.  So how are you building these? 

 

I think you missed CRT's point - he's paying for extra END and REC on top of the base.  20 base END +5 CP for +25 END = 45.  4 base REC + 6 CP for +10REC = 10 REC.

When we move to Supers, 6 END a phase for a 60 AP attack plus 2-3 END for movement with a 5-6 SPD burns through 45 END fast. At an average of, say, 8 END per phase and a 5 SPD, he's out of steam half way through the second turn.  He'll need to invest, say, 10 CP in END (now he has 70) and maybe build that REC up to 15 (so 11 points). Now he can at least make it through 2 turns, at a cost of 21 points.

 

He could instead have half END on that attack (so 15 points, assuming no limitations) spend 4 on END (40) but he only has 2 left for REC of 6.  Spending 5 END a phase, he'll almost make it through 2 turns.

 

When END cost 1/2 points and REC cost 2 points?  Reduced END was a no-brainer if your base Figured END and REC weren't enough.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I was referring to heroic battles, Superheroes tend to buy more END and REC than heroic characters.

 

As for Conan, he's written in a style that ignores ordinary human complaints, so if you want that kind of campaign you can have it by ignoring END and impairing wounds and so on.  I'll never buy into the argument that heroic characters should never get tired, and the entire point of END is to act as a limiter to what you can do -- even Superheros in comics get tired and have to rest in many, many stories.  END is a key component of the Hero system which by slashing the cost so deeply effectively negates its significance in the game.

[unclevlad]

OK, yeah, I wasn't thinking about it as being from 6E base.  But CRT conceded the bigger point...heroic levels.  Low SPD, low dice, relatively speaking...even, often, Charges.  Hugh made the point i was gonna get to.  40 END a turn is not at all hard...much less, if you start looking at higher SPD...for supers.  

 

12 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

As for Conan, he's written in a style that ignores ordinary human complaints, so if you want that kind of campaign you can have it by ignoring END and impairing wounds and so on.  I'll never buy into the argument that heroic characters should never get tired, and the entire point of END is to act as a limiter to what you can do -- even Superheros in comics get tired and have to rest in many, many stories.  END is a key component of the Hero system which by slashing the cost so deeply effectively negates its significance in the game.

 

So your answer for Conan is, blow off the rules?  I'll gleefully accept blowing off wound impairment...that's fitting for something like noir, but not high heroic.  But why jump to "ignore END" when there's a huge middle ground?

 

Heroics should get tired...at some point.  Supers should get tired.  WHEN?  After how long?  

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

So your answer for Conan is, blow off the rules?  I'll gleefully accept blowing off wound impairment...that's fitting for something like noir, but not high heroic.  But why jump to "ignore END" when there's a huge middle ground?

 

Because Conan never gets tired.  His opponents never get tired.  The monsters never get tired.  NOBODY ever gets tired in the Conan stories.  Hence: END is not a component in that setting.  Lord of the Rings, people do get tired, but some are evidently tireless (Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas running for a week straight to catch the Orcs).  END exists in that setting, but some either have reduced END cost on running and STR, or enormous END and REC. 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

@Christopher R Taylor, I believe Conan now and again has gotten tired. If anything he’s the poster child for burn Stun for END. And or a small END Reserve that has a limited REC. Some of his END is coming from his force of Will.

 

At least in his original stories. You can probably make the case for the non REH stories though.

Edited August 4, 2023 by Ninja-Bear

[Christopher R Taylor]

I don't recall that in any of the stories, but its possible.  However, I'm starting from the assertion Hugh gave and showing how it is not a valid argument for making END cost too little.  I mean you can't have it both ways, you cannot both argue that its not too cheap because people don't buy tons of END, and yet perfectly fine to buy tons of END because look, Conan!

[unclevlad]

1 minute ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I don't recall that in any of the stories, but its possible.  However, I'm starting from the assertion Hugh gave and showing how it is not a valid argument for making END cost too little.  I mean you can't have it both ways, you cannot both argue that its not too cheap because people don't buy tons of END, and yet perfectly fine to buy tons of END because look, Conan!

 

END doesn't cost too little when talking about the system generally.  That's where I think the core disconnect is.  Try, as Hugh noted, buying enough END and REC, in 6E, to support 12 DC attacks with a 6 SPD, with at least intermittent movement.  AND last for *at least* 1 minute going all out.  If you're only going to consider 3 SPD and small attacks, well, sure, different story...but that doesn't validate your argument.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I mean, the argument that END is not too cheap by far is an argument that END was insanely overpriced in 5th edition, which I doubt anyone would attempt.

[unclevlad]

Oh?  Hugh already did, by pointing out that buying 1/2 END was a no-brainer in 5E, because buying additional END and REC past figured, *was too expensive.*  I'll even add...at SPD 6 and higher, odds are, you'll still need to buy up REC, even WITH 1/2 END on some things.  Or you run a hybrid END setup, using a big END Reserve and only buying up the REC to deal with STUN.

 

Again, my take is, you're only thinking heroic.  10 END per phase is quite plausible in 5E...attack, movement, and defense.  How high a CON do you intend to buy?  Say, 25?  That's only 50 END.  You're tapped after a full turn, assuming only a 5 SPD.  (Note that I do include defenses, because Force Field is cheaper than more defenses + damage resistance...and can be slid into a natural, movement/attack/FF EC.)

 

Speaking of STUN...the argument about low SPD and low damage applies here too.  For supers, you're much more likely to be hit multiple times, and take more STUN per.  Figured characteristics probably won't even be *close* to enough.  I'll grant:  I build to urban fantasy/supers novels standards, NOT comics standards.  Get knocked out in comics, your opponents leave you alone.  In UF/supers novels, it often gets you DEAD.  Sure, this principally happens to ancillary characters in a scene, not to main characters...but rather than saying "well the world isn't lethal," I say the world is lethal...the heroes that live through it are tougher.  To me, the grossly distorted view is the classic comics view...yeah, it's perfectly fine that Batman's opponents snatch him, or Robin, a half dozen times a year, and they get out of it unscathed *every time.*  Well, except once, of course.  That's Stupid Villain Building.

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I mean, the argument that END is not too cheap by far is an argument that END was insanely overpriced in 5th edition, which I doubt anyone would attempt.

 

8 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

Oh?  Hugh already did, by pointing out that buying 1/2 END was a no-brainer in 5E, because buying additional END and REC past figured, *was too expensive.* 

 

BINGO!  Figured characteristics were overpriced in 5e and that contributed greatly to STR and CON inflation.  Was your experience different?  Did you see a lot of characters (say a third or a quarter) making significant investments in STUN, END and REC?  I didn't!

 

8 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 I'll even add...at SPD 6 and higher, odds are, you'll still need to buy up REC, even WITH 1/2 END on some things.  Or you run a hybrid END setup, using a big END Reserve and only buying up the REC to deal with STUN.

 

In a Supers game, I rarely if ever saw under 13 STR and 23 CON, so 8 REC. And I did see Blasters with that 8 REC, Force Fields, Flight and 12 DC attacks. They virtually all had Reduced END on some or all of those abilities.

 

If you wanted more END and REC, +10 CON (20 points) got 20 END (10 points) + 2 REC (4 points) +2 ED (reduce Force Field to compensate; 2 points) and +5 STUN (sell it back if you don't need more STUN), so it was marginally cheaper to be harder to stun.

 

But CRT is looking at Heroic.

 

If END was such a massive limiter in 5e and prior editions, what motivated creating the Long-Term END rules?

 

But I will suggest that 45 END and 10 REC looks like "very high physical stats character". Enforce some campaign limits.  Or, if you don't, I'd expect that burly Warrior to have at least a 23-25 STR and some extra Running.  Tack on a 4 SPD and he's spending 24 END a turn (assuming half moves on average).  He'll make it into Turn 3 - so a bit over 30 seconds of intense combat.

 

Or, for the 11 points spent, use 6 to make STR half END, 4 for REC 8 and 1 for 25 END.  Now he spends about 12 END per turn and lasts well into the fourth turn.  Even with 6e pricing, that Heroic character is better off with reduced END.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

But I will suggest that 45 END and 10 REC looks like "very high physical stats character". Enforce some campaign limits.

 

or...  END is too inexpensive.

[Hugh Neilson]

32 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

or...  END is too inexpensive.

 

For the same cost, the character can have 21 STR.  Is STR too inexpensive?  That same 11 points would boost him to 8 PD, 7 ED - are defenses too inexpensive?

 

Or it would buy 1/2 END on STR 25, also highly effective in reducing the impact of END on his staying power.  Is reduced END too inexpensive?

 

Let's look to your pricing.  He likely already has 20 CON, so 40 END and 6 REC, and he saved 5 on STUN.  That cost an extra 10 points since you would raise the price of CON to 2 points (but other characters also have to pay for higher CON unless they want to be frequently Stunned).  So he has paid an extra 5 points after the savings on STUN.  For 2 points, he gets +6 END, and 4 more buys +10 REC.  That's one more point cost than the model you describe as "too inexpensive".

[Duke Bushido]

To briefly answer OP's question (and hopedully not derail the interesting discussion going on), I always dound the Figureds to give a hint at "how this universe works," so to speak:  the foundation of this is that; this and this contribute to that.  This is derived partly from this, and partly from those.  A person with a lot of this and rhis will just naturally have more od that, and a character without much of this or that must train hard (or spend points) to make up for a natural shortxoming in that right there."

 

Granted, I never understood how having a proper adventurer's robust constitution made you more resistant to electric shock, but it didn't matter; there it was in the math: a glimpse into the mechanics of this imaginary realm, and into the minds of the designers. 

 

An invitation to imagine alien life forms whose x and Y did not yield Z, but whose Z was derived from A, B, and Vitamin 7.  (Then, fourth or so years later, Marc Miller would start to do something similar with the characteristics of his aliens and creatures, and I immediately wanted to apologuze to players I havent seen in decades.  Sorry guys.  Feels great; plays awful.  That one's on me.)

 

Still, the glimpse was there, and a fundamental building block was presented in an easy and immediately-graspable manner.

 

Without figureds, you just have a really long list of characteristics and no real understanding of the interplay between them, or any grasp of what a "normal" amount would be, or what a decent ratio is, or even what is meager and what is fantastic.  "Okay, my Strength is... Fifteen, so I guess a reasonable PD would be...  Eighty-four?

 

Okay, that is an absurd, but not as much as you might think.  That simple little chart on the character sheet gave you more than just formulae: it gave you a quick grasp of scale and relationship in a way that even the mountain of text in the currrent rules can't offer.

 

Today, it is just a laundry list of characteristics, and to figure out how they work, you're just going to have to buy some and practice.

 

 

 

Is it good or bad?

 

That's up to you, obviously.  It is certainly lauded by those folks whose feedback was considered- or at least solicited- before the chaange was made.  It was lauded by those folks who still believe that points equate to balanced or evenly-matched characters in spite of really mathy folks like Hugh pointing out that characteristics still don't yield an equal amount of good stuff dor equal points expenditure.

 

So is it good?  Is it bad?

 

It is.  It just is.  Use it if, after some experimentation, you decide you like it.  Don't use it if you don't like it.

 

I can seriously say that I can state that objectively- or at least without fanboy zeal or hater venom.  I am still using the rules books published in 1982.

 

Ironically, I am willing to bet I can tote a character to Ninja-Bear's table, and get him squeezed in essentially as-is, the same as he could slip a hero into my game, and he would most likely work flawlessly.

 

There are over a thousand pages of rules these days.  Get choosy with them.

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

18 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

To briefly answer OP's question (and hopedully not derail the interesting discussion going on), I always dound the Figureds to give a hint at "how this universe works," so to speak:  the foundation of this is that; this and this contribute to that.  This is derived partly from this, and partly from those.  A person with a lot of this and rhis will just naturally have more od that, and a character without much of this or that must train hard (or spend points) to make up for a natural shortxoming in that right there."

 

Granted, I never understood how having a proper adventurer's robust constitution made you more resistant to electric shock, but it didn't matter; there it was in the math: a glimpse into the mechanics of this imaginary realm, and into the minds of the designers. 

 

An invitation to imagine alien life forms whose x and Y did not yield Z, but whose Z was derived from A, B, and Vitamin 7.  (Then, fourth or so years later, Marc Miller would start to do something similar with the characteristics of his aliens and creatures, and I immediately wanted to apologuze to players I havent seen in decades.  Sorry guys.  Feels great; plays awful.  That one's on me.)

 

Still, the glimpse was there, and a fundamental building block was presented in an easy and immediately-graspable manner.

 

Without figureds, you just have a really long list of characteristics and no real understanding of the interplay between them, or any grasp of what a "normal" amount would be, or what a decent ratio is, or even what is meager and what is fantastic.  "Okay, my Strength is... Fifteen, so I guess a reasonable PD would be...  Eighty-four?

 

Okay, that is an absurd, but not as much as you might think.  That simple little chart on the character sheet gave you more than just formulae: it gave you a quick grasp of scale and relationship in a way that even the mountain of text in the currrent rules can't offer.

 

Today, it is just a laundry list of characteristics, and to figure out how they work, you're just going to have to buy some and practice.

 

Well, yes and no.  Imagine a player who brings his first Super into the game.  He's a big, tough Brick with a 75 STR and a 40 CON - big and burly, so he has 20 BOD.

 

How will that player feel after his first game if he assumed that the relationship between primaries and figured would provide a good playable character, so his powerful Brick has 15 PD, 8 ED, 23 REC, 80 END and 78 STUN.  He may manage OK with the END and REC, but after the first 12d6 Punch gets 27 STUN past his defenses, and a slightly above-average Blast gets 41 STUN through, leaving him both Stunned and down to 10 STUN remaining, he may not think those ratios are all that great.

 

He's also likely to find that his 20 DEX, 7 OCV and DCV and 3 SPD are not all that spectacular either.

 

So I will submit that, at least in 6e, he would have known that he should consider buying up those secondary characteristics, and might have asked for some guidance on how high they should be.

[unclevlad]

To be fair, tho, Hugh, some of that disconnect you mention reflects a fundamental problem with teaching the system.  I agree that figured characteristics likely does make things harder by somewhat obscuring things, but working up what an overall balance should be, is still hard.  The character ability guidelines on 6E1 35, for example, are useless;  they're far, far too broad for the most part.

[Hugh Neilson]

To the original question, I would say that the answer is neither. If properly priced, Figured can work, as can "no figured".

 

I think what is needed is better guidance on appropriate levels of these characteristics, as unclevlad notes. 

 

I agree with Steve Long's conclusion in making 5e.  If the secondary characteristics are properly priced, then there is no great benefit repricing primaries to have them add to secondary characteristics.  In many other games, the primaries are the only way to buy up secondary abilities.  A lock like that would violate the core Hero principal that you can build what you want. 6e pushed that further by removing the link between some characteristics.  The most common example is DEX no longer driving combat values, so now you can easily build an agile rogue who is not great in combat, and there is no costing disincentive to a low-DEX combatant with high OCV and DCV,

Edited August 5, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[rjcurrie]

I wonder if the difference between liking and not liking figured characteristics depends upon how you build characters. I, for example, always looked at every characteristic, figure door non-figured add determined what it value should be. As a result, I'd basically say no difference, except in how I figure out the cost of the former figured characteristics. But I can see that for those who seldom modified their figured characteristics, suddenly having to look at what each value should be, would be a major difference.

[Doc Democracy]

The formulae exist, it remains possible to buy to those proportions.  I think it is good for the system not to be locked into them though.

[LoneWolf]

   I think that @rjcurrie may be right.  With figured stats three primary stats do most of the heavy lifting and you only need to worry about make minor adjustments.   Without figured stats players have to actually think more about what their character can do.   I had a player who was complaining about how it was impossible to build a flash clone because it was too expensive.   He wanted a 12 SPD so was buying his DEX to 110 points.  When I asked him why he did not just buy a 12 SPD, he gave me a blank look and got confused.   

 

Getting rid of figured stats does mean the players need to spend more time and effort on the characters stats.  In my opinion this usually leads to better characters.   You end up with less primary stat inflation and get more nuanced characters.  
 

[Gauntlet]

36 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

   I think that @rjcurrie may be right.  With figured stats three primary stats do most of the heavy lifting and you only need to worry about make minor adjustments.   Without figured stats players have to actually think more about what their character can do.   I had a player who was complaining about how it was impossible to build a flash clone because it was too expensive.   He wanted a 12 SPD so was buying his DEX to 110 points.  When I asked him why he did not just buy a 12 SPD, he gave me a blank look and got confused.   

 

Getting rid of figured stats does mean the players need to spend more time and effort on the characters stats.  In my opinion this usually leads to better characters.   You end up with less primary stat inflation and get more nuanced characters.  
 

Hhmmmm...

 

I don't really thing that someone not thinking themselves is a good reason that 6th edition is better than 5th edition. I mean someone who can't understand that you don't have to purchase a high DEX to get a high speed in 5th edition is truly not using their brains at all.

[LoneWolf]

The player buying the DEX up was actually in 1st edition.   It was a long time ago in college and the guy was not really that bright.  But it does show that some people do not want to think too much about their characters.   It’s a lot easier to boost up a few stats than to go over all the stats trying to figure out what is appropriate for your concept.   

 

5th edition has 17 stats including 3 movement stats.  6th edition has 20 stats including 3 movement stats.   6th edition also eliminated COM so it actually has 4 additional stats.   

 

In 5th edition I can buy up STR and CON to 25 and DEX to 20.  That gives me 5 PD & ED, 3 SDPD 10 REC 50 END and 36 STUN. I may or may not need to increase the PD & ED depending on what powers the character has.  I will probably want to buy up the SPD, but other than that it is not a bad starting character.   I don’t have to worry about my CV because those are based on DEX and under 5th edition are not really stats but are still calculated.  In 6th edition if I buy the same base stats, I still need to figure out my OCV, DCV PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, and STUN.  I can probably leave the OMCV & DMCV at base value, but all the rest need to be bought up.  Having to figure out 5-8 extra stats is not that complicated but is still more work.  
 

[unclevlad]

Not a bad starting character *for what*?  Genre, points, character notion...what?  In many cases a 25 CON feels like overkill...except for the impact on figured stats.  A 25 STR is enough of an investment that I'd better be planning an HTH focus of some type.

 

And I dunno about you but I darn sure ALWAYS worry about my CV.

 

I think this goes back to Hugh's comment about the risk of a false sense of security with the figured stats, and thereby failing to really study whether they're sensible.

 

And as has been noted, well, if the figured stats you'd get from 5E are a decent starting point, where's the problem???  What's to figure out?