Which is Better, Figured Characteristics or No Figured Characteristics?

[LoneWolf]

The way I see it the reason for the “normal people” having high stats is because a lot of the published material was that way.   That kind of set the expectation on what characters needed to have for stats.  If the baseline SPD is 5 and you want a character that is a little fast you are going to buy a 6 SPD, which means if you want to be really fast, you need a 7-8 SPD.  The same is true for DEX and other stats. 

 

This is compounded by the fact that most stats are kind of abstract and their only real measure is against themselves.   Other than increasing the rolls based on the stat and in earlier edition the figured stats there are no measurable benchmarks for the stats.  What does a higher DEX mean?  Other than going before a lower DEX what does a DEX 23 do?   With some stats there are some benefits to having the stat but those are all in game terms.  Having a high CON can prevent you from being stunned, but that again is based on taking damage.  STR is about the only exception for this.  The STR chart shows how much weight your character can lift.   That is a real-world example that anyone who has no familiarity with the system can understand.   

 

Once the baseline is established it is maintained by inertia.  Each character written to those ideals reinforces the baseline making it harder to adjust.   The only want to adjust it is to drop the stats in published material before using it.  A good rule of thumb would be to drop the SPD of all character by 1 point.  Since all characters are affected equally their relative SPD is maintained.   
 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I agree that knocking 1 SPD and a few point off other stats overall would be a good direction for published material.  Certainly the 6th edition enemies books are almost uniformly too powerful for my campaigns.

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

The way I see it the reason for the “normal people” having high stats is because a lot of the published material was that way.   That kind of set the expectation on what characters needed to have for stats.  If the baseline SPD is 5 and you want a character that is a little fast you are going to buy a 6 SPD, which means if you want to be really fast, you need a 7-8 SPD.  The same is true for DEX and other stats.

 

Absolutely - and those benchmarks were set in 1e Champions, with no guidance as to "normal human", just "base normal has 10s and base figureds".

 

Normal Human showed up in Justice Inc., Espionage and especially Fantasy Hero (where "stats generally cap at 20" made D&D characters' 3-18 more comparable).

 

At 4e (when the systems were first unified), backwards compatibility could have been tossed in favour of rebalancing "normal human" stats for this unified, all-genres system.  That was probably the last real possibility.

 

I'll go you one better - drop all DEX by 9 - 10, and all SPD by 2.  That drops really slow Supers from 18-20 DEX, 4 SPD to 8-10 DEX, 2 SPD.  Average Supers fall from 23-26 DEX, 5-6 SPD to 13 - 17 DEX, 3-4 SPD. Fast characters go from 29-30 DEX, 6-7 SPD to 19-20 DEX, 4-5 SPD. And the Superhumanly Agile go from 32-35 DEX, 7-8 SPD to 23-26 DEX, 5-6 SPD.

 

And we actually have room to make Massively superhuman speed and agility go even higher.

 

If everyone drops the same, more or less, they interact with each other pretty much unchanged.  Base VIPER agents can be DEX 13, SPD 2 - 3.  A little less behind the curve.  Elite Agents can have DEX 18, SPD 3 - 4.  Agents become at least a bit more viable.

[unclevlad]

I think that's an underappreciated argument.  The absolute SPD and CV matter much less than the relative SPD and CV.  SPD/CV inflation starts with the baseline.  When it's too high, it forces everything else up...and it's even worse, because there's less *relative* difference between 4 and 6, than there is between 2 and 4.  The highly agile, quick types tend to need a 7, not a 6.

 

Another point here might be making +1 to all DEX rolls cheaper...so you can define the Olympic-caliber gymnast with a 13 DEX for initiative purposes, but +1, possibly even +2, to all DEX skills.  Maybe that's not needed, but it'd help cases like that, or for the master thief as we've mentioned.  

 

Last point for now...figured characteristics probably played a major NEGATIVE role in this process.  Because it was so much cheaper and easier to buy the brick's DEX up, and let the CVs come along for the ride.  5E doesn't even have a mechanism to raise CV directly.  That creates a pretty strong assumption that you're expected to go with it.  That slow super's 3 CV isn't good enough...and looks even worse on paper.  Flip side...if you define OCV and DCV as characteristics in their own right, where the baseline value is tied to the DEX, as it is with SPD...well, suddenly the grossly disproportionate, broken cost of DEX becomes explicit and glaring.

[MrAgdesh]

On 8/9/2023 at 12:33 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Largely why 23  became "default DEX".  

 

23 becoming Default DEX is also possibly the fault of the "Joy of DEX" - another Goodman's School of Cost Effectiveness pointers in Champions II.

[MrAgdesh]

Incidentally, does anyone remember an early breakdown of the rarity of stat values? 

 

I seem to recall that this was in a 1E book somewhere. I thought that it might be under the John Q. Normal section of Champions II but it isn't (although that does provide some info on what typical ranges are for most people) I've checked Champions III and 1E FH too but no joy. Was it in an Adventurer's Club perhaps?

[Hugh Neilson]

11 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I think that's an underappreciated argument.  The absolute SPD and CV matter much less than the relative SPD and CV.  SPD/CV inflation starts with the baseline.  When it's too high, it forces everything else up...and it's even worse, because there's less *relative* difference between 4 and 6, than there is between 2 and 4.  The highly agile, quick types tend to need a 7, not a 6.

 

Another point here might be making +1 to all DEX rolls cheaper...so you can define the Olympic-caliber gymnast with a 13 DEX for initiative purposes, but +1, possibly even +2, to all DEX skills.  Maybe that's not needed, but it'd help cases like that, or for the master thief as we've mentioned. 

 

Last point for now...figured characteristics probably played a major NEGATIVE role in this process.  Because it was so much cheaper and easier to buy the brick's DEX up, and let the CVs come along for the ride.  5E doesn't even have a mechanism to raise CV directly.  That creates a pretty strong assumption that you're expected to go with it.  That slow super's 3 CV isn't good enough...and looks even worse on paper.  Flip side...if you define OCV and DCV as characteristics in their own right, where the baseline value is tied to the DEX, as it is with SPD...well, suddenly the grossly disproportionate, broken cost of DEX becomes explicit and glaring.

 

The skill levels issue is not dissimilar to Figured Characteristics.  Buying up the components of a characteristic increase was, and is, much more expensive than buying up the characteristic.  That carries the same incentive to inflate characteristics.  Given the Hero mantra is to get what you pay for and pay for what you get, this is a significant inconsistency in the system.

 

As to lower CVs, like lower DEX  and lower SPD, it's all relative.  That really slow Super likely does have a combat level or three (the 18 - 20 DEX bricks did, and dropping them to 8 - 10 DEX would not change that).  But a 5 OCV hits a 5 DCV just as often as an 8 OCV hits an 8 DCV, so that relativism remains.  But this would allow those Agents to hit with more frequency (and see their lower-DC attacks bounce off) instead of having ti kit out near-Super VIPER agents to make a dozen or two at least a bit of a challenge.

 

 

1 hour ago, MrAgdesh said:

23 becoming Default DEX is also possibly the fault of the "Joy of DEX" - another Goodman's School of Cost Effectiveness pointers in Champions II.

 

23 DEX was the default, if not in the 1e example characters, certainly by the time we read the first Enemies book.  But we had no indication that 23 was well beyond an above-average to exceptional human in 1e!  As players, we didn't think our typical Energy Projector was an olympic-class gymnast or had an OCV and DCV comparable to Bruce Lee.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[LoneWolf]

23 DEX became the default because it was mathematically the best deal.  All of the Goodman’s School of Cost Effectiveness was based on Math.  If I remember correctly it suggested to go with a 24 DEX to beat all those cost effective a*****e’s that had a 23 DEX. Removing figured stats really reduces the incentive to purchase inflated stats especially DEX.     

[Gauntlet]

On 8/10/2023 at 2:16 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

I’m going to politely disagree. Yes, Pre-6th has the figured formulas however 6th has more characteristics to he aware of. Leap for example is now separate one and I’ve forgotten more than once to buy up. The Powers themselves have more options which is fine for a more finely tuned character however more options are still more options. Btw, I’m still  salty about TK needing permeable to affect liquids.

Not quite sure I agree with your listing of characteristics. In 5th edition, leap was still a characteristic, just like running. The only difference is that it was a figured one. I had plenty of characters in 5th edition who bought up their leaping to put them at incredible levels (over  20) despite the fact that their STR was only just at baby brick status (35).

[MrAgdesh]

6 hours ago, MrAgdesh said:

Incidentally, does anyone remember an early breakdown of the rarity of stat values? 

 

I seem to recall that this was in a 1E book somewhere. I thought that it might be under the John Q. Normal section of Champions II but it isn't (although that does provide some info on what typical ranges are for most people) I've checked Champions III and 1E FH too but no joy. Was it in an Adventurer's Club perhaps?

 

Found it. Fantasy Hero 4E Pg 35 "Characteristic Ranges". 

 

Characters (humans) with stats of 13-15 are Notable.

 

Characters (humans) having stats of 16-20 are Remarkable - One in a Thousand. 

 

Characters with a stat of 21+ are Incredible - One in a Million.

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Gauntlet said:

Not quite sure I agree with your listing of characteristics. In 5th edition, leap was still a characteristic, just like running. The only difference is that it was a figured one. I had plenty of characters in 5th edition who bought up their leaping to put them at incredible levels (over  20) despite the fact that their STR was only just at baby brick status (35).

 

Characteristics ARE powers.

 

The distinction is that "characteristics" can be defined as "qualities implicit to the object or entity."  With people?  Everyone has a STR score.  Everyone has a DEX score.  And so on.  For objects, everything has BODY, PD, and ED.  So "characteristics" become those things that are given a default value that's non-zero.

 

Buying up a bunch of leap was also the cheapest way to get a half-move...and even get one that's LOW END because the active points are so low.  5E leap was 1 point for 1"...2 meters.  Half the cost of running.  AND you got a break because that 35 STR moved your base leap to more than your base running. 

 

Far as I'm concerned, just because PD, ED, running, swimming, and leap are on the characteristics page, they're not characteristics.  They're powers.  You figure them as part of your overall movement or defense suite....of powers.  Also:  characteristics are generally a means to an end.  They're not an end in themselves.  STR, it's HTH damage and lifting.  DEX, it's initiative and skill rolls.  CON, it's durability, not getting stunned, and occasional toughness-related rolls.  And so on.  Even STUN and END represent total capacities.  The defenses and movements are ends in themselves.

 

 

[Doc Democracy]

It was when I realised that characteristics were simply black box bundles of powers and skills that I began thinking about the abolition of the non-game-mechanical characteristics.

 

There have been so many fixes to address the imbalance STR causes in the system, the actual fix is obviously to get rid of STR and give players the chance to adjust lifting power...  🙂 #relentless

[assault]

The cost of Strength was set in comparison to that of Energy Blast and Martial Arts.

 

When you muck about with Strength, you have to consider its impact on the others to make sure you aren't breaking the game.

That doesn't mean it was set right in the first place, but if it was a real problem someone might have noticed.

[Doc Democracy]

33 minutes ago, assault said:

The cost of Strength was set in comparison to that of Energy Blast and Martial Arts.

 

When you muck about with Strength, you have to consider its impact on the others to make sure you aren't breaking the game.

That doesn't mean it was set right in the first place, but if it was a real problem someone might have noticed.

 

And that is why my proposal is not to muck about with it,it is simply to remove it.  Everyone starts the game with 2D6 hand attack, the ability to lift 100kg and an 11 or less chance to accomplish strength related skill tasks.

 

If you want more hand attack, buy it. If you want better lifting, or leaping, or more ability with strength related risks, buy them.  No more black Bix with obscure discounting.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Doc Democracy

[unclevlad]

OK, so what's the cost for 1d6 HA?  What's the cost for lifting, let's say, a metric ton?  Or 100 metric tons?  How far can I throw a 2 ton car when I can lift 25 tons?  In heroic campaigns, what happens with STR minima for weapons?  What do I roll to maintain a grab?  To break out of a grab or entangle? 

 

assault:  saying the cost of STR was set to match Blast is probably backwards.  1d6 of normal damage costs 5 active, and that even carries over to the cost for the major Flash attacks.  It's the basis for the cost of mental attack, which mostly is blast vs. Mental Def, or Drain...damage is versus power def.  Honestly, that may well be the core basis for almost ALL the system costs, or at least one of em.  In 6E, when figured characteristics were removed, DEX, CON, BODY, and EGO all got cheaper...but STR didn't.  STR couldn't be priced at 2 points per in 5E, and couldn't be dropped below 1 point per in 6E...because that breaks 1d6 damage for 5 points.

[Grailknight]

6 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

And that is why my proposal is not to muck about with it,it is simply to remove it.  Everyone starts the game with 2D6 hand attack, the ability to lift 100kg and an 11 or less chance to accomplish strength related skill tasks.

 

If you want more hand attack, buy it. If you want better lifting, or leaping, or more ability with strength related risks, buy them.  No more black Bix with obscure discounting.

 

That's not removing STR, it's just renaming it and repricing its components. That's not remotely worth the disconnect of having the other Characteristics representing physical abilities but the not the one most commonly used across all RPGs. You even used the word strength in your list of things provided. You might as well keep the name.

[Doc Democracy]

3 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

That's not removing STR, it's just renaming it and repricing its components. That's not remotely worth the disconnect of having the other Characteristics representing physical abilities but the not the one most commonly used across all RPGs. You even used the word strength in your list of things provided. You might as well keep the name.

 

Ah but it takes away the problems STR creates.  I would also be removing DEX, CON, INT, EGO and PRE. So I would not have other physical characteristics.

 

They are all little black boxes.  I understand why they were there in 1982 but not today.

 

I really don't understand what purpose they serve in the system beyond being something that existed in other games.

 

Of course I used strength as a descriptor, I think there would be some value in grouping skills in those traditional groups (though I could be persuaded otherwise).

 

Losing the characteristics I mention would mean that the game had powers and skills.  You would not have those hybrid things that were part power part skill.  I mentioned STR because it has been a constant source of trouble in the system but the others did the same thing in different ways.

 

Decoupling figured from primary characteristics was, to my view, just the first step.

 

The biggest consideration for me in doing this would be mental powers.  I have not worked out the connotations for that.

 

Doc

[unclevlad]

If nothing else, they ground the character to something the player can relate to.  You seem to be proposing something completely abstract.  

 

So you have Powers and Skills.  Fine.  What's your skill system proposal?  How are skills improved, how is success determined?  Combat is a form of skill roll, how is that resolved?

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Hero is already very granular, so the breaking down of characteristics is not wholly out of the question, although I agree that it would be very counter-intuitive.

 

How could we break STR down?  Well, it can have in-combat STR effects.  A Martial Arts DC adds these STR effects to all Martial maneuvers, and costs no END, for 4 points.  If we accept "only martial maneuvers" is a -1/2 limitation, then +1 DC with all STR combat effects costs 4 points (or STR that provides only these effects is a -1/4 limitation).  This also maintains "only direct normal damage", AKA Hand Attack, as a -1/2 limitation, but on STR instead of Blast.  This leaves 1 point - there is your cost for Lifting.  It's like a forklift.  You need Lift to heft the object, and you can then Throw it.  If you want damage from that throw, then you also need enough damaging STR to reach the Damage you want to achieve.

 

STR minima and enhancement to real weapons by excess STR would require use of that damaging STR. My views that STR adding to a KA should be replaced by KA's that have extra dice requiring, and locking out, some STR.  We're part-way there with limitations for STR minima.  But this would work with either vision, so there's no benefit muddying the waters with decoupling STR from KA, No Range damage.

 

I may be less extreme than Doc in that my goal would be to price the components of STR (and other characteristics) at a level which equates the characteristic's price to the price of its component parts.  If we went all the way to Doc's model, then we might also have sample powers where you buy all the component parts with Unified Power to create the characteristic.

 

CON can stay as is.  CON rolls are rare enough that they don't need separate pricing.  Or, if you must, STUNned resistance costs 4 CP per +5 and +1 CON rolls cost 1 point.

 

DEX, INT, PRE each provide two key benefits.  Price them at 2 CP each.  Each provides "+1 to all of these rolls" (not counting Perception). That's 5 CP, and replaces Skill Levels.  For 3 CP, the +1 applies only to one relevant roll at any given time.  For +1, it only applies to one specific roll (replacing +1 to a skill for 2 CP).  For 2 CP, it can be +1 to one roll within a related group of rolls. For 4 CP, it enhances all rolls in a related group at once.

 

For 5 CP, you get +5 Lightning Reflexes.  Limit for applying only to certain actions.

For 5 CP, you get +1d6 PRE attacks.  Limit if only certain types of PRE attacks are enhanced.

For 5 CP, you get +1 to all Perception rolls.  For 4 CP, it's all rolls in a targeting sense group.  3 CP gets is all rolls in a sense group with no targeting senses, or one targetting sense.  2 CP gets only one non-targeting sense.

 

Ego remains 1 point.  +1 to all EGO rolls costs 2 CP.  1 CP for only one type of EGO roll (only to Push?).  The remaining 3 CP is resistance to Mental and Presence attacks. Limit to taste (maybe you are only hard to Mind Control, but much easier to trick with mental illusions or scan with telepathy or mind scan).

 

If we follow Doc's approach, it is consistent with Steve Long's decision not to retain the link to figured characteristics but reprice the primaries to reflect the real cost/value of the Figureds.

 

Many of the building blocks already exist, as people have devised ways to buy just some effects of many characteristics over the years, but these "just some" effects are typically priced very high compared to the characteristics themselves.

 

Oh, and maybe we also get more realistic that ED only against Fire is NOT 2/3 of the value of unlimited ED, and crank up those limitations to be priced more reasonably.

[Doc Democracy]

56 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

If nothing else, they ground the character to something the player can relate to.  You seem to be proposing something completely abstract.  

 

So you have Powers and Skills.  Fine.  What's your skill system proposal?  How are skills improved, how is success determined?  Combat is a form of skill roll, how is that resolved?

 

 

 

 

 

To me, HERO is abstract.  We buy game effects and slap SFX and labels on them.

 

The skill system is essentially the same.  You get 11 or less for your 3 points. If you want you can group skills so that you can buy +1 with related skills, those groups might be "strength" related or "dexterity" related and that would all be in the skills description. Progression is identical and success is determined identically. 

 

Combat is entirely unaffected, I did not suggest losing any of the mechanical statistics.  Hadn't considered whether I would have the various CVs in with powers or skills but they looks more like skills.

33 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If we went all the way to Doc's model, then we might also have sample powers where you buy all the component parts with Unified Power to create the characteristic.

 

Which could be different from what we currently have, perhaps having lifting power accumulate faster or slower than damage, leaping etc.

[Grailknight]

How are Grabs handled in this system? Describe it to me.

 

The abstraction is workable for those familiar with the system but would be terrible for newbies. Characteristics, even with their pricing issues, give some basis for understanding an ability with just one word. Without them you'll have a wordier and harder read than 5th-6th and that won't fly for attracting new players.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Grailknight

[unclevlad]

Hero's reasonably abstract but it's trying to represent very concrete notions.  What you're proposing, doesn't do that.

 

So we just buy EVERY skill from 11-, mostly separately???  How many points are you gonna give me to buy the skills?  Yeah, fine, if you rarely buy any, that might be OK, but my concepts are typically well trained.  And they're supers, not grunts...so *minimum* 18 DEX and INT.  I'm looking at one of em..."HTH" tough martial artist with extra limbs and stretching.  Skills?  

 

INT:  Analyze combat, analyze style, conceal, navigation, tactics.  

DEX:  acrobatics, breakfall, contort, lockpicking, stealth, teamwork

background:  martial arts, geology, mineralogy, KS finance, PS lapidarist...

 

The only one at 11- is Finance...which only costs 2, not 3.  

 

In your approach, I'd need +3 (23 DEX, 23 INT) on 12 skills...that's 72 points.

 

And as Hugh has pointed out...buying grouped levels?  They only apply one at a time.  They're not baseline.  I like those levels as finishing touches...but not to build that baseline.

 

I see no value added with this...and a great deal of context thrown aside.

 

Now, if you want to ditch *the numbers*...that might be different, at least for INT, AGILITY, and PRE.  (Note:  AGILITY, not DEX.  This presumes DEX is split into it's skill part, AGILITY, and its initiative part.)  There are no 3-18 values, there's just ranks...+2, +3, +5, whatever.  No negatives.  Your roll is 9 + RANK.  No divide by 5.  Who cares about a 16 vs. 17 INT?  Fine, ditch THAT aspect.  The baseline norm can actually be +1;  the baseline PC is +2.  +1 rank with any of these, is 5 points.  Note that this is getting to be VERY similar to Storyteller in structure...and in fact, I'd redefine skills to be the same.  Skills have ranks...3 points gives rank 0, 2 points for +1.  Skills aren't automatically anchored to one characteristic, altho in most cases, they're likely most often used with one.  Your roll with a specific skill is now 9 + Char Bonus + Skill Bonus.  

 

Oh...PRE attacks, your base dice == your rank.  I'm fine with blowing off half dice.  

 

Skill-oriented characters get slightly more expensive because we eliminate the semi-hack of manipulating the rounding rule.  That's a tradeoff I'd be happy to make.

 

Where this doesn't work is BODY, EGO, and CON, due to their roles on defense, and INIT and SPD where the specific value sets combat ordering.  I'd also throw STR in here...at least for now, as it's just cleaner.  Well, hmm, maybe this still works out, because none of them are usually used for skill rolls.  So the separation is largely clean.

[Doc Democracy]

53 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

How are Grabs handled in this system? Describe it to me.

 

Good question. 🙂 Not least because I need to go refresh myself on how grabs are currently done!

 

I think about what is important - their prowess ability or raw power.  Their prowess would be levels bought with strength skills and raw power would be dice of Hand Attack.

 

So, you need to make a successful attack roll.  If successful the grabbed character can immediately compare their hand attack versus their opponents hand attack (plus 1D6 for each +1 in strength skills).  I considered using half HA but as I was giving a bonus due to prowess, I thought I would leave it as full HA.

 

In subsequent rounds, both characters would compare using both power and prowess.

 

Is there more I need?  It is essentially the same as current but I kind of like the distinction between prowess and power.  For example, martial grab would provide prowess not power.

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

So we just buy EVERY skill from 11-, mostly separately???  How many points are you gonna give me to buy the skills?  Yeah, fine, if you rarely buy any, that might be OK, but my concepts are typically well trained.  And they're supers, not grunts...so *minimum* 18 DEX and INT.  I'm looking at one of em..."HTH" tough martial artist with extra limbs and stretching.  Skills?  

 

That is not what I said.

 

I would group skills into those that were strength related, dexterity related etc.  You should be able to buy +1 with those groups, that would represent your prowess with that kind of skill.  I reckon there is no increase in costs really.

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Skills have ranks...3 points gives rank 0, 2 points for +1.  Skills aren't automatically anchored to one characteristic, altho in most cases, they're likely most often used with one.

 

I kind of like the idea of not linking things necessarily to a particular prowess.  Quite often you might say a certain climb required agility rather than strength.

[unclevlad]

First...it'd be the other way around.  Climbing isn't based on STR, it's based on DEX.  Free climbing a rope or cable...like we did in gym classes...that might be STR, so...yeah, it can be useful.  The skills aren't very well set up for it, but it wouldn't hurt. 

NO skills use STR, tho.  5E and 6E use the same approach;  5E does offer using Comeliness as a complementary roll, but that's the only difference.

 

So, on your, let's say, INT skills...are you giving +1 to ALL of them with these "levels" you're using?  At the same time?  Cuz that's not how +1 to INT rolls is now.  If so, what's the cost?  Does it apply to background skills?  Even overall levels don't apply to background skills.  Do Intellect Skills include the Knowledge and Science skills?  What about the Professional Skills based off INT, like Architect or Accountant?  Others use DEX or PRE, tho, so it can't be all of em.  And if you say, ok, cross-list them?  You're just making things messy again.

 

There's no gain here.  There's gain to

--splitting DEX into AGILITY and INITIATIVE, each of which are 1 point

--dropping the numbers for the 3 skills, and going to a ranks approach.  (Whether it's an overall NET gain is a separate question, but it does offer advantages.)  This, by and large, WOULD be the net effect of what you're suggesting, but I'd rather see it under Characteristics than skills, as would appear to be how your notion would best be implemented. 

 

It feels like this is being motivated by the notion that notable aspects of STR, CON, EGO, or BODY are somehow tied to skills.  They're not.  I'll grant that the character sheet gives that impression...but there are no *skill* rolls related to any of them.  There ARE Characteristic rolls, but that's for a different purpose...and another aspect where your system just adds confusion by separation.