Which is Better, Figured Characteristics or No Figured Characteristics?

[Tech]

On 8/10/2023 at 5:32 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

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.

 

Same.

[Hugh Neilson]

13 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Well, I thought the argument was that STR itself was underpriced and that caused the pricing issue. If STR was costed at 2 pts I believe then MA would be fine. And If I recall, the reason was that STR was so cheap was twofold. 1) Because of point totals you wanted STR cheap. 2) Because most Heroes had STR higher than Normals, being SuperHeroic, it was easy to have people like GL and such to be stronger than normals for a few points.

 

Doubling the cost of STR would also carry ripple effects.  If +20 STR costs 40 points, what is an Offensive Strike that adds 4d6 HTH worth?  Does pushing STR still get +1d6/5 points, or is it now +1d6/10 points?  Do combat maneuvers only add 1d6/2 DC?  Does that rebalance Offensive Strike to add 2d6 damage when a ranged MA would add 4d6 to a Blast?  How do we price 4 MA DCs when the equivalent STR would cost 60 points at 0 END?

 

I don't think STR is worth 2 points.  STR provides HTH DCs and lifting.  I think we need to assess the cost of those components, and assess mechanics that currently provide those effects in light of this pricing.  MA damage classes are a great example.

 

20 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Then buy MA maneuvers.  They work massively better anyway.

 

This indicates that a character buying MA DCs is not losing much, if anything, to the inability to apply MA DCs to non-Martial maneuvers.  Additionally, they increase abilities that STR does not, such as NND combat maneuvers. 

 

They could be simulated with +5 STR, Martial attack DCs only, 0 END.  DCs only is -1/4 IMO.  That's a price of 6.  Getting down to 4 sets "martial maneuvers only" at -1/2.  That seems pretty high when MA maneuvers "work massively better anyway".

 

It could be simulated with 2 levels of Martial Arts for 10 points or 16 points.  Most MA users have plenty of maneuvers.  Limiting those to Damage Only needs to be assessed.  Losing both the OCV and DCV option is quite limiting.

 

The third option is to price a floating DC in general.  Things like WeaponMaster are now designed as limited skill levels.  But skill levels were priced based on a Multipower. If that MP was +2 OCV, +2 DCV or +1 DC, 0 END, then it seems like +1 DC, 0 END costs 10 points.  That means 3 should cost 30.  Only MA has to be a -1 1/2 limitation for that math to work.

[unclevlad]

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Doubling the cost of STR would also carry ripple effects.  If +20 STR costs 40 points, what is an Offensive Strike that adds 4d6 HTH worth?  Does pushing STR still get +1d6/5 points, or is it now +1d6/10 points?  Do combat maneuvers only add 1d6/2 DC?  Does that rebalance Offensive Strike to add 2d6 damage when a ranged MA would add 4d6 to a Blast?  How do we price 4 MA DCs when the equivalent STR would cost 60 points at 0 END?

 

I don't think STR is worth 2 points.  STR provides HTH DCs and lifting.  I think we need to assess the cost of those components, and assess mechanics that currently provide those effects in light of this pricing.  MA damage classes are a great example.

 

 

Not just ripples.  We don't even need to get into secondary aspects like the maneuvers.

 

--If STR, which has no range, is 2 points per, what's the cost of TK? 

--The END cost increases, as each 5 STR is +1 END.  So a 45 STR strongman with a 9d6 punch burns 9 END each time?    

--The energy projector, fighting at range, now becomes cheaper to build.  Heck, the projector can buy No Range Mods and is still paying less per DC.  

 

From an analytical perspective, considering the system as a whole...a cornerstone of the system is that normal damage is 5 points for 1d6.  That's a starting point;  there can be tweaks within reason, and for cause.  HTH is the focus of MANY comic characters.  Taken together?  The simplest solution is STR is 1 point per, and each 5 STR == 1d6 damage.  Doing something else generates unnecessary, undesirable confusion.

 

Lifting STR isn't worth enough to change this.  EVERYONE can lift...and STR is the translation of this.  Lifting heavy stuff is fundamentally just part of the roleplaying.  The supers genre says the STRONG guys can lift bloody insane amounts...so we have the scale we have, to accommodate this...but it doesn't matter, mechanically.  Yeah, fine, Thor can throw a tank...but the damage is still based on his STR, so the fact that it's a tank is SFX.  He'd get the same damage throwing a cannonball;  it's a lot lighter, but that just means it's moving a lot faster.  I won't say that lifting STR is worth nothing;  I will say, it's not worth enough to justify perturbing a cornerstone cost.

 

 

[Scott Ruggels]

It's these sorts of discussions that chase me back to want to use 2nd or 3rd edition rules. Much less to read.

[Doc Democracy]

1 minute ago, Scott Ruggels said:

It's these sorts of discussions that chase me back to want to use 2nd or 3rd edition rules. Much less to read.

 

Ah come on now Scott, you are old enough to remember the many, many words written about the rules in almost every edition (not least the Great Linked Debate).  I think there were also more words because we had more folk writing them....

[Duke Bushido]

48 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

(not least the Great Linked Debate). 

 

 

Aw, Geez....!

 

You said that out loud!

 

 

Quickly, go stand in a circle of salt, rub your rosary, and chant over and over "it was a mistake; do not take my soul!" from noon until midnight, and for all that's Holy, do _not_ ooen your eyes, no matter what you hear!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Scott Ruggels said:

It's these sorts of discussions that chase me back to want to use 2nd or 3rd edition rules. Much less to read.

I’ve honestly tried 3rd. For my uses it’s 4th with similar feelings.

[Chris Goodwin]

For me it's Robot Warriors. 

 

I hadn't actually played Robot Warriors from 1988 until lockdown was easing.  So 2021?  I ran it with 6th edition for characters and combat and Robot Warriors mecha design rules.  And it was every bit as fun and played 99% identical to how it played in 1988. 

 

What were we talking about again?

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

What were we talking about again?

 

 

According to the subject line, the betterness of either figured or or non-figured formerly-figured characteristics.

 

However, we are humans, and there have been a few drifts.   

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Chris' comment on Robot Warriors playing the same in 2021 under 6e as it did in 1988 reflects the often-stated reality that the core of the game has not changed over all the editions.

 

Character creation is where the complexity exists, and where the changes have taken place.

 

By contrast, DND 1-2E, 3E, 4E and 5E are different at a core mechanical/task resolution/gameplay level.

 

So when we ask whether the game is "better" with or without figured, one answer is that the GAME is unchanged - it plays exactly the same. 

 

We have very few discussions on changing the gameplay.  Maybe the occasional discussion of the SPD chart or using d20 instead of 3d6. Most of the discussion is on character creation, or on the extent to which interaction of characrer creation elements should be covered by the rules or figured out by the gaming group on their own.

[Ninja-Bear]

Am I the only one who said that Figured and Non figured depends on style of game? I think the one issue is that it seems that the answer has to be a one or the other.  The reason I answered upthread awhile age is that depending on the needs of the game, one figured or non works better for THAT game. And that is mainly due to the players involved. For Super hero it seems to work best to be more cookie cutter with less clutter. One player is a long time player and has the rules down and the other two are not so up on the rules. Also game expectations. I’ve made characters for a Supers game within the NCM for example and I don’t have fun. So yeah if Figured gives me a boost then the character “realistically” should have, I ok with it now. It’s a comic thing which I read in MHRPG. What a lightbulb moment. Now for Heroic where it seems that more granularity is need to distinguish players. Non figured is great.

[Hugh Neilson]

30 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Am I the only one who said that Figured and Non figured depends on style of game? I think the one issue is that it seems that the answer has to be a one or the other.  The reason I answered upthread awhile age is that depending on the needs of the game, one figured or non works better for THAT game. And that is mainly due to the players involved. For Super hero it seems to work best to be more cookie cutter with less clutter. One player is a long time player and has the rules down and the other two are not so up on the rules. Also game expectations. I’ve made characters for a Supers game within the NCM for example and I don’t have fun. So yeah if Figured gives me a boost then the character “realistically” should have, I ok with it now. It’s a comic thing which I read in MHRPG. What a lightbulb moment. Now for Heroic where it seems that more granularity is need to distinguish players. Non figured is great.

 

I would be more inclined to agree if the result of the figured characteristics were more in line with the amounts needed for the characters. 

 

I never saw a Super who did not need more defenses in some form.  Bricks (with high CON) did not have a lesser need for END (and, by extension, REC) than lower-con Mentalists and Energy Projectors.  Characters with lower physical stats still needed STUN (and again REC) to remain viable in combat.  I never saw a Super just go with their figured SPD, or even just buy it up to the next full point.

 

A player relying on Figured to build a viable Supers character would typically be quite disappointed.  In fact, I would suggest the Figured were actually more viable for heroic characters.

 

In the shift to 6e, my inclination was to retain the familiarity of figured characteristics, but reprice the primary characteristics to incorporate the base figureds they would provide.  That would still be a reasonable option in my view.  However, I would also eliminate the "you can only sell back one" rule (which is not needed if pricing is appropriate) and abandon the limitation "no figured" - just sell them back.  And if the primary characteristic has a limitation, the Figured sellback gets the same limitation if those are from the limited Primary. 

 

But that would be much more complicated than just buying each characteristic up separately, so I also see the merit in the decision that, if the pricing is appropriate, we don't need two different ways to buy the exact same things. Of course, that line of reasoning also supports Doc's more extreme elimination of all characteristics in favour of buying only the underlying mechanical effects.  It's not a binary choice, but a continuum.

 

If I look to the d20 system, the same issues arise.  There are breakpoints (why have an odd number?), and there are other ways to buy many of the mechanics (skill points; feats that provide one element of a characteristic, such as more skill points, save bonuses or more hit points).  They're neither as frequent nor as obvious, as Hero provides much greater transparency in the character construction rules, but the same issues are in there.

 

Quote

a boost then the character “realistically” should have

 

sounds like an ability that the character logically should purchase, under Hero's get what you pay for and pay for what you get philosophy.  Again, I believe that is embedded into other games less visibly.  If my D&D Wizard should "realistically" be wearing heavy armor, I have to dedicate some character resources to that heavier armor, so I get less character resources towards other aspects, like my spellcasting.  Or we see a new class, or a teak of an existing class, that adds some abilities and takes others away.  In Hero, that character spent points on using heavy armor, and paid for it by spending less points on spellcasting.

[Chris Goodwin]

Even in Fantasy Hero back in the day, you had to have 18 DEX and 18 CON (for the Figureds), and 4 SPD (because everyone else was 4 SPD), it seemed.

 

Someone years ago, I can't remember where or when, said "SPD equals fun".  I'm not sure I agree, fully, but they had at least somewhat of a point.

 

(Also, why do we expect wizards to be rickety old grandpas with long beards?  Why can't wizards be in at least reasonably decent shape, especially if they're spending their own END for spells?  And we know that people who don't maintain a healthy lifestyle into the years that more and more of us are starting to see don't live as long.)

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

(Also, why do we expect wizards to be rickety old grandpas with long beards?  Why can't wizards be in at least reasonably decent shape, especially if they're spending their own END for spells?  And we know that people who don't maintain a healthy lifestyle into the years that more and more of us are starting to see don't live as long.)

 

Pet peeve of mine, too.  IN THEORY, if you're buying the D&D tropes, the problem is that magic's a tremendous slog, at least for wizards, and takes hours and hours and days and YEARS to develop even the trivial competence demonstrated by a 1st level magic user.  And, of course, who's the archetypal 'wizard' visually?  Gandalf.  

 

Monte Cook, in the sidebars in both AE and AU, dropped several snide comments about these tropes.  One of my favorites was "why is the wizard even wearing *robes*?  Instead of good, normal, maybe enhanced regular clothing?  Why ADVERTISE that way?"  AU and AE also have the Mageblade class...highly trained in both weapons and armor.  Never reaches the most exotic spells, but that's not necessarily a great loss.  In fiction, Belgarath's outfit...looked seedy, but made to order by a Mallorean tailor to last years.  He had the beard, sure, but he was in very good shape.  

 

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If I look to the d20 system, the same issues arise.  There are breakpoints (why have an odd number?), and there are other ways to buy many of the mechanics (skill points; feats that provide one element of a characteristic, such as more skill points, save bonuses or more hit points).  They're neither as frequent nor as obvious, as Hero provides much greater transparency in the character construction rules, but the same issues are in there.

 

2 points per shift was due to the expanded scale.  1E and 2E had that huge useless middle...IIRC, pretty much 8 to 14 was the same.  No bonus, no penalty.  A *clear* defining principle for 3E was "don't change TOO much."  So, an 18 was gonna have to be +4, pretty much.  OK, well...that gave a pretty natural scale, and a path for characters to improve...even if being able to do so was actually extremely limited in 3.5.  

 

8 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I’ve made characters for a Supers game within the NCM for example and I don’t have fun. So yeah if Figured gives me a boost then the character “realistically” should have, I ok with it now. It’s a comic thing which I read in MHRPG. What a lightbulb moment. Now for Heroic where it seems that more granularity is need to distinguish players. Non figured is great.

 

None of that is related to figured vs. not figured.  NCM in supers?  You're slow, weak, AND clumsy.  Figureds doesn't change any of that.  The flaw has nothing to do with Figured;  it starts with NCM, and probably continues to poor character building for the context.  Figureds does NOT give you a boost per se, IF the characteristics prices are correct.

 

The problem, I think, is the fact that figured characteristics in 5E gave you *so many* points.  As Chris noted...I don't ever recall not seeing at least an 18 DEX and 18 CON either.  How can you NOT, from a costing perspective?  For grins, I built the same baselines...30 STR, 23 DEX, 25 CON, 20 BODY, 5 SPD and the same figureds, mostly basing on the 5E...11 REC, 50 END, 48 STUN.  I didn't bother with the Leap...that's of variable value.  Also, no INT or PRE (costing is the same), and no EGO.  The value of ECV is build-dependent.  STR is, too, of course, but 30's not crazy high, and would be appropriate for a fairly wide variety of builds.  

Anyway:  6E, it's 186 points.  5E, it's 127.  

 

And this doesn't count that REC, END, and STUN are horribly expensive in 5E...which argues for buying up the underlying numbers.  Or using an END Reserve for some things;  they're cheap in 5E.  

 

In a nutshell, I think...that's the problem.  The point scale didn't change.  A 500 point 5E character DOES generally have more points to spend in more places, because the characteristics are costing so much less.  In 6E, you pretty much have to slap a -1/2 limit to drop the cost to the 5E levels.  So to get the FUN stuff that we want, we feel like we have to shave on the characteristics.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

Even in Fantasy Hero back in the day, you had to have 18 DEX and 18 CON (for the Figureds), and 4 SPD (because everyone else was 4 SPD), it seemed.

 

Someone years ago, I can't remember where or when, said "SPD equals fun".  I'm not sure I agree, fully, but they had at least somewhat of a point.

 

(Also, why do we expect wizards to be rickety old grandpas with long beards?  Why can't wizards be in at least reasonably decent shape, especially if they're spending their own END for spells?  And we know that people who don't maintain a healthy lifestyle into the years that more and more of us are starting to see don't live as long.)

 

I saw greater variation, although that 18/18 was pretty common for the martial characters.  3 SPD was not uncommon, but 4 was pretty common as well.  I actually toyed with (never ran) a 30 DEX for 90 points (10 OCV and DCV and 4 SPD paid for; 60 points for other stats, weapon proficiencies and maybe a few skills. We didn't play a ton of FH, and when we did we tended to look for things we could not do in D&D.

 

34 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

Pet peeve of mine, too.  IN THEORY, if you're buying the D&D tropes, the problem is that magic's a tremendous slog, at least for wizards, and takes hours and hours and days and YEARS to develop even the trivial competence demonstrated by a 1st level magic user.  And, of course, who's the archetypal 'wizard' visually?  Gandalf. 

 

To be fair, D&D put starting ages for wizards in the low to mid-20s, not "aged".  Study was crucial - many literary characters are more like sorcerers (spontaneous casters) than wizards in d20 parlance.

 

34 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

2 points per shift was due to the expanded scale.  1E and 2E had that huge useless middle...IIRC, pretty much 8 to 14 was the same.  No bonus, no penalty.  A *clear* defining principle for 3E was "don't change TOO much."  So, an 18 was gonna have to be +4, pretty much.  OK, well...that gave a pretty natural scale, and a path for characters to improve...even if being able to do so was actually extremely limited in 3.5. 

 

I think it was even broader for some stats.  DEX and CON had a bonus at 15 IIRC. I recall looking to re-edition 2e characters based on their bonuses rather than their stats (+1 to hit and damage, so 17 STR in 2e, becomes a 12 STR in 3e).

 

No question that the cost break on Figured (both what you got and their high prices) motivated characteristic inflation.  But so did the sample characters. If the most sluggish example Super didn't have 18 DEX and 4 SPD, we might not have felt so obliged to either.  Although having half the SPD chart unused just felt like we should be filling it out more...

[dmjalund]

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

"why is the wizard even wearing *robes*?  Instead of good, normal, maybe enhanced regular clothing?  Why ADVERTISE that way?"

in Gandalf's case, he 's a competent swordsman and also much more powerful than the people around him. If anyone decides to target him, they generally end up sorry.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Also, why do we expect wizards to be rickety old grandpas with long beards?

 

The same reason you expect a guy like Einstein to not be lifting weights and learning self defense, magic is academic.  It takes years to get any good at.  It takes most of your attention and focus, although arguably a wizard needs to be at least somewhat fit so that they aren't exhausted by gestures and rituals.  The long white beard showed great academic training and years of learning.

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

The same reason you expect a guy like Einstein to not be lifting weights and learning self defense, magic is academic.  It takes years to get any good at.  It takes most of your attention and focus, although arguably a wizard needs to be at least somewhat fit so that they aren't exhausted by gestures and rituals.  The long white beard showed great academic training and years of learning.

 

That is pure, unadulterated, absolute stereotyping.  Academic types can't be physical?  There aren't that many, but there are former (college at least) football players who are MDs, for example.  Or with other professional degrees. 

 

It's also totally absurd to assert it takes years and years.  For the REALLY good?  You have it or you don't.  Depending on what you want to do...ok, it can take time to get all the tools you'll need.  It's NOT that hard;  it doesn't take that much of your attention.  And by NO means does it preclude spending an hour a day working out moderately, for example.  Those who have to grind and grind and grind are good...but very, very rarely geniuses.

 

Try these:

https://www.stem-by-design.com/teen-inventors-who-are-changing-the-world/#:~:text=Medical advances%3A&text=Jack Andraka%2C at age 15,cancer was not detected sooner.

 

The image of the graybeard is related to epic-level and/or ARCH mages.  And not even all of them.  The exemplar early mages are HOW old??

 

And last:  how does the average low-level wizard get around in D&D?  WALKING.  20 miles a day.  

 

The stereotypes were put in place to enforce class separations in D&D...that's the ONLY reason, IMO.  And heck, it never even made much sense once sorcerer was introduced.  They STILL enforced the same ridiculous notions...oh, metal interferes with casting...unless it's elven chain.  Oh, casters are ridiculously frail...more frail than peasants!  STUPID.  And they're put in place so there's a value to have the fighters...well, as something other than meat shields.

 

So your argument is trying to go backwards from conclusion to starting point.

[Doc Democracy]

On 8/19/2023 at 10:33 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Aw, Geez....!

 

You said that out loud!

 

Quickly, go stand in a circle of salt, rub your rosary, and chant over and over "it was a mistake; do not take my soul!" from noon until midnight, and, for all that's Holy, do _not_ open your eyes, no matter what you hear!

 

It was only after posting that I realised that Scott might have been talking about reading the rules rather than the extended onversations that went on about them...

[Tech]

On 8/19/2023 at 3:34 PM, Scott Ruggels said:

It's these sorts of discussions that chase me back to want to use 2nd or 3rd edition rules. Much less to read.

You got that right.

Since this will seemingly endlessly go on, I say the answer to the original question is: Tacos.

[Doc Democracy]

16 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The problem, I think, is the fact that figured characteristics in 5E gave you *so many* points.  As Chris noted...I don't ever recall not seeing at least an 18 DEX and 18 CON either.  How can you NOT, from a costing perspective?  For grins, I built the same baselines...30 STR, 23 DEX, 25 CON, 20 BODY, 5 SPD and the same figureds, mostly basing on the 5E...11 REC, 50 END, 48 STUN.  I didn't bother with the Leap...that's of variable value.  Also, no INT or PRE (costing is the same), and no EGO.  The value of ECV is build-dependent.  STR is, too, of course, but 30's not crazy high, and would be appropriate for a fairly wide variety of builds.  

Anyway:  6E, it's 186 points.  5E, it's 127.

 

Took me a while to go and take a look at the rulebooks.  It is instructive to look at this.

 

5th Edition suggested a standard superhero be built on 350 points.  For a characteristic oriented character 230 of those points would go on characteristics, otherwise it would be 125.

6th Edition suggested a standard superhero be built on 400 points.  For a characteristic oriented character 280 of those points would go on characteristics, otherwise it would be 160.

 

So you were pretty spot on in the bog-standard characteristic value for 5th Edition.  It is higher than might then be expected for 6th, IF you bought the same characteristics.  But, of course, you might not choose to do so.  It would be easy to see how you might lose 25 points of characteristics because they were of less game value in 6th Edition.  Do you want/need that 30 STR if it does not provide the PD/REC/STUN? Do you want/need the DEX when it does not provide the SPD? Do you need the 25 STUN when it is not needed for the additional ED/REC/END/STUN?

 

So, yes, I think you do see a diminution in the stats characters are likely to present with an increase in their cost.  I dont think it often comes with a diminution of the abilities the heroes present in game, nor do I think it is an enhancement.  I think they did their damnedest to ensure increases in costs were met with an increased budget.

 

There will obviously be builds tailored to 5th Edition that will suffer but there will also be builds in 6th Edition that benefit from the lack of figureds, not least the lack of a NEED to buy those kinds of characteristics to be competitive.  I looked at the cost of the 5th edition character buying their figureds with no primary stat (except DEX - I wanted that for the CV as there was no way to change CV in 5th).  by not buying the primaries you save 6 points (120 points compared to the 126) but STR/CON/BODY are all 10.  In 5th, if you wanted that kind of REC/STUN/END then you could get the STR/CON/BODY for free.  A character that wants those figureds in 6th pays 103 points, 17 points less than 5th Edition (and still has that additional 50 point budget to put to powers or skills). 

 

Ultimately, I think a lot of the point cost differences are lost down the back of the sofa, they did a decent job of trying to keep things stable and increased the budget to pay for things that were, previously, held in a black box.  I think it does come down to a preference with the simple caveat that 6th allows a bit more freedom on where to put your points.

 

Doc

Edited August 21, 2023 by Doc Democracy

[LoneWolf]

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

Ultimately, I think a lot of the point cost differences are lost down the back of the sofa, they did a decent job of trying to keep things stable and increased the budget to pay for things that were, previously, held in a black box.  I think it does come down to a preference with the simple caveat that 6th allows a bit more freedom on where to put your points.

 

This sums up things perfectly.  I think a lot of the people that prefer figured stats are thinking they are getting more for their points.  In reality the difference is trivial and being able to directly buy CV has some advantages.   

[Chris Goodwin]

13 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

The same reason you expect a guy like Einstein to not be lifting weights and learning self defense, magic is academic.  It takes years to get any good at.  It takes most of your attention and focus, although arguably a wizard needs to be at least somewhat fit so that they aren't exhausted by gestures and rituals.  The long white beard showed great academic training and years of learning.

 

Do they give you the long white beard when you graduate from wizard school or do you have to buy it separately?  Asking for a friend.

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

So you were pretty spot on in the bog-standard characteristic value for 5th Edition.  It is higher than might then be expected for 6th, IF you bought the same characteristics.  But, of course, you might not choose to do so.  It would be easy to see how you might lose 25 points of characteristics because they were of less game value in 6th Edition.  Do you want/need that 30 STR if it does not provide the PD/REC/STUN? Do you want/need the DEX when it does not provide the SPD? Do you need the 25 STUN when it is not needed for the additional ED/REC/END/STUN?

 

Agree on the STR front - does your Energy Projector need a 13 or 18 STR, or did he need +1 or 2 PD, +1 or 2 REC and some STUN? He got 10 points back in Figured for spending 8 points on STR.

 

For DEX, I never found SPD was the issue.  Really, DEX cost 2 points and you spent an extra point to reduce the cost of SPD you would buy anyway.

 

But 6 points for +1 OCV and DCV - clearly EVERY character needed DEX, as you noted further down.  Even ignoring initiative and DEX rolls, the OCV and DCV is huge.  The 6e writeups haven't reflected that reality - the average Super no longer needs a 23 ("legendary") DEX, but most of the 6e writeups just transferred the 5e stats over.

 

While the Figured characteristics were derived from STR and CON, the reality was that we figured out STR and CON largely based on our desired Figured characteristics, although there is a "CON tax", especially in Supers, if you don't want to lose most actions to being STUNNED.

[Hugh Neilson]

11 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The stereotypes were put in place to enforce class separations in D&D...that's the ONLY reason, IMO.  And heck, it never even made much sense once sorcerer was introduced.  They STILL enforced the same ridiculous notions...oh, metal interferes with casting...unless it's elven chain.  Oh, casters are ridiculously frail...more frail than peasants!  STUPID.  And they're put in place so there's a value to have the fighters...well, as something other than meat shields.

 

So your argument is trying to go backwards from conclusion to starting point.

 

First off, if the spellcasters get everything the warriors get, plus spellcasting, why would anyone play a warrior? 

 

In Hero, we see points the casters spend on spells - those have to come from somewhere, so the warriors remain superior in physical combat because they invest their points in physical combat abilities. A character that invests in martial and magical abilities will fall short of a character that specializes in one or the other. In d20, classes direct abilities similarly.

 

Second, at least in 3rd edition D&D, commoners (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/commoner.htm) were not superior to anyone. Those are the peasants. They got the lowest attributes of any player character class. The wizard and sorcerer didn't spend time in martial training so they had combat skills equivalent to the commoner, not inferior.