Figured or Not-Figured, That Is The Question...

[Grailknight]

Well, if we're in 6th Edition, I'm going to put 12 points in REC and 8 points in END. That'll give me a 16 REC and 60 END. In 5th Edition, since I'd probably have enough END from CON, I'd go all REC.

[Gauntlet]

There are a few ways to keep END from being a problem. The first one, which also will lower the cost of SPD, is to not go crazy with the character's SPD. Don't just increase the character's speed to a crazy amount because you want to go more, that way he/she will use less END naturally and will give him/her to have points to use elsewhere. Other ones are increasing Recovery, makes it easier for the character to get their END back (and also remember, if you time it correctly you at times can take a recovery during combat. And of course there is reducing the END required for your powers, a simple 1/4 advantage for 1/2 END. 

Edited September 1 by Gauntlet

[Ninja-Bear]

Here’s a crazy thought. Just because you have a higher SPS doesn’t mean you HAVE to use all its Phases. Perhaps you buy a higher SPD so you have an opportunity to use a Phase when you want instead of Holding an Action. (I’m sure somebody will tell me how inefficient this is.) Nor just because you can go more Phases means you need to max out on END using Powers. 

[Hugh Neilson]

25 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Here’s a crazy thought. Just because you have a higher SPS doesn’t mean you HAVE to use all its Phases. Perhaps you buy a higher SPD so you have an opportunity to use a Phase when you want instead of Holding an Action. (I’m sure somebody will tell me how inefficient this is.) Nor just because you can go more Phases means you need to max out on END using Powers. 

 

While that's pretty inefficient (have to meet those expectations), doing nothing, or at least nothing that cost END, in a phase is a viable option, especially if END is depleting and taking a recovery is too risky.

But any powers with ongoing END costs will shut down unless END is paid every phase.

[Doc Democracy]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Here’s a crazy thought. Just because you have a higher SPS doesn’t mean you HAVE to use all its Phases. Perhaps you buy a higher SPD so you have an opportunity to use a Phase when you want instead of Holding an Action. (I’m sure somebody will tell me how inefficient this is.) Nor just because you can go more Phases means you need to max out on END using Powers. 

 

RAW it is not terribly inefficient but it is indeed a pain in the behind.  If you choose to change speeds during a turn it gets really complicated.  if you do not formally reduce speed then you pay END for ongoing powers every phase.  If you do not have any constant powers up, then that phase you do not "use" to act you can recover in.

 

So it can get complicated.

Doc

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Here’s a crazy thought. Just because you have a higher SPS doesn’t mean you HAVE to use all its Phases. Perhaps you buy a higher SPD so you have an opportunity to use a Phase when you want instead of Holding an Action. (I’m sure somebody will tell me how inefficient this is.) Nor just because you can go more Phases means you need to max out on END using Powers. 

 

I don't see it so much as inefficient, as a strong evidence of tactical power use issues (overuse of autofire or multiple attack, for example) or issues in the character build.  Maybe you need to buy END, or REC, or reconsider that SPD...you can always declare a lower SPD, remember.  It's easy to get wrapped up in the build process/character concept, and not see issues until the sheet's tested.

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

While that's pretty inefficient (have to meet those expectations), doing nothing, or at least nothing that cost END, in a phase is a viable option, especially if END is depleting and taking a recovery is too risky.

But any powers with ongoing END costs will shut down unless END is paid every phase.

You know that brings up a good point. Why should a high speed character have to pay more in END say for a Force Field than a low Speed Character of the exact same FF?

[Doc Democracy]

Similar question with regard to movement that I mentioned in the first post.  A downside that might go towards offsetting the benefit of additional movement.

 

The key answer is probably going to be one of consistent mechanics.  You pay END by phase.

 

Doc

[Grailknight]

On 9/2/2024 at 11:18 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

You know that brings up a good point. Why should a high speed character have to pay more in END say for a Force Field than a low Speed Character of the exact same FF?

 

Simplicity and utility. The current system makes higher SPD costly, but that higher SPD character can optionally lower their SPD or not use their Powers at maximum if they choose. It's an ability they paid for.

 

Why would you want to complicate bookkeeping by having separate END rules for Attack, Defensive and Movement Powers? If you did, how would you determine the actual END usage of a 4 SPD vs 5 SPD character? What happens when you base your attack on Movement with Move-by and Move-through and their Martial versions? How would you work Pushing? 

 

If you do go to some kind of END per turn system, what will stop SPD escalation? END use maintenance is the primary factor and you're making costs lower for higher SPD characters. Speedsters will love this system as it favors low STR attacks with adds from velocity. 

Edited September 6 by Grailknight

[Duke Bushido]

On 8/29/2024 at 8:44 AM, Doc Democracy said:

Personally, the reason I think that COM does not fit into the "characteristic" category in the game and is better realised as an adjunct element is because it does not follow the "more points stronger, fewer points weaker" paradigm.

 

In every other characteristic there is no downside to higher values and no upside to lower values.  With COM there was that strange bit when you went low it actually became useful to scare or intimidate (and in clever hands) to engender pity and charity.  In some cases, I saw a high COM being used negatively against a character due to prejudice against "beautiful airheads".  COM could be a judgement call, other characteristics require no such judgement.

 

Doc

 

 

Let me preface this with a brief disclaimer, even though most of you already know this:

 

I have neither love nor hatred of 6e, nor do I have a dog anywhere near this fight.  This is because in spite of 3e, 4e, 5e, 5eR, and 6e, I have yet to see anything that is, for me, significant enough "improvement" to adopt whole cloth, or that I haven't been able to either emulate with -or, in the case of Summon, backport into- 2e.  All that being said, let me go with another disclaimer:

 

Taylor and I, while quite often in a general agreement on a subject- or at least on the same side of any yes/no type question- rarely actually agree closely on the specifics of that yes/no-  though, to be fair, we are amicable in our disagreement and so far as I know, have always been willing to each hear what the other has to say.

 

Accordingly, it is always interesting to find myself agreeing only to later see that we don't completely, but frankly, I see this, too, as part of the fun of amicable discussion.

 

In this case, I agree with him:  I feel, regardless of final justification, that the dropping of COM was in some part motivated by it not having a valuable, chartable affect on combat mechanics.

 

Like Christopher, I feel it had a valuable use in role play, even though yes; I, too, saw it as mostly a means of modifying character interactions.  And yes; I, too, saw (and occasionally _used_) it in the opposite method of traditional stats, in which case having more was a bad thing.  Granted, that was usually a case involving specific Disadplications on the other party'a character sheet-- such as Doc's example of a prejudice against attractive airheads.

 

But that is niche enough amd specific enough that I do not think it should be used as a justification to demote a characteristic.  

 

As an example, there are those people who will instantly prejudice themselves against people with extremely muscular physique, assuming them to be under-educated and doltish boors best avoided and at least excluded from any philosophical or intellectual discussions (sorry, Rhode's Scholars; those people are real.  My little sister M, in spite of _being_ a statuesque and muscular person, won't even consider approaching a powerfully-built man, let alone dating one.  And because this prejudice is much more common in men against women, she is forty-four and single).  

 

So because it is possible to put this particular prejudice down as a Disadplication, should STR then not be a characteristic?  Because there exist edge cases where having lots of it makes a small set of people dislike you without reason?

 

Moving on-

 

I would have preferred the retention of COM not because it was a part of the original game, but because it was an interesting thing that I had not seen in any other game before or since: a quantitative assessment of how your character was generally perceived the world around him.  That, at least to me, was interesting.  We have (well, you guys have, anyway) gone from that to a three-position switch: strikingly negative, lost-in-a-crowd-of-three, strikingly positive.  Which, of course, can still invoke Disadplications such as "hatred of attractive airheads."  So should characters _pay points (since the bulk of this thread is based on the notion that points mean something beyond potential) to be strikingly anything, since it may have the opposite effect anyway?

 

 

Still, it could have been done.  COM could have been eliminated, yet still been a characteristic, and could have had a distinctly mechanical use in the game, and all it would have taken was for _anyone_ from the first edition forward to have either made a clear definition or at least included the line "before assuming this makes you scary, consult a couple of dictionaries for the meaning of 'Presence' as it applies to people."

 

Yep.  It could have been folded neatly into Presence.  

 

You can buy STR that has nothing to do with muscles.  "It is a function of my EXO suit."  "It is a type of telekinesis, but I have to be touching the object."  "It is a magical enhancement of my chi" or whatever you want it to be.  It is bought as STR, and you define how it works.

 

"Oh, but then you have to take limitations / advantages like--"

 

No.  I do not.  The rules specifically say that I get to pick my SFX and that my SFX do not define how the powers work; the mechanics do.  Any modifiers are my choice, and will never be mandatory just because someone can make them fit.

 

Which is to say that in an older edition, if my STR is defined as a touch-based TK, it still applies to my STUN unless _I choose_ to say otherwise.  If I pay full price, I get full benefits.  You can make me justify it via SFX, but you can't take it away from me.

 

All that being said:

 

Spock had tremendous Presence.  At no time is Spock just "generally terrifying."  Allegedly, Picard had tremendous Presence.  Being generally fearful of Picard as presented, however, is all kinds of silly.

 

Presence is more than "being scary."  It is intimidation, carriage, bearing, countenance, reputation, effectiveness, conviction, and much, much, _much_ more, and frankly, in general, people respond positively to attractive people-  at least, those that they are culturally trained to find attractive.

 

"But that isn't one hundred percent true because _I_ don't think skinny women are-"

 

Fine.  Do what I did.  Put a Disadplication on your personal character sheet and stop pretending that everyone agrees.  Just admit openly that you think lady powerlifters are smokin' hot and accept that you may be the only person on earth that does, and move on.  

 

 

Anyway, I think I that would have been a _far_ more elegant solution than deciding "oh, it is only a modifier anyway."  I mean, we allow complimentary skill s as modifiers,but they are still actual quantifiable skills that can be improved or reduced incrementally, are they not?

 

Anyway, I have to get back into the attic,so I am going to let you get back to your discussion of the wisdom of changes I am never going to make.

 

Have fun, folks.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

In this case, I agree with him:  I feel, regardless of final justification, that the dropping of COM was in some part motivated by it not having a valuable, chartable affect on combat mechanics.

 

I am prepared to take Steve Long at his word that it was a lack of ANY UNIQUE MECHANIC attributable to COM, not a lack of a COMBAT mechanic, that lead to the decision to remove it as a characteristic.  What is the combat use of Intelligence?  It remains a characteristic. A great many abilities that do have combat mechanics are not Characteristics.

 

3 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Yep.  It could have been folded neatly into Presence. 

 

Making it "not a characteristic unto itself" - this succinctly describes the reason for removing COM as a characteristic.

 

3 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Anyway, I think I that would have been a _far_ more elegant solution than deciding "oh, it is only a modifier anyway."  I mean, we allow complimentary skills as modifiers,but they are still actual quantifiable skills that can be improved or reduced incrementally, are they not?

 

We do not make complimentary skills into Characteristics. In fact, they are typically based on an existing characteristic. Striking Appearance can also be purchased incrementally in as quantifiable a manner as COM was. Background Skill: Lookin' Good could be taken if you prefer a complimentary skill roll.

 

No mechanic was ever suggested that would be unique to COM. From that perspective, COM was an outlier from "characteristics".

 

Oh, and first Ed D&D added Comeliness in Unearthed Arcana, but Champions was still there first.

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

What is the combat use of Intelligence? 

 

Perception rolls.  Analyze is an INT-based skill.  The Power skill is most commonly based on INT.  

 

I like that Background Skill, Lookin Good.  We can call it the Ricardo Montalban Skill.

[Ninja-Bear]

@Grailknight, the thought just hit me about how faster characters pay more in the long running the same defensive power than a slower character and this was actually in response to Hugh point of how it isn’t fair that 13 STR and 23 CON player had to pay more in the figured characteristics than 25 STR 25 CON.  IOW, no matter what, there is going to be a build which isn’t going to be “fair” compared to everyone else. We’ve all seen a build that might be say 100 ACT pts but in reality only function at say a 40 ACT pt Power. 
 

[Grailknight]

4 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

@Grailknight, the thought just hit me about how faster characters pay more in the long running the same defensive power than a slower character and this was actually in response to Hugh point of how it isn’t fair that 13 STR and 23 CON player had to pay more in the figured characteristics than 25 STR 25 CON.  IOW, no matter what, there is going to be a build which isn’t going to be “fair” compared to everyone else. We’ve all seen a build that might be say 100 ACT pts but in reality only function at say a 40 ACT pt Power. 
 

 

I was commenting along the same lines. Going to END per turn for Movement and Defensive Powers makes SPD disparities have even greater impact.

 

The biggest reason for the change to No Figured was to address the disparity between concepts with differing level of STR, DEX and CON. Over the years, we acknowledged it and made builds that took advantage of it. It was a flawed system but had the advantage of simplicity.

 

The question you asked/idea you proposed creates more issues and complexity. But it doesn't revolve around Figured/No Figured, it's about SPD.

 

SPD is awesome, you get to move and act more often giving you a tactical advantage.  But SPD has drawbacks to somewhat offset the benefits. Pre-4th Edition, END use was a major limiter on SPD. At just 4 SPD and with 1/2 END on all the powers, it was still common to spend 7-8 END per phase on attack, defense and movement. That worked out to 28-32 END per turn and higher SPD made the issue worse. So, SPD had a points cost, and it really hurt to mitigate its drawbacks.

 

4th Edition cut these costs in half, and while it wasn't immediate, we saw a gradual escalation in SPD because it was now possible to raise it without being exhausted at the end of turn 2 of combat. The Cost of SPD remained the same, but its drawbacks were greatly lessened.

 

Now if we take into account your proposal for END per turn to be a flat number for all values of SPD for Movement and Defensive Power, we're making up new sections of RAW and changing the END use equation completely. There will be an optimal spot between raising END consumption for lower SPD characters and reducing it for higher SPD characters. And people will find that spot and raise their SPD to the max allowed by the GM. The only limiting factor remaining is the END cost of attacks.

[LoneWolf]

If you want to track END per turn the best way is to simply build your character that way.  This will require slightly more thought and expending some points when building the character, but it is not that difficult. There seems to be some resistance to the idea that it should cost points for a character that can ignore END usage.  To me this is the way it should be done, because it allows for a greater variety of character concepts. 

 

If a player wants his character to be able to fight all day long he should be able to create that type of character.  But at the same time the player who wants to be able to go nova and be more powerful for short periods of time by burning through his resources is also a valid concept.  The second type of character may need more GM oversight to make sure it does not break the campaign, but it is still a valid concept. Under the current rules both type of characters are possible.  Switching to an END per turn system is going to make the second type of character more difficult to create. 

 

There is also no reason that you could not purchase some of your REC with the limitation END only.  You could also take a limitation that the extra REC was only works post 12.  That would make it dirt cheap. 

[Hugh Neilson]

On 9/3/2024 at 3:46 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

@Grailknight, the thought just hit me about how faster characters pay more in the long running the same defensive power than a slower character and this was actually in response to Hugh point of how it isn’t fair that 13 STR and 23 CON player had to pay more in the figured characteristics than 25 STR 25 CON.  IOW, no matter what, there is going to be a build which isn’t going to be “fair” compared to everyone else.

 

When we have one character with an 18 CON who buys +2 ED (2 points), +2 REC (4 points), +20 END(10 points) and +5 STUN (5 points) and a second who buys +10 CON, spends 1 point less and gets everything the first character got, plus more, that is objectively problematic, in my view.

 

The game even acknowledged this, limiting sell back of Figured, so that a player could not buy +10 million CON for 20 million points, sell back all the Figureds and be left with a million points to buy other stuff.

Edited September 5 by Hugh Neilson

[unclevlad]

I assume you mean +20 END for 10 points...but yep.

 

CON isn't even the broken one.  One can argue the issue there is less about figured characteristics, and more about the ridiculous cost of buying the figured characteristics up.  However, both DEX and STR have *massive* problems...because with STR, everything figured is a literal freebie.  You're paying for the damage STR can do.  With DEX, the CV is a total freebie.  

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

11 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I assume you mean +20 END for 10 points...but yep.

 

CON isn't even the broken one.  One can argue the issue there is less about figured characteristics, and more about the ridiculous cost of buying the figured characteristics up.  However, both DEX and STR have *massive* problems...because with STR, everything figured is a literal freebie.  You're paying for the damage STR can do.  With DEX, the CV is a total freebie.  

 

 

Fixed that; thanks. +10 STR was +2 PD, +2 REC and +5 STUN, so 90% of the cost was recovered in Figured.  Tack on Leaping and you're ahead again before getting the HTH damage, etc.

 

And DEX was the super-bargain, as you note.  It really only cost 2 points (the SPD rebate was spent anyway), so +15 DEX was +5 OCV, +5 DCV, +3 to all DEX rolls and +15 Lightning Reflexes.  Try buying all that any other way for 30 points!

[unclevlad]

9 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Fixed that; thanks. +10 STR was +2 PD, +2 REC and +5 STUN, so 90% of the cost was recovered in Figured.  Tack on Leaping and you're ahead again before getting the HTH damage, etc.

 

And DEX was the super-bargain, as you note.  It really only cost 2 points (the SPD rebate was spent anyway), so +15 DEX was +5 OCV, +5 DCV, +3 to all DEX rolls and +15 Lightning Reflexes.  Try buying all that any other way for 30 points!

 

And the combination of grotesque levels of freebies, with ridiculous costs for figured characteristics, *massively* distorts the character creation process, which may well distort tactical thinking.  "END costs are so cheap now, why bother even tracking it???"  I reverse that.  Figured characteristics gave the impression that moderate REC and END were proper and accepted...and that's reinforced by the obscene cost to buy things up.  Now toss in the awful concept of "active point costs" when it's damage caps that make FAR more sense...damage caps say, sure, buy Reduced END.  Active point caps don't.

 

It's an entire swath of factors that promote the notion that mid-turn recoveries are completely acceptable...because doing other things is hard or expensive.  And as a side effect, this may contribute to SPD inflation...because it's almost the *assumption* that you'll take a mid-turn recovery every couple of turns.  That has a smaller negative impact when you have a higher SPD.

[Gauntlet]

On 8/26/2024 at 10:10 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Since I write stuff for 6th edition, I have just leaned into the no-figured camp, even if I prefer the feel of the figured camp.  Personally, I find just throwing comeliness out entirely bothers me more than the loss of figured.

 

I definitely have to agree with you here. Though I still like 5th edition, there are just some things for 6th edition I like more.

 

But when playing, I go with the one the GM wants to use, and when running I go with the one that best supports my GMins material and my players.

Edited September 5 by Gauntlet

[Ninja-Bear]

At this point, I look at the edition that to me has the most enjoyment and just look and any problems and adjust accordingly.