Relinking Figured Characteristics

[Steve]

Heresy time here...

 

Strength has long been argued as being too cheap for what it costs compared to what it provides. Some have proposed that it be upped in cost to 2 points. The reason why I believe this is unworkable is because it is a system kuldge that flies in the face of the 5pts/DC costing method that attack powers generally work on in Hero (with Ego Attacks and Drains working against limited forms of defense, so 10 pts/DC).

 

So, what to do?

 

It was while I was thinking about this that I came to the conclusion that tinkering with figured characteristics was a better answer. If you drop Strength from affecting any figured characteristics, then it functions like a no-range energy blast that also affects lifting capacity. It can't be spread, but a strong character can pick up a large object and wield their strength as an area effect attack.

 

I can already hear the gasps of outrage from some. What about Hand-To-Hand Attack? What about Leaping distance? What would you link to the figured characteristics instead of Strength?

 

Let's walk through the questions, leaving the last one as the heart of my analysis.

 

1) What about Hand-To-Hand Attack? Well, it is a power that increases a character's non-killing damage in HTH combat. It functions as a non-lethal form of Hand-To-Hand Killing Attack and currently has a rather kludgy limitation applied to it. I would propose changing it to something more like an Energy Blast, a straight 5 pts/DC, maybe with a -1/4 Limitation on it at most to reflect that it doesn't affect lifting ability but better a -0.

 

2) What about Leaping? Well, let's look at a bodybuilder, say Arnold in his Mr. Universe days. He's very strong, but I don't see him as being able to jump as high as his Strength score would indicate. Since Leaping is pretty cheap already as a movement power, cutting the link from Strength is not illogical.

 

3) Well, okay smart guy, what would you link to the figured characteristics instead? Here's where I run some numbers and options.

 

PD: Currently uses Strength/5 as a base. I would propose using Body/5 as a base, since it reflects a certain toughness and physical durability already. Plus, Body currently only affects one figured characteristic, which makes it seem a bit costly for a damage tracking characteristic. Alternately, Constitution could be used, but that would load a lot of figured characteristics on one primary, so I would propose raising the cost of Constitution to x3 in this case.

 

REC: Currently uses Strength/5 plus Constitution/5 as a base. If we drop Strength from the calculation, an easy formula substitution would be to use Constitution/2 as the new base. With Endurance calculated as Constitution x2, it would take four Recoveries to return to full, so there is a slight boost here, since an alternative formula would be Constitution/5 and then doubled, which is a bit kludgy to me.

 

STUN: Currently uses one of the most complex formulae for a figured characteristic, with Body+Strength/2+Constitution/2. I came up with two viable options here. The first would be to use Bodyx2, and the second would be to use Bodyx1.5 plus Constitution/2.

 

 

Now, I would also propose one more link breakage, to have Dexterity no longer affect Speed.

 

The torches are probably lighting up now.

 

Consider this, a character buys a 15 Dexterity and a Speed of 3. Or a character buys a 24 Dexterity and a 4 Speed. In both cases, Speed is not left at the base amounts but upped to the next point since it only costs a few character points. If that first point of Speed isn't bought, then a player has left a slight innefficiency in the design, which is all right. But why does it have to be that way? If Dexterity is lowered to 2 points per point and Speed starts with a base of 2, then the cost of the DEX/SPD purchase is the same as it is now. If I buy a 15 Dexterity and a 3 Speed, I spend 20 points. Under the suggested alternative costing, it is still 20 points.

 

 

Well, I'm off to don my flame-retardant suit now.

[Gary]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

This has already been discussed many times already. Personally I think if you're going to go this route, it's better to drop all figured characteristics completely. It's cleaner, more elegant, and it's a lot easier to balance.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

This has already been discussed many times already.

 

And it's probably gonna be discussed once more, and at length. I'll wager at least 250 posts by Monday...

[Fox1]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

And it's probably gonna be discussed once more' date=' and at length. I'll wager at least 250 posts by Monday...[/quote']

 

Not by me it won't.

 

I'll just sit here and be amused by it all.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

We debated starting another Ninja Hero campaign (we haven't run one under 5th yet) partially to test out one of the "no figured" cost setups under campaign situations, but so far everyone is enjoying the current campaign too much to stop...

[prestidigitator]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

2) What about Leaping? Well' date=' let's look at a bodybuilder, say Arnold in his Mr. Universe days. He's very strong, but I don't see him as being able to jump as high as his Strength score would indicate. Since Leaping is pretty cheap already as a movement power, cutting the link from Strength is not illogical.[/quote']

I won't comment on the rest. I am pretty happy with Strength and all the rest, and even I have seen this debated to the point of nausea. However, I have never thought Leaping should be based upon Strength. I think Leaping should have a base of 1", and the normal maximum for it should be 1". You should get +1" for each 10" of combat velocity. If we assume a track and field olympian has bought both Running and Leaping to the maximum, that means (s)he can do a running long jump (non-combat leap) of 4"=8m, which is about the world record. Just my 2 cents.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

Yeah, it's been debated to death. Unless you lower the cost of Figured Characteristics, or make the base "fixed # + variable" it will never balance out.

 

You propose a few different choices, so let's look at them.

 

DEX: No difference in overall cost either way. I'd leave it as is to avoid granting a 50% bonus to all adjustment powers targetting DEX.

 

STR - drop from 11 figured per 10 CP spent to 0. I don't want to get into the "is STR too cheap" debate, so leave that one.

 

CON - currently you get 21 points of Figured for 20 CP of CON. Your proposal would raise that to between 22 and 29 [22 is 2 ED + 5 REC + 20 END for 10 CON; 29 is 2 PD + 2 ED + 5 REC + 5 STUN + 20 END]. No Figured on CON is always a waste. This won't change that.

 

BOD - currently, you get 10 figured per 20 CP invested in BOD. Your proposal raises this to between 15 and 22 (15 or 20 STUN, maybe with 2 PD tacked on). Bet on me never buying my STUN up again - may as well buy BOD. No Figured at -1/2 now sucks for BOD as well.

[gojira]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

Hmmm. I'm not playing actively in any HERO campaign right now. I'm here mostly for nostalgia. So I can't really comment on fine issues of balance because I'm not really up on my HERO stuff right now.

 

I have to second The Emerged's opinion though. If people are having fun, why mess with it? Remember Fuzion?

 

 

 

Minor suggestion: If it's really a balance issue for some genres (I can't see how it could be for Superheroes, I've played too much of that), why not just make this an optional rule for those genres?

[Steve]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

Thanks for the comments all. I've never really participated in the Great Figured Characteristic Debate before, but I had the idea for relinking strike me, and I didn't find this particular option discussed before (and I did look). You know how it is. Sometimes you have an idea for the system that you have to toss out and see how the wolves savage it.

 

It sounds like I need to go back to the drawing board and study the numbers a bit more on spreadsheets. I didn't mention changing any of the figured characteristics cost multipliers, since I wasn't sure what might be a good adjustment to them. Stun costing 1/2 a point per point maybe? Recovery at one point per point?

[TheEmerged]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

I have to second The Emerged's opinion though. If people are having fun' date=' why mess with it? Remember Fuzion?[/quote']

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: my little group has long believed there is a problem, and we've tried to rework the formulas before. However, everyone is having too much fun with the current campaign to start a different one so we could test a new suggestion...

 

 

Minor suggestion: If it's really a balance issue for some genres (I can't see how it could be for Superheroes, I've played too much of that), why not just make this an optional rule for those genres?

 

That's precisely where the problem is -- in the genres in which the PC's will normally have Normal Characteristic Maxima by default (and usually, but not always, fewer points).

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

Remember Fuzion?

No, I don't.

 

And neither do you.

 

And neither does anyone else!

 

It never happened!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

( )

[gojira]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: my little group has long believed there is a problem, and we've tried to rework the formulas before. However, everyone is having too much fun with the current campaign to start a different one so we could test a new suggestion...

 

That's precisely where the problem is -- in the genres in which the PC's will normally have Normal Characteristic Maxima by default (and usually, but not always, fewer points).

 

Right. It's genre re-inforcing to have Strength cost be too cheap. In a supers campaign, people are SUPPOSED to be super strong, so why not encourage it?

 

Whereas for lower powered campaigns, I can see it being a problem. It's mainly the granularity problem I see, but maybe point cost is the core issue. GURPS, for example, charges about 10 points for +1 STR, maybe HERO should too.

 

And sorry to misquote you. *STILL*, if people are having fun...

[gojira]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

No, I don't.

And neither do you.

And neither does anyone else!

It never happened!!!

( )

 

"Those who forget history are doomed to forever repeat it."

 

George Santayana said that, I think.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

No, I don't.

 

And neither do you.

 

And neither does anyone else!

 

It never happened!!!

Hmm. Well, as I didn't have much time I kind of ignored the whole thing anyway, except that I saw that Limitations subtracted straight from Advantages or something. Eh. That didn't seem quite right.

 

Though I have been thinking about a system where Advantages (but not Limitations) multiply, as in a +1 and a +2 would be (1+1)(1+2)=6 instead of (1+1+2)=4. If a Limitation applied directly to an Advantage, you could [still] just apply it to the Advantage value itself. Like if you had a Power that was Area of Effect (+1), and was Armor Piercing (+1/2) only against metal armor (I don't know, say -1/2 for the hypothetical campaign), it would be a multiplier of: (1+1)(1 + 0.5/1.5) = 2 * 4/3 = 8/3. Would obviously need some thought and work.

[David Blue]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

This just seems to do things much the way Superworld used to. It's no big deal.

 

It's possible, though not convenient or very advisable, to build player character bricks in Superworld. They are, essentially, ineptly designed martial artists or no-range energy projectors, with an additional option to do property damage by lifting and then thowing/dropping/whatever.

 

I think Champions strength is not broken.

 

But I believe the current game designer thinks is it, which means it might be re-written one day.

 

If so, I'd just stop bothering with bricks, except as villains to beat. I'm familiar with the Superworld character types that do work, and I'd use one of them.

 

(Obscure - and probably complicated - Deadly Attack Guy goes right to the head of the list.)

 

Gaming, and even Champions, is to some extent a genre of its own anyway. Simple, brawny heroes like Mister Incredible don't necessarily have an eternal place in this genre.

 

I think the discussion about de-linked strength should be based on the experience of people who've actually played a lot of Champions, especially four-colour Champions, under de-linked strength rules, and will be familiar from personal experience with the replacement character types that come to occupy the ecological niche bricks used to occupy after characters are built with the new rules in mind. They'll be the ones that really know about this.

 

Since I haven't played in such a Champions game - just lots of Superworld - that's my piece said.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

Generally I'm pretty happy with the figured characteristics, but one idea that popped up on another thread that I really like is the idea of dropping STR from STUN calculations and using EGO instead. it makes Str every so sligly less useful, and makes EGO a bit more valuable for non mental characters.

[Steve]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: my little group has long believed there is a problem' date=' and we've tried to rework the formulas before. However, everyone is having too much fun with the current campaign to start a different one so we could test a new suggestion...[/quote']

 

What have you come up with for different formulae? I'm curious.

[Gary]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

What have you come up with for different formulae? I'm curious.

 

 

I think this would be balanced, although I haven't tested it yet.

 

1 Str

3 Dex

1 Con

1 Body

 

1 PD

1 ED

1 Rec

1/3 End

1/2 Stun

 

No figured characteristics. All stats are primaries. All former primaries start at 10 and all former figureds start at what they would normally be (PD and ED 2, Rec 4, etc.)

 

Con, Body, End, and Stun (maybe Rec as well) are treated as 'defenses' for purposes of adjustment powers.

 

I'd keep the free 1" leap per 5 Str (which I'd allow to sell back) because otherwise EB would be mildly more efficient than Str under this structure.

 

As a note, Dex keeps its old cost even without adding to Spd because I feel it's too efficient in its current form.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

Not to deny the validity of your opinion, Steve - it's a reasonable argument and worth exploring - but I don't think that increasing the cost of Strength to 2 Char. Pts./ STR Point is really a system kludge when used in the proper context, and actually has precedent to support it.

 

As has been mentioned on this thread and in many other discussions, STR is not really imbalancing at the Superheroic level. Where it sometimes becomes an issue is with Heroic-level games, particularly in genres such as Fantasy where muscle-powered weapons dominate. In those games the rules already recommend an Endurance use for STR of one END per 5 pts. of STR rather than the customary 10; doubling the cost of STR would make that mechanic consistent with the system as a whole. After all, there are other distinctions between Heroic and Superheroic games within the system: Normal Characteristic Maxima as the default in Heroic games, buying equipment with money vs. with Character Points, use of Hit Locations and other optional combat elements, certain Power Modifiers such as Gestures or Independent not recommended for Superheroic games, etc.

 

FWIW I've been using this adjustment to STR in my games for years, and everyone has been reasonably satisfied with the results. I've even had a few characters sell their starting STR back a couple of points when it was in concept, because they get real point benefits for doing so.

[Steve]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

Not to deny the validity of your opinion' date=' Steve - it's a reasonable argument and worth exploring - but I don't think that increasing the cost of Strength to 2 Char. Pts./ STR Point is really a system kludge when used in the proper context, and actually has precedent to support it.[/quote']

 

Well, my main problem with doubling the cost of Strength has to do with the Active Point issue that arises because of it. A 60 STR costs 100 points (or 120 Active Points if you take the Base 10 into account), which is a pretty darned high active cost for a power.

 

Taking Ironclad for example, he costs 50 points more than he does now if I just double the cost of Strength.

 

If I use Gary's approach that he listed, Ironclad's cost increases by 58 points (assuming I did the math right in recalculating), which is pretty close to the effect of just doubling Strength's cost and avoids the issue of Active Points for Strength.

 

If I follow just the Strength related calculations I suggested above, the cost increases by only 34 points (assuming I did the math right). If I borrow Gary's reduced cost for Stun, it gets closer (24 points).

 

The Dex/Spd issue I see does get complicated by Aids/Drains/Transfers, so leaving it as is makes more sense to me now. That was just something that occurred to me as I was looking at the relationships of primary and figured characteristics.

 

I believe I'm on the right track in my methodology, and my goal is simply to modify the figured characteristics structure while keeping from deviating too far from the present point costs for a brick-type as they work now, which is what happens with the first two methods. Personally, I think Strength costs the right amount for being able to do damage and affecting lifting capacity. The difficulty I am having is with its effects on figured characteristics.

 

I'll continue to refine and see what I come up with. I'm an accountant by profession, so jiggering with character creation numbers as a hobby is fun for me. I've actually been playing Hero system since first picking up Champions in 1983. I'm one of those types of Hero players who enjoys the art of character construction, so working with the toolkitting aspects of the present system I find enjoyable.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

You sortof asked two different questions, I'm gonna answer them both

 

-------------------------------

 

Different Formulas = Keeping the concept of Figured Attributes but adjusting the way they're figured

• PD = Unchanged
  
• ED = Unchanged
  
• MD = "unchanged' [We long ago made this a figured attribute, since it basically is anyway)
  
• "FFD", Full Flash Defense = INT/5; you cannot change the base (up or down)
  
• SPD = unchanged, or 1 + (higher of EGO or DEX)/10
  
• REC = (EGO+CON)/5 [Logic:Strong will recovers faster]
  
• END = EGO+CON [Logic: Strong will allows the character to push harder]
  
• STUN = BODYx2 or BODY+ ((CON+EGO)/2)
  

 

We found that this did a good job of making STR and CON worth about what we felt they should be for the cost -- and found that it made EGO to cheap. The second time we experimented with making EGO a 3pt per pip and allowing it to substitute for DEX for figuring SPD and at what point in the phase you ask. The consensus was this changed too much.

 

There is also a consensus we'd like to make Power Defense figured, but can't agree on a logical formula. Mathematically it should be PRE but we just can't justify it...

 

------------------------------------

 

Different formula, as in NO formula (everything is base attribute)

 

The one we were discussing is similar to the one Gary proposed, with MD and FFD added. Half of us think DEX should go to 2 and the other half think it should stay at 3 (it's still pretty doggone useful) -- there was a debate about making it 3 per until NCM and 4 per afterwards, but that didn't survive the "unnecessary complication" test.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

Well, my main problem with doubling the cost of Strength has to do with the Active Point issue that arises because of it. A 60 STR costs 100 points (or 120 Active Points if you take the Base 10 into account), which is a pretty darned high active cost for a power.

 

Taking Ironclad for example, he costs 50 points more than he does now if I just double the cost of Strength.

 

I think you may have missed an essential point of my post. I make the change in the cost of Strength for Heroic-level games only, not Superheroic ones. Ironclad would buy his Strength at the standard cost, because he belongs in the super genre, and as I said before, IMO for characters in that genre the cost is reasonable.

 

I can understand if some folks would prefer a uniform cost for Strength across the board, but as I was trying to illustrate with my previous examples, there are already several significant differences in how Heroic and Superheroic characters are bought and run.

 

 

I'll continue to refine and see what I come up with. I'm an accountant by profession' date=' so jiggering with character creation numbers as a hobby is fun for me. I've actually been playing Hero system since first picking up Champions in 1983. I'm one of those types of Hero players who enjoys the art of character construction, so working with the toolkitting aspects of the present system I find enjoyable. [/quote']

 

Absolutely! Lots of HERO gamers get a kick out of tinkering with the system to see how it can be made "better."

 

I'm just of a school that prefers as few changes to a game as I think necessary, and to conform those changes as much as possible to existing precedent; but the whole point of a game is to have fun, so use it the way that's most fun for you.

[David Blue]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

Lord Liaden: "As has been mentioned on this thread and in many other discussions, STR is not really imbalancing at the Superheroic level. Where it sometimes becomes an issue is with Heroic-level games, particularly in genres such as Fantasy where muscle-powered weapons dominate."

 

This is true. A big but not superhuman weightlifter may not look too fancy in a pulp game, because every pugilist who can afford it will also buy 18 or 20 strength. ("I'm the world's strongest flyweight - I'm known for that.")

 

The big limitation on strength, that it ties up lots of points you could spend in more devious and likely more effective way elsewhere - doesn't really apply any more.

 

In superheroes, this is acceptable. Looking at how people are drawn, even Doc Strange should be a wall of muscle, so if people treat 15 or 20 strength as the minimum for a superhero player character, OK. But in pulps and other genres, that's not right.

 

So if everyone in your game has normal characteristic maxima, and the gamemaster decides that the magic number for strength will not be twenty, or even fifteen, but ten, and it works for the players - I have nothing but applause for that. Isn't that what a good gamemaster is supposed to so - tweak things so the system produces the optimum result in his or her campaign?

 

I would only really have a problem if strength was nerfed officially, for superheroes and everyone.

[zornwil]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

You sortof asked two different questions, I'm gonna answer them both

 

-------------------------------

 

Different Formulas = Keeping the concept of Figured Attributes but adjusting the way they're figured

• PD = Unchanged
  
• ED = Unchanged
  
• MD = "unchanged' [We long ago made this a figured attribute, since it basically is anyway)
  
• "FFD", Full Flash Defense = INT/5; you cannot change the base (up or down)
  
• SPD = unchanged, or 1 + (higher of EGO or DEX)/10
  
• REC = (EGO+CON)/5 [Logic:Strong will recovers faster]
  
• END = EGO+CON [Logic: Strong will allows the character to push harder]
  
• STUN = BODYx2 or BODY+ ((CON+EGO)/2)
  

 

We found that this did a good job of making STR and CON worth about what we felt they should be for the cost -- and found that it made EGO to cheap. The second time we experimented with making EGO a 3pt per pip and allowing it to substitute for DEX for figuring SPD and at what point in the phase you ask. The consensus was this changed too much.

 

There is also a consensus we'd like to make Power Defense figured, but can't agree on a logical formula. Mathematically it should be PRE but we just can't justify it...

 

------------------------------------

 

Different formula, as in NO formula (everything is base attribute)

 

The one we were discussing is similar to the one Gary proposed, with MD and FFD added. Half of us think DEX should go to 2 and the other half think it should stay at 3 (it's still pretty doggone useful) -- there was a debate about making it 3 per until NCM and 4 per afterwards, but that didn't survive the "unnecessary complication" test.

I base the equivalent of Power Defense on INT/5. Although it started out as Supernatural Defense and the idea being that the super-smart characters in comics have seemed more resistant to magic (Richards, Batman) as well as mages having high INT, I think it MIGHT make sense for you/your group and others because Power Defense is nebulous enough I would think it'd be most likely the result of a quick-witted reaction, hence INT. Plus it gives INT something besides PER and skills, and for SOME games, those don't come into play enough.

 

Just a suggestion.

[JmOz]

Re: Relinking Figured Characteristics

 

I have always thought of the Prime Characteristics to be similar to Power Frameworks.

 

I view them essentialy EC's that say "These are the abilities you WILL put in it"