Does this make ANY sense?

[OddHat]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Hmm so everyone accepts this for INT but not DEX interesting.

 

You'll find very few cases where Everyone accepts something about HERO past "it currently uses six sided dice".

 

Heck, there are some who play it diceless.

 

Characteristics in particular draw a lot of fire; STR, DEX, CON, INT, even to a lesser extent EGO and PRE give you bennies that would be more expensive to purchase in other fairly direct ways. For some HERO players that can be a sore spot. Most shrug, say it works well enough, and move on.

 

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing figured characteristics dropped and I'd like to see skill levels re-priced, but I'm not worrying about it.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Another possible way to address this: some GMs are more stingy about allowing characteristics to increase with XP. While I don't ban characteristic growth outright (I've known some GMs that do) I do limit how fast and how high you can increase characteristics, particularly in NCM games. So you may start with a high INT (or whatever), but after initial character creation the XP go into skill levels.

 

I also see this happen a lot with 8 point All Combat CSLs. A character starts out with a decent DEX and several 3-5 pt CSLs; later on, they use XP to "upgrade" those CSLs to the 8 pt level. If you've already got a 5 pt CSL, upgrading it to 8 pts is a lot cheaper than going back and pumping 9 points into your DEX.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Does anyone else find this completely counter-intuitive and makes no sense? Has anyone else gotten frustrated by an "official" response that just doesn't seem to pass the "smell test"' date=' and you're denied the "why" part to the response that might offer the context as to how it DOES make sense?[/quote']

 

 

If it makes you feel better, and without the intention of offense to anyone who wrote, plays, or enjoys it, I have this and similar issues with the bulk of the changes and additions that comprise 5e.

 

As others have said,and you yourself have said: ignore it. Play the way you want. You'll enjoy it more playing it 'your way' than you will fretting under a rule you find counter-intuitive.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

If you've already got a 5 pt CSL' date=' upgrading it to 8 pts is a lot cheaper than going back and pumping 9 points into your DEX.[/quote']

Uh, it seems to me to be only 1 point cheaper. And you get a lot more for that one extra point.

 

But back to INT and INT-levels. +1 with any one INT skill is 2 points. +1 with any three INT skills has to cost more, and indeed it does: namely 3 points. +1 with all INT skills should cost more than that. By the rules it costs 5 points. It could have been 4, and you can change it to 4 if that seems fairer to you (and I wouldn't argue), but again it's only a 1 point difference.

 

As others have mentioned, it's really due to NCM. If you're playing superheroic (no NCM), it's well within genre to have 28+ INT, so go ahead and buy up the INT instead of the levels. If you're playing heroic, a 5-point level will cost less than +5 INT (once you get to 20), so buy the level instead of the INT, where it isn't as in-genre to have 28 INT.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Given that the whole point of Hero, to me, is that you can build anything you like with it, but you should not necessarily build anything that you can with it, I see absolutely no point in ruling that INT skill levels do not apply to certain INT based skills. Stick up a magnifying glass or even a stop sign, by all means, but if balance is genuinely the issue, I have a list of rather more pressing matters....

 

I mean, what do we use INT for except skills?

 

STR you don't roll against in a skill way normally, DEX, CON, BODY, PRE, EGO - none of them are exclusively used for CHAR/5, whereas INT, except in games where you run a maximum number of spells based on a fraction of INT is exclusively used for either a skill base or simply flavour.

 

In a very real sense even buying skill levels if characteristic inflation by the back door, and devil damn the NCM.

 

Now personally I dislike PCs with massive INT, or even massive numbers of INT skill levels because, to me, a very intelligent character is far harder to make 'realistic' than a very strong one, for example. Similarly I am not keen on the skills 'deduction' and 'tactics', certainly not very impressive ones - I don't want to be constantly reminding players of things that the character should have spotted.

 

Like I said at the start, just because you can build it does not mean you should. I am very pleased that the tactics skill appears in Hero. It just does not appear in my games very much.

[BoneDaddy]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Now personally I dislike PCs with massive INT, or even massive numbers of INT skill levels because, to me, a very intelligent character is far harder to make 'realistic' than a very strong one, for example. Similarly I am not keen on the skills 'deduction' and 'tactics', certainly not very impressive ones - I don't want to be constantly reminding players of things that the character should have spotted.

 

Like I said at the start, just because you can build it does not mean you should. I am very pleased that the tactics skill appears in Hero. It just does not appear in my games very much.

I'm about to play a superduper genius, and it presents challenges - I'm not as smart as my character, which is hard. It means that the GM will occasionally have to give me a peak behind the curtain, which is why the deduction, tactics, and retrocognition are there. I can certainly see why it would frustrate a GM and why it can be an obstacle to role playing (How will I ever NOT say "I wish I'd thought of that!" - I always find myself saying that.) But it fits the concept, and I'll just have to play it carefully and the GM will have to balance how damned smart Marshall Hood can really be.

[OddHat]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

I'm about to play a superduper genius' date=' and it presents challenges - I'm not as smart as my character, which is hard. It means that the GM will occasionally have to give me a peak behind the curtain, which is why the deduction, tactics, and retrocognition are there. I can certainly see why it would frustrate a GM and why it can be an obstacle to role playing (How will I ever NOT say "I wish I'd thought of that!" - I always find myself saying that.) But it fits the concept, and I'll just have to play it carefully and the GM will have to balance how damned smart Marshall Hood can really be.[/quote']

 

Given the geniuses I have known over the years, playing him as a complete idiot should not be entirely out of the question.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Given the geniuses I have known over the years' date=' playing him as a complete idiot should not be entirely out of the question. [/quote']

 

There is a great deal of wisdom in this statement

 

The sort of genius I have problems with is the 'Batman' type: he just knows - he's thought it out in advance, he has a plan and a backup plana nad a backup backup - all prepared and ready.

 

This, to my mind, is the main reason that those trying to make the 'perfect Batman' Hero character fail - it is not that the system cannot model the abilities of the character, it is just that the player is neither patient enough nor smart enough to play it.

 

Well, that should have made me some friends.....

[OddHat]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

There is a great deal of wisdom in this statement

 

The sort of genius I have problems with is the 'Batman' type: he just knows - he's thought it out in advance, he has a plan and a backup plana nad a backup backup - all prepared and ready.

 

This, to my mind, is the main reason that those trying to make the 'perfect Batman' Hero character fail - it is not that the system cannot model the abilities of the character, it is just that the player is neither patient enough nor smart enough to play it.

 

I built my tongue-in-cheek Batman tribute with Luck, a half phase to change Gadgets VPP, and Overall Levels. "The Night Hunter just happens to have packed his Night Shark Repellent for this mission".

 

He also has the "Night Logic". A limited number of times per adventure the Player may ask for the answer to any one plot related question and recieve a short reply. He must then, in character, explain the logic that brought him to that conclusion.

 

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

If you've already got a 5 pt CSL' date=' upgrading it to 8 pts is a lot cheaper than going back and pumping 9 points into your DEX.[/quote']Uh, it seems to me to be only 1 point cheaper. And you get a lot more for that one extra point.

No, I meant you only have to pay 3 points; the 5 points you've already spent are a sunk cost.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

No' date=' I meant you only have to pay 3 points; the 5 points you've [i']already [/i]spent are a sunk cost.

So sell back the 5 point skill level, and you only need 4 more points to buy the +3 DEX, as opposed to the 3 more points to buy the 8-point level, and you don't even need to pay that much if you spent any points on SPD. If you did, you only need a total of 6 points for +3 DEX. IOW, it actually costs *less* than the 8-point skill level.

 

Has anyone ever even *seen* a character that had SPD<1+DEX/10 ?

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

So sell back the 5 point skill level' date=' and you only need 4 more points to buy the +3 DEX, as opposed to the 3 more points to buy the 8-point level, and you don't even need to pay that much if you spent any points on SPD. If you did, you only need a total of 6 points for +3 DEX. IOW, it actually costs *less* than the 8-point skill level. [/quote']

OK sure, if the GM allows you to sell skills back. To me that seems like stretching things tho. Just my $0.02.

[Shike019]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

OK sure' date=' if the GM allows you to sell skills back. To me that seems like stretching things tho. Just my $0.02.[/quote']

 

Actually, I thought that it was quite common (going from what I've seen on the boards) to "upgrade" a CSL to the next level.

 

And apparently some GM's require it.

 

Cheers

 

Shike

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Actually, I thought that it was quite common (going from what I've seen on the boards) to "upgrade" a CSL to the next level.

 

And apparently some GM's require it.

Sorry, I seem to be having clarity problems this week. I was in fact suggesting upgrading the 5pt CSL to buy an 8pt CSL (net cost of +3); I don't consider that "selling skills back" so much as improving a skill you already have. I acknowledge that's a semantic distinction, but to me it's easy to fit into most character concepts.

 

Phil (if I read him right) was suggesting selling back the 5pt CSL to buy increased DEX. Apples and oranges. Not saying I would never approve that as a GM, but I would have to take a careful look to make sure it fit the character concept. All YMMV.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

If you won't spend 5 points to buy your INT up 5' date=' why would you spend 5 points to buy a skill level and add 1 to your INT skills?[/quote']

 

Because it didn't fit the character concept?

I find it hard to rationalilze spending more points for less functionality just because I have concept X for my character instead of concept Z. If Z can do more than X, then Z should be paying more, not the other way around.

 

This goes for any Characteristic vs Skill Level really. For me, there have been very few problems. Not many players are interested in buying 5 point levels of any kind. For those that do, and for concepts that really should be having levels instead of raw Characteristics (for whatever reason, and this is rare), I make sure those levels provide enough functionality to warrent the increased cost. For example, sometimes I have allows a 5 point "all INT Skill" to be used to negate a -2 penalty, or allow the levels to negate time penalties on a 1 level per step on the time chart instead of just adding to the skill roll.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

I've had GM's tell me flat out "I don't think you can roleplay somone that smart"

 

As a GM, I have told that to some players. Eventually my statement changed to "I don't think I can run a game that dumb." and I don't play with them anymore. Of course, this really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

I find it hard to rationalilze spending more points for less functionality just because I have concept X for my character instead of concept Z. If Z can do more than X' date=' then Z should be paying more, not the other way around.[/quote']

 

Exactly. If, in your game, STR costs 5 points instead of one, I'm unlikely to select a Brick as my concept, since your choices (absent some mitigating factor) penalize my concept.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

OK sure' date=' if the GM allows you to sell skills back. To me that seems like stretching things tho. Just my $0.02.[/quote']

Isn't "upgrading" a CSL the same as selling back one type and buying another? Why would it be different?

[Vondy]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

OK sure' date=' if the GM allows you to sell skills back. To me that seems like stretching things tho. Just my $0.02.[/quote']

 

It seems like you're engaging in a touch of pedantry. The character is improving their existing skill set, and doing so in a logical fashion.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Exactly. If' date=' in your game, STR costs 5 points instead of one, I'm unlikely to select a Brick as my concept, since your choices (absent some mitigating factor) penalize my concept.[/quote']

If, however, you get 5 times as much functionality for those 5 points instead (perhaps I change the lifting rate, or Jumping, or the way STR is applied to certain maneuvers), a Brick concept would still be viable.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

If' date=' however, you get 5 times as much functionality for those 5 points instead (perhaps I change the lifting rate, or Jumping, or the way STR is applied to certain maneuvers), a Brick concept would still be viable.[/quote']

 

As I said, absent mitigating circumstances.

 

If the system penalizes a certain concept, then players selecting that concept ultimately have a less viable character. In a point-based system, requiring a concept pay more points to achieve the same effect penalizes the concept.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Isn't "upgrading" a CSL the same as selling back one type and buying another? Why would it be different?

I don't have a problem with selling back a 5pt CSL in order to buy an 8pt CSL. That's great; that is developing an existing skill set. No problem there; do it all the time.

 

What I'm less enthusiastic about is someone selling back a 5pt CSL in order to spend those points on something entirely different, like increase characteristics. Not saying I'd never allow it, just that I'd want to look at it closely to make sure there's really an in-character reason for it, and not just an excuse to shave a few points.

 

Sorry if I'm restating the same thing over and over; just trying to clarify what I meant to say.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

What I'm less enthusiastic about is someone selling back a 5pt CSL in order to spend those points on something entirely different' date=' like increase characteristics.[/quote']

It depends on what you mean by "entirely different". IMO, a 5-point combat skill level is not that different from extra DEX. And a 5-point level with INT skills is not that different from extra INT. It's just an upgrade from specific applicability to general applicability.

 

And in most cases I *would* allow selling back something to buy something completely different. It's the player's character, not mine. He should be able to do what he wants with it. Concepts do change occasionally, even in the source material.

[TaxiMan]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Haven't thought this out so feel free to shoot it down:

 

If a character concept can be met multiple ways, how about you write it up however it seems best, and charge a cost of whichever is cheapest?

 

E.g. the dumb scientist. If buying INT up to 30 is one option, and INT 10 + 4 skill levels + additional cost to make the Background skills work is the other option, write him up as 10 INT and all the stuff you want, but only charge 20 pts.

 

Same for DEX (but it's a little messier). If you could have 30 DEX but it doesn't fit concept, go ahead and have 21 DEX plus 6 CSL (limited to 3 OCV, 3 DCV), plus other goodies that you could have had if you were 30 DEX. Or drop the goodies if it doesn't meet the concept, whatever.

 

But don't charge more than 60 pts 'cause you could have just bought DEX.

[Rapier]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

If a character concept can be met multiple ways' date=' how about you write it up however it seems best, and charge a cost of whichever is cheapest?[/quote']

 

Nope, nope, nope. Cheapest does not mean best. Your best bet is to use the power that most resembles the effect you are looking for. If you want to freeze someone in their tracks you are using some form of Entangle. When you start looking for the cheapest method you get into some huge cheese and then we throw little pickles at you.