"Point inflation" in Hero

[Lemurion]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I have to admit, I don't see much difference at all between 4th and 5th beyond the obvious cost changes for various things a few new additions like Rapid Attack and the rest. Things are spelled out in more detail, and stylistically there is a different approach. But to me, it's the same system. Everything works the same as far as I can tell.

 

Where do you see such a big difference?

 

It's not so much that it's a big difference as that it's a real difference, especially with the Champions/Super-hero genre. I mean I could pretty much drop a 3E character into a game right now and it would work. Sure the points wouldn't balance and a few things have changed but even a 3E character is essentially playable under 5E.

 

However that wasn't the thrust of my argument. What I'm getting at is that a 5E starting super-hero needs more points than a 4E starting super-hero did because of the difference in what's being modeled in the two systems. 5E is not only a more granular system than 4E was, but it's designed in such a way as to make it possible to apply the same level of granularity across more genres than in 4E. Many comic characters have both skills and powers, however in 4E Champions it was difficult to model both effectively on a starting character. You could either work on skills or powers but not both, so many Champions characters settled for a much less granular approach to skills than was common in the other genres. 5E is designed to even and balance this out, to play supers with the same level of character and skill granularity as the other genres. 4E was still more of a holdover from the previous editions where supers used a lesser skill-set.

 

Quantum for example, had only two skills, Paramedic and PS: Doctor, both at 12-.

 

The newer versions of the Champions have more skills than the earlier editions, and those skills reflect the greater granularity of the system. The points are there because in 5E, especially supers, the player is expected to do more things with their points and so they have more points.

 

That's ignoring the fact that 4E was still marketed as a game, not a gamer's toolkit. Just because the play is very similar doesn't mean the two editions are the same thing.

[RDU Neil]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I pretty much agree with what you've said here, and you certainly make a strong case. Of course, newer players might not really know how to create a character that best represents what they really want to play. They may wind up spending points on things simply because they sound kind of cool in the book.

 

The GM should certainly strive to accomodate the players interest as represented on their character sheet, but I think it's perfectly fair of a GM to say from the outset that a campaign will primarily be a "Golden Age" or "4-Color" campaign which will place little emphasis on background skills. A little extra attention might be paid to individual players who want some extra flavor in the background dept., but the thrust of the campaign will be otherwise.

 

I agree with everything you said here. The point of points is that they should be used "within context" of the game. The GM sets parameters and gives some examples of what that might looking like on a character sheet. When a player comes in with first draft of a character... the GM shouldn't take anything for granted. Should ask questions like, "You put down only a 5d6 EB. I see that as being low powered and maybe not too effective. Why did you buy it that way?" Maybe the player overestimated that 5d6... or maybe the player comes back with, "I think it would be cool to have a character that has a power that really isn't all that great. He can zap normals into unconsciousness and such, but really isn't tough enough to use it straight vs. heavy hitters." The GM should follow up with, "Ok... so why is being under powered cool to you? Why would that be fun to play?"

 

Now we are getting to the crux of what is important. Not just the power, but the reason the player thinks it is cool... what they want in the game. It could be the player just thinks it fun to be the distraction, the comedy relief, the side kick to the big guys. Does that fit the campaign style? Will the play group enjoy that? Does the GM have an idea how to support such a character (I know I, as a GM, would struggle if the player wasn't a self-starter in such a role.)

 

Or maybe the player is thinking, "I'll be underpowered, but the I'll use tricky maneuvers like blinding them or knocking the floor out under them, or knocking them off a building to really hurt them." NOW we have a whole different scenario. What the player REALLY finds interesting is the "coming up with tricky, descriptive combat solutions"... really nothing to do with a 5d6 EB or not... but if we didn't take the time to understand motivation and what the player "flags" really mean... we wouldn't know what is really important. Knowing allows us to maybe approach this player by saying, "Ok... if THAT is what you want, spend points on Luck and let's build a Tricky Maneuvers VPP or MP to help simulate this game effect."

 

Now we are back to "spend points for what matters" which in this case is "Being able to have quirky, tricky combat effects that use the environment and quick thinking rather raw power to be effective."

 

To your point, this is a rather advanced concept... one that is not supported by normal design or system rules/suggestions. It is NOT something explicit in the system... but implicit in the result of using the rules. Most newbies won't understand this... many long term players won't see it or don't approach it that way.

 

Still... to me... it is the essence of what points mean in Hero.

[Questar]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

What I'm getting at is that a 5E starting super-hero needs more points than a 4E starting super-hero did because of the difference in what's being modeled in the two systems. 5E is not only a more granular system than 4E was, but it's designed in such a way as to make it possible to apply the same level of granularity across more genres than in 4E.

 

The word granular is used a lot on these boards. I thought it was being used with a similar meaning as "gritty". I don't understand at all what you mean by it in this context, but I am new to these boards.

 

5E is certainly written with greater attention to detail than 4E and is more in-depth in its explanation of how to apply the rules. Stylistically it is denser.

It doesn't follow that the campaign you create with 5E has to be that way. I don't see why you couldn't use 5E to play a campaign with 250 point supers if that's what you wanted. It doesn't seem like it would be any different from a 4E campaign. (Actually, I always preferred higher levels with 4E anyway.)

 

Nor do I see anything in any genre that can be done with 5E that could not have been done with 4E. Do you have an example or two?

 

Many comic characters have both skills and powers, however in 4E Champions it was difficult to model both effectively on a starting character. You could either work on skills or powers but not both, so many Champions characters settled for a much less granular approach to skills than was common in the other genres. 5E is designed to even and balance this out, to play supers with the same level of character and skill granularity as the other genres. 4E was still more of a holdover from the previous editions where supers used a lesser skill-set.

 

Quantum for example, had only two skills, Paramedic and PS: Doctor, both at 12-.

 

Maybe so, but Champions characters weren't prohibited in any way from having skills if they wanted. I had many 4E Champions characters with plenty of skills. I don't see what design elements in 5E balance out the approach. You're still free to buy whatever you want, skills or powers. You don't have to give supers skills if you don't want to.

 

 

The newer versions of the Champions have more skills than the earlier editions, and those skills reflect the greater granularity of the system.

 

You're talking about a different approach to building starting characters, not a different approach to system design. That's a stylistic preference, which was just as possible with 4E.

 

That's ignoring the fact that 4E was still marketed as a game, not a gamer's toolkit. Just because the play is very similar doesn't mean the two editions are the same thing.

 

I think it was actually marketed as both. I wouldn't say that the two editions are the same, but I would say that the game system is the same. 5E is the same game system as 4E. It's not a new game system or game design.

[Enforcer84]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Point creep, smoint creep. Go out and have fun.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Point creep' date=' smoint creep. Go out and have fun.[/quote']

 

Man, you don't get into the spirit of these discussion at all!

 

Spoilsport.

[Bloodstone]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

It's all a ruse to lure you into a false sense of security. Don't fall into his traps. I've seen his writups!

 

Enforcer84 = Point Creep

 

[Rapier]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I think you might be looking at things from the wrong angle.

 

I also started with the BBB. It was frustrating to me that I either had a good combatant or a competent skillser. There wasn't much opportunity to be both (unless you built a brick ). My combat skills haven't changed much from 4th to 5th, but now I can afford all the fun skillsy stuff I was missing before.

 

Could I build a relatively skills-lite ueber-combatant on 350? Oh, heck yes! If you want some character to be ueber-speedster, then he must suffer for lack in some other areas. That's part of the beauty and balance of a point based system. You can still build an extremely competent speedster with a good background in skills.

 

You also don't need to go whole hog and go SpeedZone on day 1. You could always save up the XP and purchase it later. Characters should have some room for growth.

[Questar]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

 

 

To your point, this is a rather advanced concept... one that is not supported by normal design or system rules/suggestions. It is NOT something explicit in the system... but implicit in the result of using the rules. Most newbies won't understand this... many long term players won't see it or don't approach it that way.

 

Still... to me... it is the essence of what points mean in Hero.

 

I never really thought about it in the terms you use, but I think I subscribe in general to the idea you're expressing. Maybe not in a literal way, but in a philosophical sense.

 

The points on the sheet don't always represent what the players want the game to be about. There are players who design their characters with excrutiating attention to detail simply because they enjoy the character design process. They may not actually want all of the stuff on their sheet to come into play, but they want it on the sheet because it makes the character feel more "real" to them. They love the detail for its own sake.

 

So, as you suggested, the GM needs to get in and interpret why those points are being spent as they are.

 

I've done this before. I have a power-armored character who started out in the 3rd edition with "gadgeteering". When I recreated him in 4E, he had skills and sciences in metallurgy, robotics, computer programming, optics, mechanics, electronics, nuclear physics, weaponsmith and I don't remember what else. I didn't really want all this stuff to come into play in the games, but I enjoyed fleshing the character out with richer detail just because I could. I felt the weight of the detail, even if it wasn't part of any particular adventure. Just the creation of it was fun. But what I wanted to play were superheroic combats using all the cool weapons and systems in my armor.

 

The older I get and the more I play, the less important the point costs are. I have learned that points are really not a particularly good indicator of how effective a character will be. An effective, experienced player who knows how to take advantage of the system can create a 250 point character that blows away a 600 point character created by another less meticulous player.

 

You can have the same character played by two different players, and one can make him into an effective "mean, lean machine", while in the hands of the other he becomes a hopeless stumblebum. And I'm not talking about luck of the dice, either.

 

Points are important to give us a starting place. But in the end it's the players who balance or unbalance the game.

[sinanju]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

The word granular is used a lot on these boards. I thought it was being used with a similar meaning as "gritty". I don't understand at all what you mean by it in this context' date=' but I am new to these boards. [/quote']

 

When people talking about a system being "granular" they mean that it is more easily divided into small pieces, or divided up into various powers, skills, talents, and so forth. A pile of sand as opposed to half a dozen hunks of rock. There are only so many ways to arrange the rocks--but you can arrange all that sand in countless additional ways.

[Questar]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

When people talking about a system being "granular" they mean that it is more easily divided into small pieces' date=' or divided up into various powers, skills, talents, and so forth. A pile of sand as opposed to half a dozen hunks of rock. There are only so many ways to arrange the rocks--but you can arrange all that sand in countless additional ways.[/quote']

 

Ah! Thanks.

 

(Still don't see how 5E is more "granular" than 4E...)

[Trebuchet]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Still don't see how 5E is more "granular" than 4E...

5E is not really more granular per se than 4th, especially in non-super genres. But the extra 100 CP for 5th edition supers as opposed to their 4th edition predecessors allows a lot more room for expanded skillsets. IOW, in 4th edition a super who was a police officer in Secret ID might have everything covered by PS: Police Officer 13-; whereas the 5th edition version of the same character might well buy Criminology, Streetwise, Combat Driver, WF: Handguns, KS; Legal System, etc., to represent the same character. That provides a lot more flexibility and precision of expertise between characters. (IOW, you can differentiate CSI's Gil Grissom from Catherine Willows without resorting to COM.)

 

I know my Champions PC got a lot more skilled when she made the transition from 4th edition to 5th. Despite the extra 100 CP she actually decreased in combat power. IMO she's a better character now.

[Lucius]

"Perk inflation" in Hero

 

Because the perk makes you a legal practitioner. Without it' date=' you're practicing without a license. You might be good, but you're still violating the law without that license.[/quote']

 

Um, no.

 

If I buy a Driving skill and don’t pay a point for Perk: Driver’s License, does that make it illegal for the character to drive a car?

 

For that matter, if I don’t pay a point for Perk: Local Citizen, or Perk: Resident Alien, does that make my character an illegal alien in whatever country the game happens to be set in?

 

If I did not pay a point for Perk: Legally Married, are my character and her DNPC “living in sin?”

 

Just because a character with the appropriate skills does not have “Perk: Licensed MD” written down on the character sheet, it does not follow that the character is practicing medicine without a license. Any more than it follows that a character who does not have “DNPC: Parent” is automatically an orphan.

 

 

On the one hand' date=' I see your point in this regard. On the other hand, what if we compare two characters, both having Paramedic and PS: Physician under your approach. The first is a skilled healer, however due to some improprieties in his practices (real or a frameup; you decide) he has been barred from practice. If he practices medicine, he is committing a crime. The other is a licensed MD. Are the differences between the characters sufficient to justify a 1 point difference in cost? .[/quote']

 

No.

 

As an alternative' date=' should the unlicensed character get disadvantage points for this restriction (which will likely equal or exceed the cost of the Paramed and PS skills)? [/quote']

 

Yes.

 

The current system is more granular' date=' and would reflect the distinction between these two characters with a small difference in point costs.[/quote']

 

Such a difference is worth a lot more than 1 pt, and is just plain more accurately modeled as a disadvantage on the character practicing without a license (or not practicing because he has no license) in any case.

 

So tell me: What if my character does pay for a Perk to be, say, a licensed physician, and does NOT buy the skills to back it up?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary takes some character points to a diploma mill and picks up : Licensed MD, Member of the Bar, Right to Marry, Chauffeur’s License, Hunting License, Certified Public Accountant, Fishing License, 003.5: Learner’s Permit to Kill…..skills? We don’t need no stinking skills! Like Oddhat said, “Why do we need skills?”

[Questar]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

5E is not really more granular per se than 4th' date=' especially in non-super genres. [/quote']

 

Why is it more "granular" in super genres? The "granular" quality existed in 4E for those who chose to use it, even in supers.

 

But the extra 100 CP for 5th edition supers as opposed to their 4th edition predecessors allows a lot more room for expanded skillsets.

 

The extra 100 CP is not a design function of the system. Many 4E campaigns were that high or higher. 5E does not require that you start there either. It's not the system here that is different, it is the convention of the recommended starting campaign.

 

IOW, in 4th edition a super who was a police officer in Secret ID might have everything covered by PS: Police Officer 13-; whereas the 5th edition version of the same character might well buy Criminology, Streetwise, Combat Driver, WF: Handguns, KS; Legal System, etc., to represent the same character. That provides a lot more flexibility and precision of expertise between characters. (IOW, you can differentiate CSI's Gil Grissom from Catherine Willows without resorting to COM.)

 

Every skill you list comes from 4E. I had 4E characters who had all of those skills and more. Again, you are talking about a campaign convention, not new flexibility in the system. Are you saying that in 5E you couldn't buy PS: Police Officer and use it as a generic skill for such things? Is that disallowed? If so, that is less flexibility, not more. With 4E you could be as precise or as generic as you wanted your campaign to be.

 

 

I know my Champions PC got a lot more skilled when she made the transition from 4th edition to 5th. Despite the extra 100 CP she actually decreased in combat power. IMO she's a better character now.

 

 

I understand the things you're saying, but I think that what's really being talked about here is the way that 5E characters in source books are generally presented (i.e., with the very precise and expanded skill sets). That is the stylistic choice of DOJ, and I have no problem with it. That's they type of campaign that's being encouraged on some level. But it is only that, a stylistic choice. Many campaigns were already doing this in 4E. (I had a couple.) My point is that the system in 5E is not more flexible or granular than 4E on any level. It's the very same system, modified in a few ways with a few additions.

 

Now books like the Ultimate Skill may be something else. I'm talking the core rules here.

 

DOJ is to be applauded, commended and hailed for keeping this system alive and for helping people see just what tremendous potential and flexibility it has (in part by helping it shed the image of just a childish "supers" game). I really am happy to see Hero continuing in such good hands. But 5E wouldn't be the great book that it is if it had changed the system.

[hancock.tom]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Well said' date=' Neil. In my old game group, the general rule of thumb was that if you spent points on a skill (particularly background skills), then the GM would try to make sure that the skill would come in handy at one or more points in the game.[/quote']

 

This is what we have always done, regardless of game system. However, it more mitigates the problem then solves it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: "Perk inflation" in Hero

 

If I buy a Driving skill and don’t pay a point for Perk: Driver’s License, does that make it illegal for the character to drive a car

 

For that matter, if I don’t pay a point for Perk: Local Citizen, or Perk: Resident Alien, does that make my character an illegal alien in whatever country the game happens to be set in?

 

If I did not pay a point for Perk: Legally Married, are my character and her DNPC “living in sin?”?[.quote]

 

With Driving being an everyman skill, one could assume a license is an everyman perk. Your point is quite valid, however - the key question is where to draw the line. I'd say the current system suggests drawing the line at things the average person does not have. Most adults have a driver's license. Most adults do not have a license to practice a profession.

 

No.

[the question was whether a 1 point cost was reasonable to differentiate two equally skilled characters, one licensed and the other not.]

 

Yes.

[The question was whether, in the alternative, the character lacking a license should get disad points for this, which may exceed the skill costs.]

 

Such a difference is worth a lot more than 1 pt' date=' and is just plain more accurately modeled as a disadvantage on the character practicing without a license (or not practicing because he has no license) in any case.[/quote']

 

That's another way to view it. Now, which skill set combinations generate a disadvantage if you lack a right to practice. Does "Familiarity - Cashier" generate a 5 or 10 point Disad for "can't be bonded"? Does "WF: Pistols" permit a "no gun license" disad? We get the same issue as assessing which jobs require a perk to carry on legally, with the result that your system is neither worse nor better than the suggested model.

 

So tell me: What if my character does pay for a Perk to be' date=' say, a licensed physician, and does NOT buy the skills to back it up?[/quote']

 

Can my character who has no such skills take "not licensed to practice any profession" as a disad?

 

The same thing happens that happens in real life. The person is, as a licensed member of a profession, subject to oversight by that professional body, not to mention lawsuits for professional negligence.

 

Or your GM simply states that the character lacks the skills and consequently can't pass the entrance exams, and suggests you purchase +2 COM instead.

 

Now, there should also be some benefit in game to possessing these things, or they should not cost points. That goes just as easily for the PS as the Perk, however.

[Trebuchet]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Why is it more "granular" in super genres? The "granular" quality existed in 4E for those who chose to use it' date=' even in supers.[/quote']Sure it did. The recommended higher starting point for supers in 5E gives provides the difference, not the edition itself. It's a difference in philosophy rather than game mechanics.

 

The extra 100 CP is not a design function of the system. Many 4E campaigns were that high or higher. 5E does not require that you start there either. It's not the system here that is different, it is the convention of the recommended starting campaign.

See above.

 

Every skill you list comes from 4E. I had 4E characters who had all of those skills and more. Again, you are talking about a campaign convention, not new flexibility in the system. Are you saying that in 5E you couldn't buy PS: Police Officer and use it as a generic skill for such things? Is that disallowed? If so, that is less flexibility, not more. With 4E you could be as precise or as generic as you wanted your campaign to be.

Yes. But with 100 fewer basic points in 4E Champions, sacrifices had to be made in character design. Yes, it's certainly possible to do it in 4E just as easily as 5E if you use the same starting points. (Our own Champions campaign, going since 1993, was already starting to drift that way before 5E came out. We'd even upped starting points to 300.) But I'd guess easily 80% of beginning Champions campaigns now start with 350 points, and started with 250 in 4E. And that being the case, 5E games tend IME to be more Skills-oriented than 4E games. The additional 40% CP available (250 to 350) IME does not usually result in 40% higher attacks and/or combat values; rather players tend to use the points to build better-rounded PCs. They get more flexibility in and out of combat.

 

I understand the things you're saying, but I think that what's really being talked about here is the way that 5E characters in source books are generally presented (i.e., with the very precise and expanded skill sets). That is the stylistic choice of DOJ, and I have no problem with it. That's they type of campaign that's being encouraged on some level. But it is only that, a stylistic choice. Many campaigns were already doing this in 4E. (I had a couple.) My point is that the system in 5E is not more flexible or granular than 4E on any level. It's the very same system, modified in a few ways with a few additions.

I agree completely. It's the difference in CP that makes the difference; not the edition being used. Pulp Hero, Fantasy Hero, and Dark Champions games still seem to stick at their 4E point levels.

 

Now books like the Ultimate Skill may be something else. I'm talking the core rules here.

Me too. I just got my copy of TUS today and haven't yet had time to go through it. It does on first glance provide methods of increasing actual granularity on some skills, but they're nothing that couldn't be equally applied to 4E campaigns.

 

Me, I play Hero. The edition has never mattered much since I first started playing Champions in 1982. I just tend to use the current rules because it puts everyone on the same page ruleswise (and with 6 GMs in our group, that's significant).

 

Interesting discussion.

[Vondy]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

 

Enforcer84 = Point Creep

 

Enforcer84 = Post Creep

[Vondy]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

 

Yes. But with 100 fewer basic points in 4E Champions, sacrifices had to be made in character design. Yes, it's certainly possible to do it in 4E just as easily as 5E if you use the same starting points. (Our own Champions campaign, going since 1993, was already starting to drift that way before 5E came out. We'd even upped starting points to 300.)

 

My Freedom Patrol Campaign (1991-2004) also exceeded the recommended 4E points. Players built 250 characters and then took a 50 point skills and perks package (with add'l lims) on top of it. They ended up being 150+150 in effect, though I never stepped on the additional lims very much. They defined the reality job more than anything. It included, incidentally, a precursor perk to equipment allowances. If you like characters with a decent skill set, 250 points was painful.

[Questar]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

 

I agree completely. It's the difference in CP that makes the difference; not the edition being used. Pulp Hero, Fantasy Hero, and Dark Champions games still seem to stick at their 4E point levels.

 

 

 

So it seems you and I pretty well agree on this. I thought you were taking the position from an earlier post that 5E was somehow a different thing than 4E. That's what I was responding to.

 

IIRC, there was some kind of poll taken from HERO players in 4E days, in which it was found that the majority of campaigns being run were based on higher power levels than the 250 point base. How accurate that poll was is hard to know, but certainly a lot of campaigns had shifted things upwards.

 

I know that for me the 250 starting point went by the wayside even when I was in 3E. My characters in 4E were around 500 points. That's the level I enjoyed playing, which seemed closer to me to the actual characters in comics. Even the 350 points suggested by 5E doesn't quite get there. And most characters in 5E source books are above that 350 point level, just as the characters in 4E books were generally above the 250 point level.

[Trebuchet]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

So it seems you and I pretty well agree on this. I thought you were taking the position from an earlier post that 5E was somehow a different thing than 4E. That's what I was responding to.

NP. That's why I clarified my position.

 

IIRC, there was some kind of poll taken from HERO players in 4E days, in which it was found that the majority of campaigns being run were based on higher power levels than the 250 point base. How accurate that poll was is hard to know, but certainly a lot of campaigns had shifted things upwards.

I seem to recall a poll from 4E which listed average defenses, attacks, CV, etc. Those numbers jived fairly well with the recommended ranges which were used in 5E. The extra 100 CP I believe was deliberately intended by DOJ and Steve Long to let players build more "comic book like" heroes with a broader range of abilities. Since our campaign was already headed that way, quite naturally we all thought Steve Long was a genius for thinking like we did.

 

I know that for me the 250 starting point went by the wayside even when I was in 3E. My characters in 4E were around 500 points. That's the level I enjoyed playing, which seemed closer to me to the actual characters in comics. Even the 350 points suggested by 5E doesn't quite get there. And most characters in 5E source books are above that 350 point level, just as the characters in 4E books were generally above the 250 point level.

I think most campaigns still get there by XP, not initial CP. I retired my first and most experienced PC, Ranger, with 125 XP. My next one, Spirit Ninja, retired with 75 XP. My current PC, Zl'f, has 70 XP (and still climbing). The average XP for our superteam MidGuard right now is just under 50 points. Added to the initial 350 points it's a pretty creditable level of power and/or capabilities IMO. Of course 50 XP is a lot less significant increase to a 350 point PC than it is for a 250 point one. (An extra 14% as opposed to an extra 20%.)

 

I think 250 CP was explicitly stated in earlier editions of Champions to represent a "beginning" character from the comics; not that character after years of costumed crimefighting. 5E essentially discarded that trope and allowed characters with more experience or skills. An early Spider-Man, Iron Man, or Human Torch is fairly easy to build with 250 points. Nowadays of course they've all been heroes for 40+ years, so who knows how much XP you could reasonably assign them? 200? 300? 500?

[Jhaierr]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

What got me thinking about the point inflation (or more specifically, the "need to have more points to express the character") was that 5E, 5ER, and the Ultimate books are all much more detailed than 4E. So the feel of 5th edition makes one think "I should write up every possible power application and every perk and skill to make sure the character is very well defined."

 

It's not so much a change in the core rules; it's the shift in focus of the books.

 

But I've learned to deal with it by just saying "okay, you get 450 points total" or a total that will allow the players to create the characters they want to create. I usually go through and make one or two characters, especially the more powerful ones (say, someone who has a dragon multiform), and see what I need to make it fit.

[BoneDaddy]

Re: "Perk inflation" in Hero

 

If I did not pay a point for Perk: Legally Married, are my character and her DNPC “living in sin?”

 

Perk, or Social Limitation?

[Lucius]

Re: "Perk inflation" in Hero

 

With Driving being an everyman skill, one could assume a license is an everyman perk. Your point is quite valid, however - the key question is where to draw the line. I'd say the current system suggests drawing the line at things the average person does not have. Most adults have a driver's license. Most adults do not have a license to practice a profession.

 

 

I was almost 40 before I got a driver's license.

Still haven't bought a TV, and the house doesn't have a phone. But I have a car. Yes, I finally decided to join the 20th century.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

"Now that it's over," the palindromedary observes dryly.

[Trebuchet]

Re: "Perk inflation" in Hero

 

I was almost 40 before I got a driver's license.

Still haven't bought a TV, and the house doesn't have a phone. But I have a car. Yes, I finally decided to join the 20th century.

You still forgot to join the 19th century. The telephone was invented in the late 1800's.

 

And yet he owns a computer...

[Insaniac99]

Re: "Perk inflation" in Hero

 

And yet he owns a computer...

 

with internet connection. this begs the question, is he using Dial-up or one of the Hi-speeds?