Decoupling Figured Characteristics

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I worry that CON and BODY at 1 are going to result in many characters with quite high values' date=' but maybe not.[/quote']

Changing BODY to 1, but no STUN provided is essentially a no-op. It makes no real difference.

I certainly wouldn't lower CON to 1/2. My god, who wouldn't buy a CON of 30 if it only cost you 10 points?

I wouldn't. Not if it didn't give me any figured chars. Why don't people buy 30 CON now?

And as I mentioned earlier in this thread, we should be looking to get rid of 1/2 point costs not adding new ones.

Perhaps, but I'd say that goal is secondary to having things cost what they're actually worth.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Except that there are already stats that deal with END and REC' date=' which is to say END and REC. Having more than one stat dealing with the same value is redundant.[/quote']

 

Yes, the rules provide stats for END and REC. They also provide for figured characteristics, and that END and REC are, initially, a function of CON. Why? Because a healthy. fit individual is not one whom we would expect to tire easily. I would certainy question why a character write up shows a 60 CON and 10 END, 2 REC. It just doesn't make sense.

 

And, if it does make sense for that specific character, he has the option of making his CON "no figured". Now, I believe that limitation is not appropriately priced when applied to CON (it's WAY off), but that's a different issue entirely. I would likely allow such a character to place a much higher limitation on his CON.

 

But Captain America wouldn't be as skilled in making mental attacks. He would have a similar basic ability (assuming you think their EGOs would be similar)' date=' but wouldn't have the training in making those attacks. I.e. he wouldn't have any appropriate skill levels or ego combat maneuvers.[/quote']

 

I rarely see mentalists who see a need for levels with ego combat, or special maneuvers. A 30 Ego character gifted with a mental power out of the blue would, in most games I've seen, be more skilled than the 26 EGO mentalist from whom he somehow received it. And his defensive ECV remains huge.

 

Given all interpretations of mental combat are speculative, I can pretty much accept that one, but I don't see a character with great willpower who is as easily struck with a mental attack - ie his mind is no more adept than a typical human's at evading a mental attack - as being any more unreasonable than a character with a high CON who tires easily, or one with a high DEX that has poor reaction times (low SPD). Note that this character's willpower still results in him being more resistant to things like Mind Control due to his high Ego - that, to me, is a trait much more logically linked to strong willpower.

 

No, that isn't the case. I say that Intelligence is misnamed because it is. It makes people think it is talking about how smart someone is, when the book definition of the Characteristic very specifically states that that ISN'T what it means. Before you accuse people of being dishonest you might try actually making sure you know what you are talking about.

 

Speaking of throwing around accusations... I was not intending to accuse you of any willful dishonesty. I was, however (attempting to) note that the argument of characteristic misnaming can be applied equally to many other characteristics. They are really bundles of abilities. Some might see "dexterity" as being "manual dexterity" (fine motor skills) and question why it includes reaction speed, agility (gross motor skills) and combat ability. This would be, to me, as easy a misunderstanding as considering intelligence to mean "smarts".

 

Actually a person with a 20 DEX and no weapon proficiencies and no skill levels has an OCV of 4 and a DCV of 7. And you do need a weapon proficiency to use a club' date=' it is just generally considered to be an everyman skill. A 15 DEX person with 3 CSLs using a Martial Strike (or ranged version) easily matches them.[/quote']

 

Even ignoring clubs, he has a 7 OCV in a fistfight, and qwe both acknowledge the 7 DCV. The highly combat-skilled Darien the Bopld (sample character 5er p 512) has an OCV capping out at 8 (15 DEX, +1 MA and +2 levels) with a 5 DCV. I'd say a 7 OCV/7DCV stacks up pretty well. In a fistfight, Darien loses his MA (it's only with blades) and our "noncombat skilled" 20 DEX rogue has either 2 better OCV, 2 better DCV or 1 better in each. And that's against a combat-oriented PC. Seems pretty good for a guy with no combat skills.

 

Copmpare him to Yueng Li, skilled martial arts character (p 519 of 5er). Yueng has a base CV of 6, and will likely have a 7 OCV, 8 DCV (1 level to OCV and Punch for +2 DCV). Not much of an advantage over a non-combat oriented character with a 20 DEX. Vastly superior damage, of course.

 

2 fusted Randal irons (5er p 343) is better with a firearm, but in a barroom brawl, this two-fisted hero will be OCV 5, DCV 7 (DEX 15 and Cross maneuver), inferior in his combat prowess to the sneak thief with a 20 DEX.

 

And all of these comparisons are against chraacters with a full starting PC allotment of character points. Compare him to Generic Soldier or Common Street Tough and see how well our "no combat skill" sneak thief stacks up.

 

However you seem to want to make this personal' date=' attacking me instead of my points. So I don't think I've really got anything else to say to you.[/quote']

 

It was certainly not my intent to make any personal attack, so I'm sorry you perceive it that way. I don't know that there's anything new for either of us to add - we simpky disagree.

 

Indeed' date=' OCV and DCV are 'figured' from DEX, and can be bought up (via levels) for 5 pts each. The only difference between them an a figured characteristic is that they're not listed in the same column as PD and ED on the character sheet.[/quote']

 

Well' date=' that and the game system does not call them Figured Characteristics.[/quote']

 

That's really only nomenclature. Opal seems to see things the same way I do (which, of course, is the One Trie Way, you heathens )

 

Except for the technicality that you have to 'distribute' them at the top of each phase' date=' a 5-pt 'all OCV' level and a 5pt 'DCV level' might as well be OCV and DCV. Of course they're 'levels' not 'figured characteristics,' - but, since they /are/ figured from a primary characteristic, and can be improved by spending points, it's a distinction without much of a difference.[/quote']

 

Do they actually have to be allocated? The discussion of skill levels refers to DCV levels not being "always on", but refers to an optional rule below. Does anyone know what optional rule is being referenced? I see nothing germane, but I didn't look too hard.

 

As for OCV, 5er p359 says that any level that could be applied to all attacks in a MPA can be applied to the MPA itself. That OCV level is technically being applied to more than one attack - it applies to all attacks in the MPA. Thus, a 5 point level granting +1 OCV with all attacks has effectively enhanced the character's OCV by 1 overall, no different from buying +1 OCV for 5 points.

 

Actually, as I have posted in other threads, I would like to see the costs of STUN, END and REC reduced, the formuli rejigged a bit and the value of No Figured vary by characteristic such that:

 

- taking "no figured" would generate virtually the same point savings as selling back all the figured's

 

- the "only sell back one" rule would be eliminated (backing into the ability to have that high CON, low stamina character)

 

- we might occasionally see players buy up STUN and REC rather than defenses/damage reduction to last longer in combat

 

- we might occasionally see players buy up ENDand REC rather than reduced END to last longer before exhaustion

[GamePhil]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Or perhaps we should price them based on their relative utility and leave it to the GM's to prevent abuses. If the only thing CON does is prevent being Stunned' date=' and if complete immunity to being Stunned is worth 15 points (and that is what an automaton pays for it already), then CON at 1 point is overpriced.[/quote']

 

That doesn't necessarily follow. It ignores the possibility that immunity to being Stunned is underpriced. It's also restricted to NPC's in virtually all games, perhaps it's because it's abusive. It's also true that CON does more than prevents you from being Stunned in most games, though not a whole lot more.

 

Would you then accept that No Figured Characteristics on CON should be worth a -3 Limitation? Because that would be consistent with what you're saying.

 

On a side note, I personally don't like having a Power in the game that only NPC's can have, especially if it's underpriced. But so it goes, and that's another subject.

[Warp9]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

See' date=' it's not "biological being". It's a specific sort of biological being. In the case of STR, it's "more massive musculature, gained from extensive training which includes more than just strength training". STUN and REC don't naturally follow strength training. Neither does Leaping, for some (probably most, certainly for upper-body strength training) types of training.[/quote']

 

On the "upper-body strength training" thing, IMO that is when you put on a limitation to the STR "upper-body only."

 

Or are you suggesting that STR should only cover upper body strength by default? Would that mean that all the martial kick manuvers would just have a default value for damage rather than using STR for damage?

[Warp9]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Well, it doesn't, if you assume a specific SFX.

"I have mechanical servos running through my body" -- certainly the added Leaping makes sense!

"I have hydraulics-based muscles" -- why the extra Leaping? My strength isn't applied any faster than normal...

You might be able to squeeze effectively with hydraulics-based muscles, but I think you'd find that punching would not get any extra benefit.

 

And it would probably take you weeks (or months) to lift an air craft carrier using hydraulics-based muscles.

 

I think that hydraulics-based muscles would have to be STR with some major limitations applied. IMO it is not a good example of any sort of standard STR.

[Warp9]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

If your character concept is that of a very strong car assembly plant robot, bolted to the ground, then leaping would not be a natural consequence of that robot having a high STR.

That would also be true if you had a very strong character with no legs.

 

But "no legs" and/or "bolted to the ground" are physical disads which would preclude the normal use of some abilities anyway.

 

So I don't see your point here.

[Warp9]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I think the ultimate answer may be to eliminate characteristics entirely and replacing them with other powers/skills/perks/talents, as follows:

That's an idea which I could get behind.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

That doesn't necessarily follow. It ignores the possibility that immunity to being Stunned is underpriced. It's also restricted to NPC's in virtually all games, perhaps it's because it's abusive. It's also true that CON does more than prevents you from being Stunned in most games, though not a whole lot more.

 

Would you then accept that No Figured Characteristics on CON should be worth a -3 Limitation? Because that would be consistent with what you're saying.

 

Given the current values of CON and the figured characteristics it provides, I would see that as a more reasonable price. Even under my reduced cost of figured's proposal, the limitation comes close to -3.

 

On a side note' date=' I personally don't like having a Power in the game that only NPC's can have, especially if it's underpriced. But so it goes, and that's another subject.[/quote']

 

I dislike abilities that only NPC's can have. I would allow "cannot be Stunned" to an appropriate PC and, for lack of a better price, I'd price it at 15.

 

PC's can technically buy "cannot be Stunned". You just need CON equal to your STUN. If we accept a -3 limitation for "only affects Stunning", 15 points buys +30 CON, which would probably move most characters out of being Stunned anyway.

[Opal]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Interesting' date=' given your views on the "STR is underpriced" thing.[/quote']What can I say, I want things that function as attack powers to be 5 pts per DC. I feel the same way about Martial Arts DCs. They'er 0 END, for pete's sake, why do they only cost 4 pts?

 

 

DEX is already 2:1, for all practical purposes. I've never seen a character, published or otherwise, that had a SPD < DEX/10+1. The "temptation" to take 5-pt CSLs would be exactly the same as it is now.

I thought I already acknowledged that. If you buy up your DEX by 3 or more points, chances are you'll buy up your SPD, as well, rather than sell it back.

 

I don't recall *ever* making a CON roll in the game.

I do.

And stunning is far from trivial.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

What can I say' date=' I want things that function as attack powers to be 5 pts per DC.[/quote']

I don't mean to harp on the subject, but don't you see the logical inconsistancy between "a DC for 5 points" and "a DC and a whole bunch of other useful stuff for the same 5 points"?

 

I feel the same way about Martial Arts DCs. They'er 0 END, for pete's sake, why do they only cost 4 pts?

I agree, which is why I also propose eliminating the HA Limitation, and raising the cost of Martial Arts DCs to 6 (or maybe even 7).

 

I thought I already acknowledged that. If you buy up your DEX by 3 or more points, chances are you'll buy up your SPD, as well, rather than sell it back.

Maybe I misuderstood you. It seemed like you were suggesting that DEX should cost 3 even if it didn't grant 1/10 of a point of SPD.

 

I do [recall making a CON roll].

What was it for?

[GamePhil]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I don't mean to harp on the subject, but don't you see the logical inconsistancy between "a DC for 5 points" and "a DC and a whole bunch of other useful stuff for the same 5 points"?

 

It's pretty close to the same logical inconsistency of two Powers for 120 points or three equal cost Powers for the same 120 points. The only reason it's not precisely the same is because of the 5E guidelines placed upon EC's that aren't also put on STR, but nevertheless, the idea of getting an extra bang by buying a package of Powers is not unique to it. The guidelines can be considered waived because there is no flexibility in the STR EC.

 

At the same time, if you don't have such a package, STR cost being 5 is still reasonable, as it is in line with other similar Powers. I would have less trouble allowing in an EC, so we come back to the same packaging power as everything else.

 

Yeah, I'm not Opal, but I said much the same as him on a previous page, so I thought I'd chime in.

[Opal]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I don't mean to harp on the subject' date=' but don't you see the logical inconsistancy between "a DC for 5 points" and "a DC and a whole bunch of other useful stuff for the same 5 points"?[/quote']Well, it is 5 Apts rather than 5 rpts, and, no, I have nothing against power frameworks or other cost-saving mechanics. There simply is some dis-synergy in buying restricted packages of one sort or another.

 

 

I agree, which is why I also propose eliminating the HA Limitation, and raising the cost of Martial Arts DCs to 6 (or maybe even 7).

Yeah, except 6 and 7 aren't 5.

 

 

Maybe I misuderstood you. It seemed like you were suggesting that DEX should cost 3 even if it didn't grant 1/10 of a point of SPD.

Yes. De-linking SPD and DEX mechanically would have the psychological result of making High-DEX/low SPD characters more acceptable. Currently, it's rare to consider buying up DEX and sellying back SPD - you typically buy up both. Thus when you up your DEX, you usally pay not only the 3:1 for DEX, but throw a few more points to SPD, rather than sell SPD back. That does impact the consideration of DEX vs levels.

 

No value judgement meant there, just 3:1 is a good cost for DEX compared to levels, figured characteristics or no, because it's so useful.

 

 

What was it for?

The usual, refraining from breathing. Plus a few oddities, like shrugging off a drug effect, CON check as a substitute for LTE in a game not using LTE, and uh, well 'performance.'

[GamePhil]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

The usual' date=' refraining from breathing. Plus a few oddities, like shrugging off a drug effect, [/quote']

 

There was a character in one of my games called the Candy Man. This was for a villain group I was GMing for. He had the ability to generate any drug effect he had encountered. I had been reading Flinx books, and things began to get out of hand. He started to do some pretty heinous things at that point.

 

Opal had the opportunity to go all Dark Champions on his sorry behind. You can bet he made some CON rolls, as did most of the characters during that portion of the campaign.

 

Ah, good times.

[archermoo]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Yes. De-linking SPD and DEX mechanically would have the psychological result of making High-DEX/low SPD characters more acceptable. Currently, it's rare to consider buying up DEX and sellying back SPD - you typically buy up both. Thus when you up your DEX, you usally pay not only the 3:1 for DEX, but throw a few more points to SPD, rather than sell SPD back. That does impact the consideration of DEX vs levels.

 

I think you're missing the point. For every point you raise DEX by you get a "free" CP towards SPD. Since most characters will have more than a 2 SPD, most people consider this to effectively mean that DEX costs 2 CP per point.

 

Look at it this way: I have a character with a 23 DEX and a 5 SPD. When I initially built the character I spent 39 CP on DEX and 17 CP on SPD. If I later buy my DEX up to 26 but leave my SPD 5 I will now have 48 CP in DEX, but only 14 CP in SPD. Total net cost for the change: 6 CP. So to buy up my DEX by 3 points I spend a total of 6 CP. An effective 2:1.

[Opal]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

The math is perfectly clear. I'm talking something more like 'sticker shock.' And, just the way people tend to treat SPD.

 

For instance, if you had a character at DEX 20/SPD4 with two 5-pt levels, you might conclude that 6 more points of DEX for 'only' 12 points after selling back SPD (2 net of the levels) would be a pretty good deal - and you'd be right, resulting in a DEX26/SPD4 character. Ever seen one of those? Not likely. More likely the character's SPD would be taken up to 5, total cost: 22, 12 net of the levels. If you're talking exp, a character is even likely to buy up his DEX a point or two at a time, and not sell back the SPD, since he also plans on buying it up.

 

Now, decouple them. The cost of a CSL is now directly comparable to the cost of 3 points of DEX. If 3 points of DEX cost 6, then a 3pt level is a decent idea, but a 5pt level, well, you might as well spend the extra point and get both OCV and DCV. SPD stops entering into it. 36 DEX/3 SPD? No problem, they're not related. The math doesn't change, but the the psychology of buying up DEX, and thus the game, does.

[archermoo]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

The math is perfectly clear. I'm talking something more like 'sticker shock.' And, just the way people tend to treat SPD.

 

For instance, if you had a character at DEX 20/SPD4 with two 5-pt levels, you might conclude that 6 more points of DEX for 'only' 12 points after selling back SPD (2 net of the levels) would be a pretty good deal - and you'd be right, resulting in a DEX26/SPD4 character. Ever seen one of those? Not likely. More likely the character's SPD would be taken up to 5, total cost: 22, 12 net of the levels. If you're talking exp, a character is even likely to buy up his DEX a point or two at a time, and not sell back the SPD, since he also plans on buying it up.

 

Yes, I have played 26 DEX 4 SPD characters. Heck a recent charater of mine had a 28 DEX and a 4 SPD.

 

And I don't understand what you mean by "sell back" SPD when talking about spending XPs. Going back to my example, a 23 DEX costs 39 CPs so a 5 SPD would cost 17 CPs. If I buy the DEX up to 26 it now costs 48 CPs, but the 5 SPD only costs 14 CPs. Why would you buy your SPD up to 5.3 at that point instead of leaving it at 5? Especially if you had no intention of buying a 6 SPD, at least not any time soon. For that matter I don't even think the HD software will let you have your SPD at a fractional value unless you leave it at the starting value and your DEX isn't a multiple of 10.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

For instance' date=' if you had a character at DEX 20/SPD4 with two 5-pt levels, you might conclude that 6 more points of DEX for 'only' 12 points after selling back SPD (2 net of the levels) would be a pretty good deal - and you'd be right, resulting in a DEX26/SPD4 character. Ever seen one of those? Not likely. More likely the character's SPD would be taken up to 5, total cost: 22, 12 net of the levels. If you're talking exp, a character is even likely to buy up his DEX a point or two at a time, and not sell back the SPD, since he also plans on buying it up.[/quote']

 

He could always buy +6 DEX, no figured.

 

While I see the issue to some extent, I also believe this stems from people viewing "fast and agile" as a descriptor implying both DEX and SPD, supporting the link between the two.

 

Now' date=' decouple them. The cost of a CSL is now directly comparable to the cost of 3 points of DEX. If 3 points of DEX cost 6, then a 3pt level is a decent idea, but a 5pt level, well, you might as well spend the extra point and get both OCV and DCV. SPD stops entering into it. 36 DEX/3 SPD? No problem, they're not related. The math doesn't change, but the the psychology of buying up DEX, and thus the game, does.[/quote']

 

Skill level costs are already screwed up. Why buy a level for +1 to all INT based skills when you can buy INT and get all INT-based skills at once (much more useful for complementary rolls), PER and anything else your GM decides to give for high INT.

 

But if you lower the price of skill levels, they become far too useful once you hit NCM.

 

As to buying up piecemeal, I have a character who buys DEX 1 CP at a time, first +1 DEX, no figured, act 10-, then buy it up as real DEX and offset 1 point vs SPD. If the GM would not let the SPD price change, he'd leave it at No Figured.

 

He also bought +1 SPD, act 8-. The activation will gradually be bought down over time until he has the extra SPD.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Yeah' date=' except 6 and 7 aren't 5. [/quote']

Well 7 = 5 + 0 END.

 

Should an EB with 0 END still cost only 5 points per die?

[Opal]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

And I don't understand what you mean by "sell back" SPD when talking about spending XPs.

When you're desiging a character, deciding to give him a 23 DEX/5 SPD instead of a 20/5 is just a matter of re-cacluating points.

 

Unbuying something you already have when you spend exp (instead of buying it up), though, is a little odd. It's not illegal, it's just a very minor re-build, but it is a little odd. And, if you are going to buy your SPD up, why sell it back, then save up 10 points and buy it all up at once. You get a smoother progression if you don't sell it back.

[Opal]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Well 7 = 5 + 0 END.

 

Should an EB with 0 END still cost only 5 points per die?

If, for some reason, you were arguing that EB shouldn't cost END, yes, I'd want to know how you were going to make it reasonably balanced at a cost of 5pts, rather than raising it to 7. I see no reason to argue for that, while it does make some sense for MA DCs to cost no END (since they're 'skills' and skills don't cost END).

[archermoo]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

When you're desiging a character, deciding to give him a 23 DEX/5 SPD instead of a 20/5 is just a matter of re-cacluating points.

 

Unbuying something you already have when you spend exp (instead of buying it up), though, is a little odd. It's not illegal, it's just a very minor re-build, but it is a little odd. And, if you are going to buy your SPD up, why sell it back, then save up 10 points and buy it all up at once. You get a smoother progression if you don't sell it back.

 

But I'm not "unbuying" anything. I'm just leaving my SPD at 5 instead of buying it up to 5.3. The number of points needed to do so changes when my DEX changes, so that change gets reflected. There isn't any point to a 5.3 SPD, so I can't imagine why anyone would want to buy their SPD up to there. And I'd call it more than just a little odd to do so. And I'm guessing something like that is why HD is designed to not allow you to do so.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

When you're desiging a character, deciding to give him a 23 DEX/5 SPD instead of a 20/5 is just a matter of re-cacluating points.

 

Unbuying something you already have when you spend exp (instead of buying it up), though, is a little odd. It's not illegal, it's just a very minor re-build, but it is a little odd. And, if you are going to buy your SPD up, why sell it back, then save up 10 points and buy it all up at once. You get a smoother progression if you don't sell it back.

 

The whole oddness (at least to you) of the DEX/SPD thing is another argument in favor of decoupling Figured Characteristics.

 

It's only a smoother progression on paper, to those viewing the character from the outside, both approaches look the same.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

If' date=' for some reason, you were arguing that EB shouldn't cost END, yes, I'd want to know how you were going to make it reasonably balanced at a cost of 5pts, rather than raising it to 7. I see no reason to argue for that, while it does make some sense for MA DCs to cost no END (since they're 'skills' and skills don't cost END).[/quote']

OK, you've lost me here. Didn't you just say that Martial Arts DCs are *more* useful than the "regular" DCs provided by STR, at least in part *because* they don't cost END?

 

Do you want all DCs to cost 5 just because you like seeing 5's everywhere? Or do you want things to cost what they're worth, whether or not it comes out to 5?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

When you're desiging a character, deciding to give him a 23 DEX/5 SPD instead of a 20/5 is just a matter of re-cacluating points.

 

Unbuying something you already have when you spend exp (instead of buying it up), though, is a little odd. It's not illegal, it's just a very minor re-build, but it is a little odd. And, if you are going to buy your SPD up, why sell it back, then save up 10 points and buy it all up at once. You get a smoother progression if you don't sell it back.

 

If it makes you feel better, he can instead buy +3 DEX, No Figured with exactly the same result. And if he wants an extra point of SPD, he can buy off the limitation at the same time he buys up the SPD.

[Opal]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

OK' date=' you've lost me here. Didn't you just say that Martial Arts DCs are *more* useful than the "regular" DCs provided by STR, at least in part *because* they don't cost END?[/quote']No, Martial Arts DCs don't do everything STR does (as an attack, never mind figured characteristics), do some minor, limitted things it doesn't, and cost no END. They're comparable in Apt value to what STR does, and comparable to STR or EB or KA in value, when you include the 0 END thing.

 

You could also think of them as STR, no figured CHA, 0 END. It's not quite right - they do somethings STR doesn't and don't do everything STR does - but in broad strokes, it's close enough.

 

Do you want all DCs to cost 5 just because you like seeing 5's everywhere? Or do you want things to cost what they're worth, whether or not it comes out to 5?

The former. Costing attacks at 5 Apts per DC is simply elegant and makes using simple Apt guidelines an efficient way to keep things relatively balanced. Rather than adjusting the points, I'd prefer to adjust what the attack power in question does. Make HA do a bit more, so that it can cost 5pts/die. That sort of thing.