6e Characteristics

[Ice9]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

It occurs to me that this will probably be a bit of a power-down for mentalists. Let's compare:

 

In 5E, a non-mentalist willing to spend 10 points on EGO could get EGO 15, 5 ECV. In 6E, for those same 10 points, they can get EGO 20, 0 OECV, 6 DECV - that's a definite improvement.

 

In 5E, a mentalist spending 44 points could get 32 EGO, 11 ECV. To get that in 6E, it would cost 70+ points (that's if OECV/DECV costs 3/level, could be more). Even just to get mentalist-level offense with typical defense (as above), it would cost 43+ points (against assuming 3/level for ECVs).

 

So at best, for the same points, the mentalist gets the same offense and less defense, against foes who will typically have better EGO and DECV.

[Lucius]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

the use of Summon to simulate Resurrection and similar kludges.

 

How is using Summon for Resurrection any more of a "kludge" than making it an Adder on Healing?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Animal Handler: Palindromedary

[Ice9]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Another thought - if the price of characteristics is going up, this benefits non-characteristic-based characters. For instance, an area-effect blaster/controller with a forcefield or concealment for defense doesn't need characteristics to the extent a speedster or brick does. Neither does a summoner, but they already had points to burn.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

How is using Summon for Resurrection any more of a "kludge" than making it an Adder on Healing?

 

Summon for Resurrection is as mechanically accurate as EDM for Wish. The Healing adder provided an actual, by the book, rule for returning life to a dead character.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

If you use Summon for resurrection, where are you Summoning the subject from?

 

I think the answer to that question gets into the cosmology of the campaign, so the Healing adder seems cleaner to me.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

I find myself slightly distressed that PER is still based on INT. Never did understand why humans had better PER rolls than animals because, you know, they don't.

 

Not really. Animals have several Enhanced Senses that make them very hard to sneak up on. Humans have senses that are better in ways that don't involve avoiding being snuck up on.

 

Since most of our human perception involves advantages for technological type stuff, I think baseline PER being calculated from INT is generally OK. Plus, in Heroic fiction, smart characters tend to be a bit more perceptive.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

I find myself slightly distressed that PER is still based on INT. Never did understand why humans had better PER rolls than animals because' date=' you know, they don't.[/quote']

Sean, do you own the Bestiary? I don’t have my copy on me, but if memory serves I think many if not most animals have INT in the 8-12 range just like “normal” humans. The difference is that they take a Physical Disadvantage, usually Animal Intelligence or Near Human Intelligence. Remember, INT in Hero doesn’t equal IQ or amount of knowledge, but how “fast” you think. A dog with a 14 INT is not “smarter” than a Normal with 8 INT. It is however more observant, even “brighter” if you will. It will learn those things within its abilities more easily than the human will, but the things the human can learn are infinitely more complex than anything the dog can ever really understand.

Note, I’m not arguing that PER should be coupled with INT, just letting you know that the system does not handle animals the way you imply.

 

Would make Growth and Shrinking make more sense. I can see where maneuvers such as move through could be based on SIZ rather than STR. If it replaces BODY you don't have the situation where a mouse and an elephant both have 10 BODY pips.

Again with the animals. Mice do not have 10 BODY. Not only are they not written up that way in the Bestiary, but no sane and logical GM would write up a mouse with 10 BODY in a regular setting. I mean, a mouse that can survive a knife wound or hand gun…really? And I’m pretty sure elephants actually have more than 10 BODY. Have you played in a campaign where all animals, regardless of relative size, strength, and toughness in the real world, all had the same body?

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Not really. Animals have several Enhanced Senses that make them very hard to sneak up on. Humans have senses that are better in ways that don't involve avoiding being snuck up on.

 

Since most of our human perception involves advantages for technological type stuff, I think baseline PER being calculated from INT is generally OK. Plus, in Heroic fiction, smart characters tend to be a bit more perceptive.

 

 

Enhanced senses still work off PER: doesn't matter if you can detect human pheremones on the wind, if you can only do it on 10- or 9-.

 

Human senses are amazing but they are not better than animal senses, no way no how. What humans MAY be better at doing is interpreting the information they get from their senses. That is a different proposition though, something like an 'observation' skill - which we don't have.

 

There may be examples of smart, perceptive types but as many or more of dumb perceptive types or smart non-perceptive types. The 'link' between smart and perceptive is far to tenuous to be hardwired.

 

Presumably you can also do this: +5 INT (Not for PER rolls -1/2), and get +1 on all intellect skills for 3 points?

 

Surely you can see that? You're smart!

 

In any event, knowledge skills can be as useful to 'perception' as intelligence.

 

IMO the ability to perceive a stimulus and the ability to interpret what that means should be separate steps: the first acts as a threshold - generally you either CAN or CAN NOT hear a certsin level of noise. If you CAN and are smart/knowledgeable you might realise that it is the distinctive sound of the deadly ICONNU SPIDER making ready to strike. If your hearing isn't good enough to pick out the sound then it doesn't matter how smart or knowledgeable you are you will not hear it and so have no data to interpret and even if you could hear a pin drop on the other side of a the room (and so do hear the noise) if you do not have the ability to interpret what it means, it is just an innocuous noise.

 

So I agree INT/knowledge skills help you to percive but they can be extremely useful for cracking the data if you do.

[Peregrine]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Presumably you can also do this: +5 INT (Not for PER rolls -1/2), and get +1 on all intellect skills for 3 points?

 

No. +1 to all Intellect Skills is a 5 point Skill Level. If you want a character who is smart but non-perceptive, buy low INT and Skill Levels with Intellect Skills.

 

No, the cost doesn't make sense until you hit INT 20 under NCM...

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

I don't understand lots of the issue here. You guys DO remember you can buy extra perception don't you? Many animals in the the Bestiary have extra perception beyond their INT.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

I don't understand lots of the issue here. You guys DO remember you can buy extra perception don't you? Many animals in the the Bestiary have extra perception beyond their INT.

 

 

...which would not be necessarily if we had this artificial link between the ability to solve problems and remember stuff on the one hand and the ability to sense external stimuli on the other were removed.

 

My problem is simple: it makes no sense. There is no reason that those things should be linked. Having to get round it would not be necessary if PER were a separate characteristic.

[Hierax]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

yeah, if the other things are un-figured/decoupled, it makes sense that PER be a separate Characteristic of its own.

[Lucius]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Off topic:

 

Summon for Resurrection is as mechanically accurate as EDM for Wish. The Healing adder provided an actual' date=' by the book, rule for returning life to a dead character.[/quote']

 

If you use Summon for resurrection, where are you Summoning the subject from?

 

I think the answer to that question gets into the cosmology of the campaign, so the Healing adder seems cleaner to me.

 

I started a new thread to reply to these.

 

On topic:

 

Divorcing PER from INT would make vastly more sense than divorcing CV from DEX.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary suspects that the system is going to become much more complicated rather than less.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

As I was walking the dog today, I walked past a school with a high fence, which is at the corner of two roads. As I walked along, I heard a car coming but could not see it, and I heard that it was slowing. I deduced that it was slowing to turn the corner, so did not step out into the road.

 

My dog, Bracken, probably heard the car well before I did, but probably did not deduce that it was a car (he's really not that bright for a lab) and definitely would not have got that it was going to turn the corner.

 

That, to my mind, illustrates the very real difference between perception and interpretation of perceptions.

 

According to some very superficial research on my behalf*, dogs can hear sounds four times further away than humans can, which would be a +4 PER roll for hearing in Hero terms. That would equate to +20 INT. Why do we give dogs human level INT and then say they can not think with it? They ought to have superhuman INT they can not think with.

 

 

*

http://www.seefido.com/html/dog_sense_of_hearing.htm

[bigbywolfe]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

As I was walking the dog today, I walked past a school with a high fence, which is at the corner of two roads. As I walked along, I heard a car coming but could not see it, and I heard that it was slowing. I deduced that it was slowing to turn the corner, so did not step out into the road.

 

My dog, Bracken, probably heard the car well before I did, but probably did not deduce that it was a car (he's really not that bright for a lab) and definitely would not have got that it was going to turn the corner.

 

That, to my mind, illustrates the very real difference between perception and interpretation of perceptions.

 

According to some very superficial research on my behalf*, dogs can hear sounds four times further away than humans can, which would be a +4 PER roll for hearing in Hero terms. That would equate to +20 INT. Why do we give dogs human level INT and then say they can not think with it? They ought to have superhuman INT they can not think with.

 

 

*

http://www.seefido.com/html/dog_sense_of_hearing.htm

 

But we don't give them "Human level INT" we give them "Animal Intelligence"...

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

But we don't give them "Human level INT" we give them "Animal Intelligence"...

 

We give them human level INT (around 10) and the disadvantage 'Animal Intelligence' AKA Think Like A Dog, apparently - I do not have the 5th ed bestiary, but I had the 4th ed one and wound up giving it away because I had to change so much (and I think INT used to be sub-human there).

 

Animals are not the only example though - the College professor who can think brilliant thoughts but rarely pays attention to what is under his nose, the soldier who is dumb as a shoe but understands perfectly that the noise he just heard means there is an enemy in that bush just over yonder...

 

In fact the only reason that most characters have PER and INT on a par is because it is more effort (and sometimes cost: +1 with intellect skills costs the same as +5 INT which gives you better overall advantages) than it is worth to change it.

 

Which seems like an excellent reason to change it to me.

 

Also if you had a separate PER characteristic then you could drain it. I like that....

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Enhanced senses still work off PER: doesn't matter if you can detect human pheremones on the wind' date=' if you can only do it on 10- or 9-.[/quote']

 

Really? So +6 to Hearing Perception isn't an Enhanced Sense? That's news to me.

 

Human senses are amazing but they are not better than animal senses, no way no how. What humans MAY be better at doing is interpreting the information they get from their senses. That is a different proposition though, something like an 'observation' skill - which we don't have.

 

You should do more research on the subject. Our senses are far superior for using technology. It's a major reason why we have technology.

 

There may be examples of smart, perceptive types but as many or more of dumb perceptive types or smart non-perceptive types. The 'link' between smart and perceptive is far to tenuous to be hardwired.

 

Sure. If you want that level of granularity, go for it. As a system defaulted to heroic fiction, the default level of granularity works OK for me. The system -- any system -- is going to have to bend a little here and there to accommodate different styles of play.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Sean, I agree that leaving PER attached to INT makes no sense when we’ve disconnected everything else. I think your beef with how it currently works, though, particularly how it applies to animals, is not well founded.

[Vondy]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

The more I think about this the more I have a problem: characteristics bloat. Hero is starting to go the way of harnmaster in this regard (the initiated know of what I speak). There comes a point where, consistent application of principles aside, granularity becomes cumbersome rather than beneficial. The parsing out of combat values makes internal sense, but at what point is the laundry list of characteristics too long? If we're going this route, couldn't we just use skill levels with a base reference value and not have combat values as a characteristic at all? The same general method could be applied to perception. A base value (not noted on the sheet) with perception modifiers being purchased (not as characteristics, but as talents/powers) for characters who require them.

 

Ergo, To Hit Roll = 11 + attacker's offensive levels - defenders defensive levels. Its basically the same formula we have now, but references applicable skill levels rather than a characteristic or derived value.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Really? So +6 to Hearing Perception isn't an Enhanced Sense? That's news to me.

 

What?

 

 

 

You should do more research on the subject. Our senses are far superior for using technology. It's a major reason why we have technology.

 

What?

 

 

 

Sure. If you want that level of granularity' date=' go for it. As a system defaulted to heroic fiction, the default level of granularity works OK for me. The system -- any system -- is going to have to bend a little here and there to accommodate different styles of play.[/quote']

 

What do you think the INT characteristic covers? Just so we don't set off down the wrong path here, I know that it covers intellect skill use and perception in Hero, what I'm asking is what real life sense or ability links those two things. In fact, never mind real life, what genre convention links those two? Are Mr Fantastic's senses as acute as Wolverine's, or even any more acute than, say, The Thing's (with the obvious exception of touch)? No, they are not, and I doubt you'll find any consistent examples of a link between sense accuity and the ability to use intellect skills. Anywhere.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Sean' date=' I agree that leaving PER attached to INT makes no sense when we’ve disconnected everything else. I think your beef with how it currently works, though, particularly how it applies to animals, is not well founded.[/quote']

 

I have not got 5th ed bestiary because I disliked 4th ed bestiary so much, so maybe the treatment of animals is much better, and, given how INT works, and the link to PER, the way it is handled is probably the best way it can be - it is not 'animals' that I have the problem with. Still, I may be alone on this: that happens a lot

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

No. +1 to all Intellect Skills is a 5 point Skill Level. If you want a character who is smart but non-perceptive, buy low INT and Skill Levels with Intellect Skills.

 

No, the cost doesn't make sense until you hit INT 20 under NCM...

 

 

So you have prejudice character build efficiency to realise concept? You have to buy the legendary 5 INT Einstein because you want someone who is really really intelligent but who pays no attention to his immediate environment?

 

That's all rhetorical.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

The more I think about this the more I have a problem: characteristics bloat. Hero is starting to go the way of harnmaster in this regard (the initiated know of what I speak). There comes a point where, consistent application of principles aside, granularity becomes cumbersome rather than beneficial. The parsing out of combat values makes internal sense, but at what point is the laundry list of characteristics too long? If we're going this route, couldn't we just use skill levels with a base reference value and not have combat values as a characteristic at all? The same general method could be applied to perception. A base value (not noted on the sheet) with perception modifiers being purchased (not as characteristics, but as talents/powers) for characters who require them.

 

Ergo, To Hit Roll = 11 + attacker's offensive levels - defenders defensive levels. Its basically the same formula we have now, but references applicable skill levels rather than a characteristic or derived value.

 

I've previously suggested ditching INT and going the route 6e is going with COM. We do not need it.

 

PER doesn't need to be a characteristic, it can be a skill, no problem with that.

 

I'd also allow you to take things like penalties to PER or Intellect skills as disadvantages (complications?) where you want a character who starts at lower than 'average' mental capacity and/or perception.

 

In fact you could probably do the same thing with the new version of DEX.

 

If we assume everyone starts at 11-, we only need to note the character sheet for deviations.

 

While I'm stepping into a parallel universe I'd change from 3d6 to 4d6 and roll '2up,2down': roll 2 green and 2 red 6d, add the greens and subtract the reds. Then everything revolves around 0 rather than 11 and gives a range of -10 to +10, which is oddly satisfying, then every rolled ability defaults to 'no penalty, no bonus, and has a 55% chance to succeed (roll is not negative).

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

I've previously suggested ditching INT and going the route 6e is going with COM. We do not need it.

 

What do you replace INT Rolls with?

 

PER doesn't need to be a characteristic, it can be a skill, no problem with that.

 

Steve considered that and rejected it.

 

I'd also allow you to take things like penalties to PER or Intellect skills as disadvantages (complications?) where you want a character who starts at lower than 'average' mental capacity and/or perception.

 

Seems more complicated than is needed.

 

In fact you could probably do the same thing with the new version of DEX.

 

I'm not getting what you're saying here at all. I believe DEX will still be used for Initiative and DEX Rolls in addition to determining the base value of DEX-based Skills.

 

If we assume everyone starts at 11-, we only need to note the character sheet for deviations.

 

Do you mean for PER or something? But what's the difference between looking at the sheet for a PER Roll of 14- or a PER Mod of +3? I'm not sure what you're accomplishing except adding an extra arithmetic operation?

 

While I'm stepping into a parallel universe I'd change from 3d6 to 4d6 and roll '2up,2down': roll 2 green and 2 red 6d, add the greens and subtract the reds. Then everything revolves around 0 rather than 11 and gives a range of -10 to +10, which is oddly satisfying, then every rolled ability defaults to 'no penalty, no bonus, and has a 55% chance to succeed (roll is not negative).

 

So you want combats to last longer by reducing the average chance to hit by 7% (62% down to 55%)?

[Vondy]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Steve considered that and rejected it.

 

We know that. Sean was responding to a comment I made. The comment was focused on combat values and characteristic bloat. I was pointing out that we could forgo having them at all by having a base roll modified by relevant skill levels (11 + OCSLs - DCSLs). Same method as present without having four new stats. Indeed, once combat values are parsed out they become a redundant expression of combat skill levels. The comment on perception was simply an extension of that notion. That Steve considered it and decided not to do it is really neither here nor there. The comment was an expression of dissent. I will be using this method irrespective of what 6E says.