6e Characteristics

[prestidigitator]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Boy, I hope he doesn't get rid of negative Characteristics. On a descriptive, and in some cases effective (e.g. Strength), level, Characteristics represent a logarithmic scale. Without the negatives, we lose the ability to be able to describe increasingly small values. This will especially hurt where Strength is concerned, but I was incredibly happy when the effects of having negative Characteristics in general were described and added to the system. IMO it would be a stupid and backwards change to get rid of that. I'm not sure what it would serve in any case; it's not like negative characteristics add any real complication or anything.

 

Besides, does that mean that people are just going to be dead a 0 Body?

[kjandreano]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

One thing I see, characteristics are now much more expensive (effectively).

They were not really as efficient as a power based character in 5th edition, but under 6th they look impractical. Just buy powers and skills, the character will be much more powerful (for the points) than a characteristic based character. I think point balance will be seriously messed up in 6th edition.

[Trebuchet]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

One thing I see, characteristics are now much more expensive (effectively).

They were not really as efficient as a power based character in 5th edition, but under 6th they look impractical. Just buy powers and skills, the character will be much more powerful (for the points) than a characteristic based character. I think point balance will be seriously messed up in 6th edition.

We don't have any idea what the new costs for Characteristics will be, For all we know, DEX will cost only 1 and SPD 2 or 3 points each.

 

Do I expect that it will all be just right? Not really. As near as we can tell, there was little or no playtesting to check for balance or other issues.

[ajackson]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

One thing I see' date=' characteristics are now much more expensive (effectively).[/quote']

Depends on the characteristic, and on whether cost has changed (I'm expecting all the primaries to be x1). Int and Pre are unchanged, so no more or less expensive than they used to be. Str is more expensive, but was pretty much too good before. Ditto for Dex, and at x1 it's still better than 5 point Dex levels (because it adds Initiative). Con at x1 is a reduction, but again, probably too good before (does it really make sense to have Con 33 energy projectors?). Bod at x1 would be an improvement. Ego at x1 would be better for non-mentalists. Pre and Int are unchanged from 5e.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Depends on the characteristic' date=' and on whether cost has changed (I'm expecting all the primaries to be x1). Int and Pre are unchanged, so no more or less expensive than they used to be. Str is more expensive, but was pretty much too good before. Ditto for Dex, and at x1 it's still better than 5 point Dex levels (because it adds Initiative). Con at x1 is a reduction, but again, probably too good before (does it really make sense to have Con 33 energy projectors?). Bod at x1 would be an improvement. Ego at x1 would be better for non-mentalists. Pre and Int are unchanged from 5e.[/quote']

 

I'm inclined to agree that the primaries should now cost 1 point each. PRE, INT and DEX will now add to skill rolls and have a secondary ability (PRE attacks; PER rolls; Combat order). It would seem reasonable to price skill levels at 3 points since they lack the second ability. I'd also like PRE to lose the ability to resist PRE attacks, making this EGO's secondary ability.

 

For the secondaries, I can't see PD and ED changing in price, but I could see STUN, END and REC dropping, hopefully enough to make high END and REC a reasonable substitute for Reduced END, and high STUN and REC a viable choice compared to more defenses.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

For the secondaries' date=' I can't see PD and ED changing in price, but I could see STUN, END and REC dropping, hopefully enough to make high END and REC a reasonable substitute for Reduced END, and high STUN and REC a viable choice compared to more defenses.[/quote']

I agree that high STUN and REC aren't a viable choice compared to more defenses. Reducing the cost of STUN and REC would help, but half cost might be overdoing it, and I don't think we want to introduce costs of 3/4 or such. I would prefer to increase the cost of PD and ED to 1½ (or better yet, 3 points for a combined DEF, though I don't think that will happen).

 

However, having high END and REC is a reasonable substitute for Reduced END. Reduced END costs 5 points per END saved (barring roundings). For a power used four times a turn, this corresponds to having +4 END, +4 limited REC (END only, -1) at a current cost of 6 points - and the extra END and REC can be used for all powers, not just a single one. In fact, Reduced END is only a reasonable option for high-SPD characters, and then mainly for defenses that are on all the time. Even if END cost is increased to 1, buying more END and (limited) REC is a good alternative to Reduced END - you pay a little more (8 points compared to 5 for four uses per turn), but gain a lot of flexibility.

 

For instance, if you use a "Zero END Cost" power at reduced strength (e.g. flying at less than top speed), you don't save anything, but if you instead had bought extra END, you would save END by using the power at reduced strength.

 

- Klaus

[ajackson]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

I'm inclined to agree that the primaries should now cost 1 point each. PRE' date=' INT and DEX will now add to skill rolls and have a secondary ability (PRE attacks; PER rolls; Combat order). It would seem reasonable to price skill levels at 3 points since they lack the second ability.[/quote']

I'm hoping for 4 point skill levels, actually. Take the current 8/5/3/2 cost levels and change them to 5/4/3/2 (10 point levels can remain at 10; I've seen them abused plenty).

[ajackson]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Hm. On the cost of Stun, let's make the assumption that, out of every 100 attacks in a typical game, you will be hit by a total of:

30: 21 stun vs PD (agents, misc damage such as knockback)

20: 21 stun vs ED (agents)

20: 42 stun vs PD

15: 42 stun vs ED

5: 21 stun vs Mental

5: 21 stun vs Power

5: 21 stun NND

 

At 0 defense, average damage per attack is 28.35; +1 PD gives -0.5, +1 ED gives -0.35. At 21 defense, average damage per attack is down to 10.5, +1 PD/ED is down to -0.2/0.15 per hit, and a typical character can withstand 2 hits. If we want to increase toughness by 50%, we can either reduce average damage to 7 (-3.5 damage, which by above logic can be done with +10 PD and +10 ED, and is probably about as high as a typical GM will let you buy your defenses in a 60 active game) or add 10 stun (or add resistance to specials, but that's more expensive). +10 stun is the cheapest option by quite a bit there.

 

Overall, while I doubt you'll see that many characters with 50+ stun, stun in the 30-40 range will be worth the cost for many characters.

[director13]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

In my Heroic / Dark Champions game, I house ruled NCM costs for Primary Characteristics to 2 points per level, and Figured Characteristics to 1 point per level. I dumped COM entirely, and calculate SPD off INT, not DEX.

 

At the 150/75 level it's doing what I want (for about half a year now), without too many "gotcha" moments. Since these seem to be pretty similar to what's been announced in 6e, I'm not too worried about it.

 

Removing figured characteristics I could see everything costing 1 except the Combat Value Stats. Although honestly I would rename OECV and DECV to Defensive Psychic Value and Offensive Psychic Value (although I certainly understand why Combat sticks around in the title).

[director13]

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.

 

 

I agree. Hero Bestiary 5 has INT values for most mundane creatures is in the 8 ballpark, with some insects having a 5. Of the things I know INT does, I don't see that being applicable for anything EXCEPT PER. Honestly, I'm not sure what negative INT would do exactly, but combined with decoupling PER if implemented it would let us get around the 15 point "animal Intelligence" physical limitation rule (that feels kludge-y to me).

 

Furthermore, there was some discussion of the difference between perceiving things and understanding their significance. As far as I can tell, the second would be covered by Deduction. Give it as an everyman skill to humans, and I think we've resolved that disparity (animals typically have a "act like this kind of animal" professional skill that could be used, in context, for things that kind of animal would figure out).

 

Honestly, I would get rid of PER entirely and give out a new Everyman General skill called Observation. 8- for free, 2/2 for 11- with normal sense groups. This still lets Enhanced Senses (mostly) work as written, with a slightly higher point cost for enhanced perception with the weird stuff.

 

(Existing PER references would be replaced with Observation references, and we wouldn't need to spend as much time in the Powers section for something mundane characters can do.)

 

I think there might even be a clever way to parlay this into the normal darkness penalties with minimal effort, but while I'm a big fan of minial effort, "clever" currently escapes me.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Hm. On the cost of Stun, let's make the assumption that, out of every 100 attacks in a typical game, you will be hit by a total of:

30: 21 stun vs PD (agents, misc damage such as knockback)

20: 21 stun vs ED (agents)

20: 42 stun vs PD

15: 42 stun vs ED

5: 21 stun vs Mental

5: 21 stun vs Power

5: 21 stun NND

 

At 0 defense, average damage per attack is 28.35; +1 PD gives -0.5, +1 ED gives -0.35. At 21 defense, average damage per attack is down to 10.5, +1 PD/ED is down to -0.2/0.15 per hit, and a typical character can withstand 2 hits. If we want to increase toughness by 50%, we can either reduce average damage to 7 (-3.5 damage, which by above logic can be done with +10 PD and +10 ED, and is probably about as high as a typical GM will let you buy your defenses in a 60 active game) or add 10 stun (or add resistance to specials, but that's more expensive). +10 stun is the cheapest option by quite a bit there.

 

Overall, while I doubt you'll see that many characters with 50+ stun, stun in the 30-40 range will be worth the cost for many characters.

You are comparing defenses, which remain after each attack, with stun, which is lost every attack. Of course you find that stun is a bad idea. Let's look at it a different way:

 

Which is better to make you make it through a significant battle, DEF or stun? Let's assume that in a significant battle, a hero is hit by 5 agent attacks vs. DEF and by 3 superpowered attacks versus DEF.

 

The agent attacks are assumed to do average damage close to the hero's DEF - say, average of 21 stun vs. 21 DEF. This means that every other attack will let stun through, so +1 DEF saves 0.5 stun per attack, for a total of 2.5 stun in the battle.

 

The superpowered attacks are assumed to do average damage close to twice the hero's DEF - say, average of 42 stun vs. 21 DEF. This means that almost every attack will let stun through, so +1 DEF saves 1 stun per attack, for a total of 3 stun in the battle.

 

So 1 DEF saves 5.5 stun in a typical significant battle. Assuming that the DEF is rDEF, it currently costs 3 points - a very good deal.

 

Add to this that DEF will protect you from getting stunned, while stun won't. For each 1 DEF you don't have, you have to buy +1 CON instead (presumably at a cost of 1 in 6e). This makes the value of +1 rDEF 6.5 points - currently at the cost of 3 points; a very good deal indeed.

 

Doubling the cost of PD and ED would be the best solution. A compromise between the current imbalance and truly balanced costs would be to set PD and ED at 1½ points each, with Damage Resistance still at ½ point.

 

- Klaus

[ajackson]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

You are comparing defenses' date=' which remain after each attack, with stun, which is lost every attack.[/quote']

No, I'm not, and I'm a bit unclear how you think that might be true. I'm assuming a specific mix of attacks and determining average survivability.

Which is better to make you make it through a significant battle, DEF or stun? Let's assume that in a significant battle, a hero is hit by 5 agent attacks vs. DEF and by 3 superpowered attacks versus DEF.

If he only has 20 stun, that's not going to be the case; one superpowered attack vs def will put him below zero and two will take him out.

So 1 DEF saves 5.5 stun in a typical significant battle.

It's actually likely to be more on the order of 2 stun, either because you get hit by attacks that don't go vs def, or because you go down too soon. I didn't say that stun was an amazing deal, but it's not atrocious.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

It's actually likely to be more on the order of 2 stun' date=' either because you get hit by attacks that don't go vs def, or because you go down too soon. I didn't say that stun was an amazing deal, but it's not atrocious.[/quote']

I'm not considering attacks not vs. DEF at all in my analysis. I'm merely saying: If you get hit by so-and-so many attacks versus DEF in a battle, how much Stun will each point of DEF save you? If you also get hit by exotic attacks, that's besides the point: You would need the same extra Stun whether you've based your character on high Stun or high DEF. We can assume that whether you base your hero on high DEF or high Stun, you will have enough Stun to withstand typical exotic attacks.

 

In my previous analysis, I suggested that we should compare Stun with rDEF, but that was wrong, since we are only looking at Stun damage. We can assume that both the Stun-based and the DEF-based hero have enough rDEF to avoid taking BODY from typical attacks, hence we only look at how good an idea it is to buy non-resistant PD and ED on top of that.

 

So let's make a new analysis: In a typical turn of intense combat, I assume a hero will get hit by an average of either 2½ superpowered attacks vs. DEF (in a 1-on-1 battle) or by 1½ superpowered attacks vs. DEF plus 2 agent attacks vs. DEF.

 

We assume that superpowered attacks do enough Stun so that each extra DEF saves 1 Stun per attack, and that every other agent attack does Stun through defenses, meaning that each extra DEF saves 0.5 Stun per attack. In either of the above cases, each point of DEF will save an average of 2.5 Stun per turn.

 

To match the effect of +1 DEF, a hero will thus need +2.5 Stun and +2.5 REC (only to recover Stun; -1) for a total of 5 points. He will also need +1 CON (not for CON Rolls; -1/4), 0.8 extra points. The value of +1 PD, +1 PD is thus about 5.8 points, but costs only 2 points. It looks like an extremely good deal to buy high PD and ED!

 

Let's say that we put PD and ED at 2 points each, double the current cost. How many attacks vs. DEF would you have to be hit by per turn in order for DEF at 4 points to be a decent choice compared just buying more Stun?

 

The Stun-based hero will still have to buy +1 limited CON at 0.8 points; this leaves 3.2 points. Split evenly between Stun and limited REC, this gives +1.6 for each. So DEF breaks even if the hero is hit in an average turn of intense combat by 1.6 superpowered attacks vs. DEF or 3.2 agent attacks vs. DEF. This doesn't look like very intense combat to me, so even at 2 points each, PD and ED seem like a good deal compared to buying more Stun and (limited) REC and CON.

 

Also consider that in light combat, with fewer attacks per turn than outlined above, neither type of hero will be in serious trouble. However, in very intense combat, with more attacks per turn, the DEF-based hero will be much better off than the Stun-based hero. This means that the value of DEF may be even greater than outlined above!

 

- Klaus

[prestidigitator]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

So Stun isn't a decent substitute for adequate defenses and/or DCV. I can live with that. Most heroes should have a bit of both, or their players are bonkers.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

So Stun isn't a decent substitute for adequate defenses and/or DCV. I can live with that. Most heroes should have a bit of both' date=' or their players are bonkers. [/quote']

I'm not saying that heroes shouldn't. I'm saying that once characters have a barely decent basis of defenses and Stun, increasing defenses is a far better deal than increasing Stun - and I think both should be decent options.

 

- Klaus