Thats one nimble little bull

[archermoo]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

"Design philosophy" is well, design philosophy. And changing the rules has little to do with the published material (except, again, as example). The impression I get is that Steve and the people he got feedback from saw the current system as flawed and saw this approach as a correction. Among other things, the 6E approach allows Adjustment Powers to target the CV stats directly.

 

I'm still not sure I agree with the results, but given that CU (published) characters are, in my opinion, inordinately fond of "cost inefficient" numbers off the breakpoint (like 16 STR or 17 PRE), these characters are not necessarily the best examples of design. They ARE however still models that a new player could use. The question here being that if we're gonna pay more to bring the CV stats up to where they would have been on figured DEX and EGO, why separate them?

 

JG

 

I'd say that rather than not being good examples of design that they just aren't good examples of gaming the system. In some ways in fact it could be said that that makes them great examples of design. Just not great examples of munchkinism. There is more to character design than simply making the character as point efficient as possible.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Just checked one of my characters since I knew he'd be an extreme case.

 

DEX 53, SPD 12 increase of 150 points to have the same OCV/DCV

 

It would really be campaign derived what we would wind up doing.

 

DEX is the biggest point change. Essentially, every 3 DEX purchased costs an extra 10 points now (in 5e, it costs 9 - 3 rebated for SPD, while in 6e it costs 6 for DEX + 5 for OCV + 5 for DCV). The cost of DEX is unchanged, but you have to buy the CV separately, at 10 points for every CV breakpoint.

 

Let me make sure that I understand correctly. You seem to be saying that if the design philosophy behind the CU were to be that supers are super in general' date=' even if they are exceptional in some specific areas, that they would certainly have explicitly stated that at some point.[/quote']

 

I would not use "design philosophy", first off. I would say that, if there is something in the nature of the CU setting that results in all Supers having at least Legendary CON, DEX and SPD, for example, such that a normal fellow who falls in a vat of liquid energy would gain not only energy powers, but also have his DEX, SPD, and overall health (CON) enhanced to Legendary levels, this would be a logical issue to address in any discussion of how Superpowers work in the CU.

 

And that the only reason that they wouldn't have stated a design philosophy is if they really wanted to make supers just plain normal people who are only super powered in a few areas but found that their system wasn't able to do that. Is that correct?

 

Far from it. I would suggest the reason there is no design philosophy stated is that there was no conscious design philosophy. Rather, there was no attempt to evaluate the historical design philosophies and assess whether they should change. Instead, the same baseline assumptions of DEX and SPD for Supers, which have existed since 1e, long before any consideration was ever given to setting a benchmark for the range of "normal", "legendary" or "superhuman" characteristics, which is an average DEX in the 23 range and a typical SPD of 5, maybe 6. Although there was, I believe, some deflation of DEX and SPD, based on Ghost Angel's comments from his spreadsheets.

 

Nor is there anything that would prevent the system being able to make supers just plain normal people who are only super powered in a few areas. It would certainly have been possible to have dropped the DEX of every Super character in the CU by, say, 9 or 12 points with no impact whatsoever on how they interact with one another. Instead of typical CV's in the 7 - 10 range, they could be in the 3 - 6 range. The chances of each character hitting another would be completely unchanged, and a lot of points would be freed up. SPD dropping by 1 or 2 across the board was equally possible.

 

But such a change would have required people rethink existing characters (including all of those previously published characters). Suddenly, that 20 DEX, 7 CV Brick is highly agile, instead of slow compared to his comrades, just like he would be highly agile compared to normals.

 

And I don't expect the typical CV's will drop off in 6e either. However DEX rolls are neither as universal nor as germane as CV's, and I think there would have been nothing wrong, or overly difficult for "reverse compatability" with changing DEX from a must-have to a value whose deviation from the human norm is determined based on character concept, such that a 23 goes from being omnipresent to uncommon.

 

I think it is much more likely that they designed the characters the way they did because that is the way they wanted to design them. And that they haven't published their character design philosophy because they don't generally publish design philosophy.

 

I think it is vastly more likely that they did not "design" a lot of the characters at all. They simply translated them from prior editions, then tweaked them for rules changes. Having done so for the classic characters (much of CKC, for example), any new characters had to follow the same basic design parameters or be incompatible with the characters that had gone before.

 

The setting philosophy was never discussed because there was none - the "all Supers have legendary characteristics in DEX and SPD" result was simply carried forward from prior editions, dating back to the pre-4e days when there was no benchmark for what was "legendary" and "superhuman".

 

And I'll also note that there are plenty of characters in the CU that have most if not all of their characteristics in the Legendary or lower range. They do explicitly state that any characteristic that is below the Superhuman range doesn't require a supernatural explanation' date=' although they do note that characteristics don't have to be in the Superhuman range to have a supernatural explanation. In the strict CU a normal person with nothing supernatural about them can have a 30 Dex. Though one more point requires some super explanation. Eh, gotta have the line somewhere I suppose. [/quote']

 

Do you? I don't see a necessity to have a line for every characteristic that states "not possible without superhuman abilities". To me, there is no reason that an OCV above a certain point, for example, cannot be achieved by a normal person (albeit one with high aptitude) and a lot of training. Similarly, if a 30 DEX is attainable, why not a 31? Especially if there are dozens or hundreds of 30 DEX characters, it would seem reasonable to expect one or two might be able to push the envelope higher by further training, and not by supernatural means.

[archermoo]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I would not use "design philosophy", first off. I would say that, if there is something in the nature of the CU setting that results in all Supers having at least Legendary CON, DEX and SPD, for example, such that a normal fellow who falls in a vat of liquid energy would gain not only energy powers, but also have his DEX, SPD, and overall health (CON) enhanced to Legendary levels, this would be a logical issue to address in any discussion of how Superpowers work in the CU.

 

Why? From my admittedly limited exposure to the source material it seems to be a standard way things are done. Certainly not the only way, but it seems pretty standard. I don't see any particular reason to expect a specific statement to the effect. It exists as a standard trope, and the use of that particular trope can be deduced by the design decisions made by the people designing characters for the official CU products.

 

Far from it. I would suggest the reason there is no design philosophy stated is that there was no conscious design philosophy. Rather, there was no attempt to evaluate the historical design philosophies and assess whether they should change. Instead, the same baseline assumptions of DEX and SPD for Supers, which have existed since 1e, long before any consideration was ever given to setting a benchmark for the range of "normal", "legendary" or "superhuman" characteristics, which is an average DEX in the 23 range and a typical SPD of 5, maybe 6. Although there was, I believe, some deflation of DEX and SPD, based on Ghost Angel's comments from his spreadsheets.

 

Nor is there anything that would prevent the system being able to make supers just plain normal people who are only super powered in a few areas. It would certainly have been possible to have dropped the DEX of every Super character in the CU by, say, 9 or 12 points with no impact whatsoever on how they interact with one another. Instead of typical CV's in the 7 - 10 range, they could be in the 3 - 6 range. The chances of each character hitting another would be completely unchanged, and a lot of points would be freed up. SPD dropping by 1 or 2 across the board was equally possible.

 

But such a change would have required people rethink existing characters (including all of those previously published characters). Suddenly, that 20 DEX, 7 CV Brick is highly agile, instead of slow compared to his comrades, just like he would be highly agile compared to normals.

 

And I don't expect the typical CV's will drop off in 6e either. However DEX rolls are neither as universal nor as germane as CV's, and I think there would have been nothing wrong, or overly difficult for "reverse compatability" with changing DEX from a must-have to a value whose deviation from the human norm is determined based on character concept, such that a 23 goes from being omnipresent to uncommon.

 

I think it is vastly more likely that they did not "design" a lot of the characters at all. They simply translated them from prior editions, then tweaked them for rules changes. Having done so for the classic characters (much of CKC, for example), any new characters had to follow the same basic design parameters or be incompatible with the characters that had gone before.

 

The setting philosophy was never discussed because there was none - the "all Supers have legendary characteristics in DEX and SPD" result was simply carried forward from prior editions, dating back to the pre-4e days when there was no benchmark for what was "legendary" and "superhuman".

 

I think you do Steve and the folx at Hero in general a great disservice in assuming that no thought went in to their remake of the CU. Just because they didn't make the decisions that you would have made doesn't mean that they didn't put any thought into it.

 

Do you? I don't see a necessity to have a line for every characteristic that states "not possible without superhuman abilities". To me' date=' there is no reason that an OCV above a certain point, for example, cannot be achieved by a normal person (albeit one with high aptitude) and a lot of training. Similarly, if a 30 DEX is attainable, why not a 31? Especially if there are dozens or hundreds of 30 DEX characters, it would seem reasonable to expect one or two might be able to push the envelope higher by further training, and not by supernatural means.[/quote']

 

If you don't see the necessity then I would suggest that you not set such a line in your campaigns. Obviously the folx at Hero decided that there should be such a line for the CU, since they went ahead and set one. But nothing about the system requires that you use the line they set for the CU in your campaigns, or even that you set a line at all. I just don't see why you seem to be arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to design the CU the way they want.

[Vondy]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

One reason they might not have wanted to change the underlying design assumptions of the CU is backwards compatability. Unless they plan on publishing updated versions of old products, which I doubt will happen en masse, then new products will need to use the same design assumptions or they won't jive with previously published materials in the same setting. Otherwise they risk alienating fans who now have to rework a ton of old characters to make them usable. I think it would be simpler to publish support material for the heroic settings (and I hope they do) with a new design philosophy than CU materials, of which there are a great many more. I could be totally wrong. It could be a whole lineup of updated "old products" is in the works, but it seems like it would be a drain on Steve's time and scheduling new products.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Why? From my admittedly limited exposure to the source material it seems to be a standard way things are done. Certainly not the only way' date=' but it seems pretty standard. I don't see any particular reason to expect a specific statement to the effect. It exists as a standard trope, and the use of that particular trope can be deduced by the design decisions made by the people designing characters for the official CU products.[/quote']

 

With a standard DCV of 6 or 7, derived from having a DEX of 18 or 20 (low level Brick), the typical soldier, with his OCV of 4 or 5, tends to miss the Brick more often than he will hit. The typical street thug even more so. That is not consistent with the source material, where such attacks typically hit but bounce off ineffectually. And where the soldiers/thugs typically get to shoot first.

 

This has been the case since the 1st edition, and would require a real shakeup to change. CV's are central to combat, and combat is central to most genres, and certainly to the Supers genre, so dropping everyone's CV would be a major change. Amazing gross and fine motor skills, hand-eye coordination, etc. is less universal in the source material, such that with the removal of the DEX/CV link, it would seem reasonable to revisit the DEX of existing characters to assess whether that DEX was assigned out of a vision that they had such skills, or because they had a good CV. In the latter case (which is many of the characters, in my view), it would make sense to keep their old CV's, but consider not keeping their old DEX.

 

I think you do Steve and the folx at Hero in general a great disservice in assuming that no thought went in to their remake of the CU. Just because they didn't make the decisions that you would have made doesn't mean that they didn't put any thought into it.

 

I think you paint my comments with far too broad a brush. I think they did not challenge the underlying character design assumptions in respect of DEX and SPD, and perhaps some other characteristics (everyone also needed a high CON, and that will continue). That is a far cry from saying they put no thought into the remake.

 

One reason they might not have wanted to change the underlying design assumptions of the CU is backwards compatability. Unless they plan on publishing updated versions of old products' date=' which I doubt will happen en masse, then new products will need to use the same design assumptions or they won't jive with previously published materials in the same setting. Otherwise they risk alienating fans who now have to rework a ton of old characters to make them usable. I think it would be simpler to publish support material for the heroic settings (and I hope they do) with a new design philosophy than CU materials, of which there are a great many more. I could be totally wrong. It could be a whole lineup of updated "old products" is in the works, but it seems like it would be a drain on Steve's time and scheduling new products.[/quote']

 

I agree that this is a key reason for not changing the underlying assumptions. On the other hand, what is the point of a new edition if change is minimized in the interests of backwards compatability? This is a tightrope every new edition gets to walk - change too much (and/or the wrong things), and lose the existing fans. Change too little, and there is no reason for anyone to buy it.

[archermoo]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

With a standard DCV of 6 or 7' date=' derived from having a DEX of 18 or 20 (low level Brick), the typical soldier, with his OCV of 4 or 5, tends to miss the Brick more often than he will hit. The typical street thug even more so. That is not consistent with the source material, where such attacks typically hit but bounce off ineffectually. And where the soldiers/thugs typically get to shoot first.[/quote']

 

Which is perfectly consistent with the Brick having a higher Dex, but delaying their action to perform a PRE attack that would get bonuses from them being able to shrug off the soldier's attacks.

 

This has been the case since the 1st edition' date=' and would require a real shakeup to change. CV's are central to combat, and combat is central to most genres, and certainly to the Supers genre, so dropping everyone's CV would be a major change. Amazing gross and fine motor skills, hand-eye coordination, etc. is less universal in the source material, such that with the removal of the DEX/CV link, it would seem reasonable to revisit the DEX of existing characters to assess whether that DEX was assigned out of a vision that they had such skills, or because they had a good CV. In the latter case (which is many of the characters, in my view), it would make sense to keep their old CV's, but consider not keeping their old DEX.[/quote']

 

*shrug* In my experience superheroes tend to be better than normal people in pretty much everything. From several of the discussions I've had with both Darren and Steve, that is my understanding as to what they were going for in the CU. Heck, in part that is the stated reason that PCs start with 10s in what used to be their Primaries even though the actual average normal person has 8s.

 

I think you paint my comments with far too broad a brush. I think they did not challenge the underlying character design assumptions in respect of DEX and SPD' date=' and perhaps some other characteristics (everyone also needed a high CON, and that will continue). That is a far cry from saying they put no thought into the remake.[/quote']

 

It still sounds to me like you are assuming that since they didn't implement the changes you would personally have made that means that they didn't think about it at all. Which in my opinion is doing them a great disservice.

 

I'll also note that there is no particular reason that just because the rules have changed that the design philosophy behind the CU should also change. The setting is not the rules, and the rules are not a setting. The NPC writeups can be changed to take advantage of the new rules without any need to change the underlying character design philosophy.

[Vondy]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

 

I agree that this is a key reason for not changing the underlying assumptions. On the other hand, what is the point of a new edition if change is minimized in the interests of backwards compatability? This is a tightrope every new edition gets to walk - change too much (and/or the wrong things), and lose the existing fans. Change too little, and there is no reason for anyone to buy it.

 

Hero is in the position of being a system with some settings, as opposed to a setting with a system. This means, insofar as the new iteration of the system is essentially compatible with the old one, that old setting related products don't need to be updated insofar as you don't change the basic benchmarks/assumptions that were used in their design. That's good because you can move forward without doing a bunch of retreads. Maybe one book with the "classic villains" to keep them in print, but at this point they can go ever onwards with brand new products without worrying about cheesing off people who have stacks of CU stuff. System and setting design philosophy aren't one and the same in Hero. Maybe the change would be apropos for DC/Hudson City (which is assumed to be in its own bubble, anyways), or for heroic genres, which would benefit the most from it while needing more support to start with (IMO). As it is, while I will design my characters differently, I don't see very much to criticise in leaving the CU's assumptions the same. That's a subjective, stylistic preference. Its neither objectively right or wrong. Its only right or wrong for me.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

It still sounds to me like you are assuming that since they didn't implement the changes you would personally have made that means that they didn't think about it at all. Which in my opinion is doing them a great disservice.

 

I think the ground rules of the setting, particularly as they create assumptions on how characters will be constructed, are appropriately set out explicitly. If those ground rules include "Pretty much all Supers have Dexterity, Speed and Con in the "Legendary" range", then say so. Valdorian Age makes a point of saying, I believe, that the characters here are not set above the masses from the outset, so they start with the same average 8's that everyone else does, and not a slightly advantaged 10 base characteristic.

[archermoo]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I think the ground rules of the setting' date=' particularly as they create assumptions on how characters will be constructed, are appropriately set out explicitly. If those ground rules include "Pretty much all Supers have Dexterity, Speed and Con in the "Legendary" range", then say so. Valdorian Age makes a point of saying, I believe, that the characters here are not set above the masses from the outset, so they start with the same average 8's that everyone else does, and not a slightly advantaged 10 base characteristic.[/quote']

 

Characters starting with 8s instead of 10s needs to be pointed out because that is a change in how the rules work for that setting. The design philosophy used for NPCs in a specific setting on the other hand isn't a matter of a change in the rules but simply a matter of how those rules are used.

[Tasha]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Probably depends on who your looking at. I kinda had the opposite impression, myself....

 

A friend showed me Rainbow Archer. She was, if I recall, a "trained human" with a Dex of 35 under 4E. At the time I saw her, CKC had just come out. I don't believe there were ANY official 5E characters with a DEX higher than 30 at that point. In fact, I believe Vector is supposed to be one of the fastest, most agile supers in the CU. We're talking Flash levels of speed, what with his Speed Zone powers. In 5E, he had a DEX of 38.

 

Of course, no idea what the future holds for 6E.

 

Ignore Enemies III those characters have MUCH higher Stats than just about any other previously published Characters.

 

I don't really remember much DEX/SPD inflation from 2nd edition (Boxed Set Champions) till now. What HAS inflated is Damage Classes(DC's).

 

I have it on good authority that the Original Games played by the founders was based around DC8 or so. By the time 3rd edition Champions arrived most folk were doing DC 10 games, and 4th edition straddled the line but many people started playing DC 12 games.

 

The campaign that started me playing Champions/Hero originally had no caps on either points, DC, or Characteristics. The thinking was that If you could buy the Disads to make it balance, you could have it on your character. Though that did cause characters with ridiculous amounts of Disads. Not to mention the silly, frivilous Disads people came up with.

 

Eventually we settled down and decided on DC 12/Dex 23/SPD 5 as being average for our games. You should realize that all of us were young and the last games we had played in were very power gamed D&D. The kind of campaign where players run around with Godling characters, carrying Artifact level magic items. So, when we started to play Champions that kind of rubbed off on our supers games.

 

BTW Wild Cards Universe was Highly influenced by the Authors' GURPS supers game. That's why almost all of the characters seem more down to earth and less super than a Marvel or DC character.

[Tasha]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

And then CON, EGO, BODY, PRE all cost half as much.

 

I did make a mistake in my post however - I had forgotten that I had factored in the 25 Points Bump to the Base Points of the 6E Character before converting.

 

The actual number was 49 points.

 

A couple of other factors did contribute: Skills were more well defined during the conversion, a series of TF and WF Skills nearly doubled in cost, CSLs went up in price too (Large Group vs Tight Group).

 

So apologies on that mistake. Of course, the character has over 100 XP backing them to deal with. I don't know what a conversion would have looked like when they were only a 150 Point starting Character vs a 175 Point 6E Starting Character.

 

I attached 3 Characters - the 5E Version as they played last. The 6E version if I did as straight a conversion as humanly possible. The actual version that will see play.

 

There's a 10 point difference between the two 6E versions.

 

One of my starting characters (A high Dex, high CV thief type), after the increase in base (+25pts) was only 6 points higher (9pts including purchasing Charm)

 

Natasha Greenbottle.html

 

Natasha Greenbottle6e.html

 

I promise they are regular HTML files with nothing else attached, just tell your browser to 'open" them

 

Tasha

 

PS yeah that's the character that my Handle is based on

[Susano]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

BTW Wild Cards Universe was Highly influenced by the Authors' GURPS supers game. That's why almost all of the characters seem more down to earth and less super than a Marvel or DC character.

 

Correction -- Superworld. GURPS Supers didn't exist at the time.

[Tasha]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Correction -- Superworld. GURPS Supers didn't exist at the time.

 

Oh ok, I could have sworn that the author's forward talked about a GURPS game. But looking it up. I stand corrected.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Far from it. I would suggest the reason there is no design philosophy stated is that there was no conscious design philosophy. Rather' date=' there was no attempt to evaluate the historical design philosophies and assess whether they should change. Instead, the same baseline assumptions of DEX and SPD for Supers, which have existed since 1e, long before any consideration was ever given to setting a benchmark for the range of "normal", "legendary" or "superhuman" characteristics, which is an average DEX in the 23 range and a typical SPD of 5, maybe 6. Although there was, I believe, some deflation of DEX and SPD, based on Ghost Angel's comments from his spreadsheets.[/quote']

 

In Enemies II (1e era) most of the published characters are in the 15-20 DEX range. I was pretty surprised, myself. Enemies III (2-3e era) has most of its characters in the 20-30 range, with a very few at 18, and one oddball with 8 DEX and 6 SPD.

 

ETA: Also, Enemies II was Bruce Harlick with Steve Peterson (OG all the way, yo). Enemies III was Dennis Mallonnee (who later went on to publish the Champions comics) and his group, and I can see how DEX creep would have come in from there.

[Brett]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Personally, I never liked how most Champions characters seemed to have an unusually high DEX. While other characteristics such as CON, STR, and INT tended to be above average, they usually weren't over 20 without fitting into the character concept.

 

I agree that superheroes should generally be much better (and have more DEX) than non heroes. Just look at how any character in a comic book that loses his or her powers seems to be able to still take on enemy guards and soldiers without too much problems.

 

However, I always felt that it would be better to have a moderate DEX and buy OCV levels to reflect this.

 

I was also surprised that the character examples in the 6E books didn't seem to have more variaiton in their characteristic levels. I skimmed through it looking for this last week and only recall one character who had different OCV and DCV values. I think she had an OCV of 5 and a DCV of 6. All other charcters had equal values.

 

I would think that most bricks would have a mid teen level DEX combined with an OCV that is higher than the DCV. Then they would primarily rely on their toughness to avoid damage or Block attacks.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Personally' date=' I never liked how most Champions characters seemed to have an unusually high DEX. While other characteristics such as CON, STR, and INT tended to be above average, they usually weren't over 20 without fitting into the character concept.[/quote']

 

This has been my experience as well, except that I find CON is rarely below 23, and either PRE or EGO, typically the former, is at least 20. Why? CON due to both its contribution to Figured's and the need to not commonly be Stunned; PRE/EGO due to PRE attacks.

 

This comes down to the question of whether "Supers are typically above the norm in most/all areas" must equate to "Supers are typically so far above the norm that even abilities having nothing to do with their character concept or superpowers are at least in the Legendary range".

 

I agree that superheroes should generally be much better (and have more DEX) than non heroes. Just look at how any character in a comic book that loses his or her powers seems to be able to still take on enemy guards and soldiers without too much problems.

 

Here we get the question of "how much better", and a circular issue with respect to agents and guards. If the typical Super did not have a 23 DEX, but rather (say) a 14, those guards and agents could get by with an 11, maybe 14 for exceptional agents/guards and 17/18 reserved for elite "borderline Supers". But an 11-14 DEX/4-5 OCV agent will so rarely hit those 8+ DCV Supers that they become laughable, so their DEX gets bumped up and they get OCV bonuses.

 

However' date=' I always felt that it would be better to have a moderate DEX and buy OCV levels to reflect this.[/quote']

 

I always found this was typically an option which would cost far more, and as such was discounted. With the change to 6e, divorcing CV from both DEX and each other, I had expected to see more Supers with a much lower DEX (a 13 is well above the human average, after all) and differing CV's. Many Bricks could have a much reduced DCV, since they rely on shrugging off damage, not dodging it, for example.

 

Instead, the sample characters are translations of their 5e structure, with no impact from the divorcing of Primary and Figured characteristics. The main points of that change, as I understood it, was to:

 

- improve play balance, because Primarys gave too much (potentially resolved with repricing, changing the formuli and retaining Figured's)

 

- enhance the ability to realize concept by better allowing for characters whose abilities were not linked by the Figured's chart (only realizable by removing Figured's, or having characters with multiple sellbacks)

 

As you note, the character examples seem not to have followed through on the latter benefit. The loss of Figured's has been a dividing line for some Hero gamers based on posts elsewhere ("It's just not Hero without Figured's" type comments). I think the maintenance of the historical ratios in most/all the sample characters fails to show why the removal of Figured's (rather than just rebalancing them) contributes to making 6e superior to 5e. This was an opportunity to sell the fence sitters (like myself) and the naysayers on the benefits of de-linking Figured characteristics. I would have liked to see that opportunity taken.

 

Is this a dealbreaker? Certainly not. Is it a huge issue? Likely not, as well. But, at least to me, it is a potentially significant opportunity lost.

[tesuji]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

This has been my experience as well, except that I find CON is rarely below 23, and either PRE or EGO, typically the former, is at least 20. Why? CON due to both its contribution to Figured's and the need to not commonly be Stunned; PRE/EGO due to PRE attacks.

 

To me the inflated con was as much a product of over-simplified balancing tools.

 

the most common expression of "limits" were a def limit. rarely were there stat limits for things like con or stun

 

So for example in a 12dc game a character with 30 def was considered HIGH DEf and had to justify the concept and the defense.

 

However while a 30 def, con 15, stun 20 character might have to justify why he has " a def above 20" a 20 def, con 25, stun 50 guy would likely be just fine and not need any special "why i am so exceptional". A typical 12d6 attack however will KO the former with two hits and need only 3 above average to stun with one shot while the second guy can take three hits before ko and be just as vulnerable to stunning.

 

If the balance metric wasn't often expressed as "defense cap" but as some measure of toughness "X number of 12dc hits KOs you" and "this value minimum to stun you" or any sort of calculation which keeps a look at overall impacts, then i think we would not see as much of a con drive up effect.

 

Net summary - even in 6e and the loss of figs, i think the usual expressions of def and balance metrics will keep con inflated into the mid to upper 20s.

 

Even in 5e though i did enjoy building the atypical brick with very low def scores, often just the base values, and extremely high con & stun - like 40+ con and 70+ stun.

 

.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

To me the inflated con was as much a product of over-simplified balancing tools.

 

However while a 30 def, con 15, stun 20 character might have to justify why he has " a def above 20" a 20 def, con 25, stun 50 guy would likely be just fine and not need any special "why i am so exceptional". A typical 12d6 attack however will KO the former with two hits and need only 3 above average to stun with one shot while the second guy can take three hits before ko and be just as vulnerable to stunning.

 

If the balance metric wasn't often expressed as "defense cap" but as some measure of toughness "X number of 12dc hits KOs you" and "this value minimum to stun you" or any sort of calculation which keeps a look at overall impacts, then i think we would not see as much of a con drive up effect.

 

Net summary - even in 6e and the loss of figs, i think the usual expressions of def and balance metrics will keep con inflated into the mid to upper 20s.

 

I agree that players will look to "sum of DEF and CON" as a comparison to "expected damage", and I don't see that as avoidable. The other issue that arises is how long we want combat to last. That determines how much STUN needs to get through from a typical hit, which determines how high we might permit defenses to rise. Most characters will want CON to exceed the average STUN they will take from a hit.

 

One possibility in 6e is to cap Stun, so if you have 35 defenses, you might only have 20 Stun, so you'll be KO'd in 3 hits on average. If you have 75 STUN, it takes a lot more hits to take you out. I probably want to see a typical attack doing 20 - 25 STUN so you can be taken out in a couple of turns, and that means defenses capped in the 17 - 22 range in a 12 DC game. And a need for CON above 20-25, of course!

 

I could at least live with the idea that unhealthy people who undergo a typical Supers origin or the rigors of a Super's routine, would likely not survive, so Supers would tend to higher CON. The removal of Figured makes a lower CON much more palatable if you can deal with the Stunning issue.

[archermoo]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

This has been my experience as well, except that I find CON is rarely below 23, and either PRE or EGO, typically the former, is at least 20. Why? CON due to both its contribution to Figured's and the need to not commonly be Stunned; PRE/EGO due to PRE attacks.

 

This comes down to the question of whether "Supers are typically above the norm in most/all areas" must equate to "Supers are typically so far above the norm that even abilities having nothing to do with their character concept or superpowers are at least in the Legendary range".

 

Who ever said that it "must equate"? There is no requirement that the design philosophy behind the CU be used by anyone in their own campaigns. Heck, there isn't even a requirement that the Characteristic Comparison chart be used.

 

Sorry, it just seems to me that you are arguing that the folks at Hero shouldn't be allowed to design the CU the way they want. Their choices in how they wanted to design their setting are just setting choices. They have no impact on the rules for the system. Just because their setting has most heroes with at least a 23 Dex doesn't mean that in any super hero game using the Hero system you have to have at least a 23 Dex to be a hero.

 

Their choices for the CU aren't an announcement that "supers can only be done this way". It is just a matter of "This is how we like doing supers, so that is how we did it in our world. Feel free to do it however you like for yours.".

[tesuji]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

One possibility in 6e is to cap Stun, so if you have 35 defenses, you might only have 20 Stun, so you'll be KO'd in 3 hits on average. If you have 75 STUN, it takes a lot more hits to take you out. I probably want to see a typical attack doing 20 - 25 STUN so you can be taken out in a couple of turns, and that means defenses capped in the 17 - 22 range in a 12 DC game. And a need for CON above 20-25, of course!

 

I tend to asses character viability and limits not by def and dc but by longevity - how many hits of type X does it take to KO you.

I also gauge the con stun number.

 

I have in the past told people to lower any or all to meet campaign specs, and this tends to avoid the DEF focused myopia i often see.

 

then again i also repeat the process for rka and for eb and for mental blasts to get everyone onto a comparison, so really, as long as the pcs all wind up relatively similar in capability to last, I then adapt the villains to matchup well.

 

this all assume relatively similar dcv. if the dcv is higher, i have to boil it down to "attacks" including misses evening out.

 

gack!!! i have been doing this too long.

 

One campaign i handed out six supervillains and said "you have to be able to last more than 12 and less than 36 segments against them.

[tesuji]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Who ever said that it "must equate"? There is no requirement that the design philosophy behind the CU be used by anyone in their own campaigns. Heck, there isn't even a requirement that the Characteristic Comparison chart be used.

 

Sorry, it just seems to me that you are arguing that the folks at Hero shouldn't be allowed to design the CU the way they want. Their choices in how they wanted to design their setting are just setting choices. They have no impact on the rules for the system. Just because their setting has most heroes with at least a 23 Dex doesn't mean that in any super hero game using the Hero system you have to have at least a 23 Dex to be a hero.

 

Their choices for the CU aren't an announcement that "supers can only be done this way". It is just a matter of "This is how we like doing supers, so that is how we did it in our world. Feel free to do it however you like for yours.".

 

I am sorry but the head in the sand denial just doesn't cut it.

 

YES absolutely there is NO RULE MANDATING anyone use the Cu stats.

 

However, most every game i have seen is commonly in that ballpark.

 

Do you think all those games with 23 dex and speed around 5 all just happened blindly by accident?

 

NO.

 

The sameple characters provide supposedly useful examples. And guess what - surprise surprise PEOPLE USE THEM.

 

If for no other reason than if my campaign is close to theirs in scale, then i can use all those publish materials and characters with less conversion work.

 

the samples and examples provided are used by lots of folks and have influence beyond their "you dont have to even see them" optionality.

 

In that regard, the more askew to "good design using the system strengths" these examples are the more confusing rather than helpful they become.

 

if the remainder of the 6e characters also are just straight ports of 5e, ignoring all the benefits actually using 6e to generate characters allows, the less useful they will be to those actually playing 6e.

 

I didn't buy a new ruleset to have it produce the same characters with different totals and to ignore the differences..

[James Gillen]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

the samples and examples provided are used by lots of folks and have influence beyond their "you dont have to even see them" optionality.

 

In that regard, the more askew to "good design using the system strengths" these examples are the more confusing rather than helpful they become.

 

if the remainder of the 6e characters also are just straight ports of 5e, ignoring all the benefits actually using 6e to generate characters allows, the less useful they will be to those actually playing 6e.

 

I didn't buy a new ruleset to have it produce the same characters with different totals and to ignore the differences..

 

Thanks.

That's largely the point I was trying to make.

 

JG

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Do you think all those games with 23 dex and speed around 5 all just happened blindly by accident?

 

NO

 

except that the CU average isn't 23 DEX.

 

So yes, it did just happen.

[archermoo]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I am sorry but the head in the sand denial just doesn't cut it.

 

I agree. But I figure if I keep bringing up the actual rules involved people will pull their heads out of the sand and realize that the rules and the sample setting are separate things.

 

YES absolutely there is NO RULE MANDATING anyone use the Cu stats.

 

However, most every game i have seen is commonly in that ballpark.

 

Do you think all those games with 23 dex and speed around 5 all just happened blindly by accident?

 

NO.

 

The sameple characters provide supposedly useful examples. And guess what - surprise surprise PEOPLE USE THEM.

 

If for no other reason than if my campaign is close to theirs in scale, then i can use all those publish materials and characters with less conversion work.

 

the samples and examples provided are used by lots of folks and have influence beyond their "you dont have to even see them" optionality.

 

In that regard, the more askew to "good design using the system strengths" these examples are the more confusing rather than helpful they become.

 

if the remainder of the 6e characters also are just straight ports of 5e, ignoring all the benefits actually using 6e to generate characters allows, the less useful they will be to those actually playing 6e.

 

I didn't buy a new ruleset to have it produce the same characters with different totals and to ignore the differences..

 

Experiences differ. I've played in superhero games where the average PC Dex was in the 18-20 range. I've played in superhero games where the average PC Dex was in the 30-35 range. I've played in campaigns where PC SPDs ranged from 3-6, and I've played in ones where the slowest PC had a 7 and the fastest had an 18. But then again I've never played in a game that used the CU either, so we never felt particularly tied to the power level or design philosophy that they decided to use for it.

 

That being said, my expectation is that once they start publishing actual CU material instead of just sample characters in the core rules that they will be redesigning characters to take more advantage of the decoupling that has happened in 6e. We'll probably see a lot more characters with OCVs and DCVs that are different. Stuff like that.

 

However I also expect that they will continue to design the supers with the same basic philosophy. Which is to say "supers are super even outside of their areas of concentration". The Hero system is perfectly capable of being used to model a more "Wild Cards" type game where the supers are normals except for their specific area of specialty. The CU just isn't that kind of setting.

 

It is much like the problem some people have with the power of military hardware vs. supers. A vocal subset of players seem to find it to be a flaw in the system that the CU setting has military hardware being a potential viable threat to supers, stating that it is contrary to the source material (which in my experience really means the comics that they like). My understanding is that it was set at that power level on purpose because that is the kind of setting that the folks at Hero are interested in portraying. Not because they think it is the only one that is valid, not because they think everyone should be forced to play that style of game. But because they are writing it and they like those kinds of settings.

[Tasha]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

This has been my experience as well, except that I find CON is rarely below 23, and either PRE or EGO, typically the former, is at least 20. Why? CON due to both its contribution to Figured's and the need to not commonly be Stunned; PRE/EGO due to PRE attacks.

 

This comes down to the question of whether "Supers are typically above the norm in most/all areas" must equate to "Supers are typically so far above the norm that even abilities having nothing to do with their character concept or superpowers are at least in the Legendary range".

 

The reason that most folk buy a presence up to 20 has much to do with offensive Presence attacks. Unless the hero is a total noob with no personality. I believe that most supers are quite impressive, and most of them are also quite attractive. Much more impressive an attractive than normals.

 

Folk take a 20-23 Con so that they aren't easially stunned. In a game where attacks to 12d6 and defenses are 25 average. That is the minimum Con that is required to make sure that you aren't stunned on an average damage roll 12d6 does 42 stun on average - 25 defenses =17 stun with most folk rounding up to 20 to get a couple more stun pips.

 

I see your posts about lowering the stat levels of supers and I always think that you are taking the "Super" out of superheroes. Perhaps you like supers that aren't much better than regular thugs, but not everyone likes that style of play. Hell, that thought is what started "Dark Champions", which is a darker more gritty version of the supers genre. With characters that are more down to earth.

 

Is it realistic that once someone dons the Spandex they become 4x better in every stat? Probably not, but it does fit the genre. Yes there are exceptions to this genre trope. Those are few and far between or are meant to be a deconstruction of the genre.

 

Heroes are meant to be bigger than life, our superheroes even more so.

 

When the founders created the game they tried to come up with a system that reflected the comics of the era. Comics have changed, but I don't think that they have changed enough to invalidate the basic assumptions of Champions. That Superheroes are quite a bit better than normal people. They not only bounce bullets off of their defenses, but they also react faster and attack more often than normal folk. They are stronger, tougher, prettier and better at everything. Champions models that quite well.

 

The only thing that Champions doesn't model well in the genre is the apparent lack of resistant defenses in comics. That is more due to writers not having bad guys with high powered rifles and/or just having gunshot miss the heroes. Gamers tend to be more pragmatic (and they didn't have to worry about the Comics Code), so Champions games see more guns being fired at heroes, and other KA's being used including blades, claws etc. So to have an effective(ie non-dead) character in combat, Resistant defenses are more prevalent.

 

I like Champions the way it is. I am hoping that this decoupling of the secondary stats cause more diversity in stat levels. CV's are going to remain high. Dex might fall a bit as it isn't needed to drive those cheap CVs. Stun totals might go up, but with CV being expensive their won't be the points for it. I think that we might see some minor changes in the way characters are built, but nothing truly dramatic.

 

Tasha