Thats one nimble little bull

[Brett]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

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

 

I first bought the Champions Boxed Set a long, long, time ago in a galaxy far, far away. I think that was 2nd edition. Once I understood the rules better, one of the things that I thought was great about the Hero System was that it was the first game that the system explained how Spider-man was vulnerable to bullets and blades, but could take punches from supervillians that could smash through brick walls.

 

Of course, the problem is that, as others have stated, comics, novels, and movies are not games and vice versa. I'm surprised that there are not more powers or superskills to reflect how characters seem to avoid getting mortally wounded. However, if such powers are not there, the would be easy to create with the Hero System. I think Pulp Hero might have something similar to that.

 

I've always found it amusing in comics, movies, etc... how normal defense characters somehow avoid terrible damage, but on the other hand, characters with Regeneration frequently get shot up and stabbed. Bionic characters somehow always get their artifical left arm blown up, but their organic right arm never takes serious damage. Such is the power of the writer.

[Hugh Neilson]

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' date=' there isn't even a requirement that the Characteristic Comparison chart be used.[/quote']

 

Anyone who says "Supers aren`t really Super" if their average DEX is, say, 13 or so rather than 20 - 23 is, in my viewe, saying that "Supers are better" must equate to "Supers are legendary".

 

I look at the CU descriptions, and it says "Characteristics above 20 are Legendary". Then I look at the published characters, and I perceive that the norm is a DEX of 23. From GA's more objective analysis, I am corrected - the mode and median, apparently, is 20. OK, then, I will revise that the number of characters with a DEX below the Legendary threshhold (ie 19-) is about equal to those that are above the Legendary threshhold.

 

To me, that's not exactly "Legendary". It cheapens the description. To me, "Legendary" suggests something well beyond the setting norm, and something that, when I look at a character sheet, I would think "This is a real area of unusual ability for this character". A 23 or 26 DEX does not make me think "wow - very agile", but rather "OK, pretty typical Supers DEX". The character probably needs a 29 or 30 before I start thinking "This is something the character is noteworthy for", which seems to me to begin to reach into a real description of "Legendary".

 

Hercules is remembered for his Strength. Other heroes of greco-roman mythology are not. Achilles is remembered for his resistance to harm. Other heroes of the mythos are not. In other words, Hercules' Strength, and Achilles' invulnerability, are Legendary. That doesn't mean other Greco-Roman heroes were weak as kittens or fragile as tissue paper. Far from it - they possessed such abilities to an extent far beyond the typical soldier, for example. But they were not notable, within their heroic peers, for these abilities - their strength/invulnerability was not Legendary.

 

When many characters in the setting have the same, or greater, ability in a given area, that characteristic is not, by any definition I would consider reasonable, "Legendary". Many of us would refer to the character's schtick - those things where he is beyond his peers. Those are the attributes I would say meet a reasonable definition of "Legendary". A "Legendary" attribute is one so noteworthy that the character's name suggests the attribute.

 

Sorry' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

tesuji covers this issue admirably. Too bad I have repp'd him too recently.

 

If, in the CU, the intent is that many/most Heroes have certain characteristics in the Legendary range, I think this should be explicitly stated, and there should probably be a reason for it. I also think that, when characteristics are set at that level, they are no longer Legendary. They are average within their peers.

 

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' date=' so that is how we did it in our world. Feel free to do it however you like for yours.".[/quote']

 

The problem is that they are not an announcement at all. An announcement is explicit. The CU explicitly states that DEXfrom 21-30 is Legendary. It then provides character designs indicating DEX levels from 20 - 25, at least, are not all that uncommon, which to me is far from legendary. It is not even noteworthy, by which I mean the character's agility, despite supposedly being "Legendary", does not even merit mention in the discussion of the character's powers and abilities. It's just one more number on the sheet, and not even one meriting a mention in the narrative description of the character.

 

Finally, how did this become about the CU, rather than about the sample 6e characters? If the intent is to say "In the CU, Supers are generally superior in almost every way, typically having Legendary-range statistics in the area of DEX, CON, what have you", then it would be easy to say that. It does not. I'm not sure whether 6e describes the sample characters as being "An example of a character from Genre X", or as "An example of a charater fitting the parameters of Setting Y". The latter would support your assertions far better than the former, but would also suggest some description of the setting's parameters might be in order.

 

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.

 

It is suggested by some responses that the 5e CU has an average of 20 DEX, not 23, so these people aren't using the published examples. I have some comments in that regard. First, many games date back to pre-5e. From the 5e analysis, it appears typical DEX/SPD may have fallen off a bit from 4e. I don't think you would find as many "below 23 DEX" examples in 5e, but that may again just be my perceptions. It may also be that a preponderance of "low end Supers", or "low DEX archetypes" skews the sample.

 

More importantly, I believe many players look at the sample characters and want to be at or above the norm. For DEX, prior to 6e, to be above a norm of even 20 requires a 23, as DEX is viewed largely as the baseline for CV.

 

"A preponderance of 23 DEX PC's" does, however, strongly suggest that neither the players nor their GM's view 23 as being notable, much less "Legendary".

 

To me, one strength 3e D&D had over its predecessors was that it made above average characteristics mean something. Prior to 3e, although a stat of 12 - 15 might have been described as exceptional, in actual game terms it meant nothing, so players didn't see them as anything special. 3e added bonuses for any stat of 12+ - suddenly, they had some meaning, and a warrior no longer needed an 18 Strength to be considered "strong". When the typical character in the game has a DEX of 20 - 23, having a DEX of 26 or so doesn't feel all that remarkable, or all that powerful, so the player who describes his character as "amazingly agile" reaches higher - and, if they are thinking the character is "legendary" in agility, they likely select something higher than 30 - and are then, perhaps, surprised to be told "that's superpowered".

 

If anyone does not see this as a problem, I refer them to the numerous debates on the "appropriate" Dexterity for characters such as Daredevil, Batman, Green Arrow and Captain America. In the comics, these characters seem markedly more agile than their Superhuman colleagues, but many argue that their very lack of superhuman agility indicates they should have DEX at a much lower level.

 

I would also point out that the CU is neither the DC Universe (DCU) nor the Marvel Universe (MU). However, gamers equate the CU standards set by Hero as the standards appropriately applied to the MU and the DCU. Why? Because it is clear that these are the source materials the CU seeks to emulate, notwithstanding the fact that players and GM's could select alternate benchmarks. This is how most players and GM's - the ones who see Hero as a game, and are not inveterate tinkerers with years (decades) of Hero experience who see it as a framework for design of their own game - interpret the sample characters. Those are the players and GM's Hero needs to attract if it is to thrive, prosper and grow.

 

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..

 

Agreed. The case against Figured by advocates of de-linking focused on two issues. One was that Primary's were too cheap for their benefits, and Figured's were a big part of that. The second was that the link presupposes certain relationships between characteristics, constraining the ability to build to concept. That being the case, I would expect 6e characters to demonstrate this new, greater ability to build to concept. But a Bull-Man with a "Legendary" DEX doesn't suggest, at least to me, that the enhanced ability to build to concept has been realized in this, the single example 6e provides of a character desiged for the four colour Superheroes genre.

 

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' date=' and most of them are also quite attractive. Much more impressive an attractive than normals.[/quote']

 

For me, I have viewed a 20 PRE as being a purchase I make, not because I view the character as being exceptionally impressive, and not because I expect to have any success making PRE attacks, but because I don't want to be too far down the chart to PRE attacks made by other characters to whom "impressiveness" is a more important, and thus higher, ability.

 

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.

 

CON is made essential by the mechanics, without question. Stunning is a devestating effect. I see a lot more 23's than 20's, because 6 points spent on CON to get 1 point worth of ED, 2 of REC, 2 of STUN and 3 of END seems too good a deal to pass up.

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

There's a "chicken and egg" aspect to this. The Thug's stats are also inflated by the Super Inflation. Should a typical Street Thug really be markedly more agile than the average person? A 10 DEX seems like lots for some random street tough. But with Supers starting in the low 20's, the Thug gets bumped up to an 11, or a 13.

 

It is only certain characteristics that see this inflation. I see lots of Supers with STR, BOD, INT, EGO and COM in the 15- range, and no one complains that they seem "less than Super". PRE of 20 or so is also pretty common.

 

When Superpowers are stripped, the comic norm is that non-powered Supers (Batman, for example) are far more potent than their Super colleagues, even if we take away their gadgets and gizmos. They have, in my view, higher characteristics. However, even those characters who typically relied on their super-abilities, especially the more experienced ones, tend to have a few advantages. They have above average characteristics - that is, their stats of 13, or 15, are sufficient to make them better that thugs and mobsters. Not really the case in Hero.

 

The other advantage many of them seem to have is "years of experience", which seems to equate to general combat skill levels. Some broadening of abilities that goes beyond "levels with fire powers" to "levels in combat". Often, this is explained by their association with, and training by, the more human characters ("I'm no Captain America/Batman - but I have been trained by him, so I'm more than a match for you"). Again, this is a broadening, rather than a strengthening, of the underlying character. I had a powered armor character who had Martial Arts "NOT usable in Armored Suit" to simulate that specific trope.

 

Is it realistic that once someone dons the Spandex they become 4x better in every stat? Probably not' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Here we simply disagree on the interpretation of the source material. I don't think it takes a 23 DEX to be superior to a typical thug, because I don't think a typical Thug is even close to 15's across the board in physical stats.

 

I also note that, with the de-linking of DEX, it has very little impact on combat, governing only combat order. Where a 20 or 23 DEX was the only point-efficient means of obtaining a Super level CV in prior editions, that is no longer the case. One of the primary benefits I perceive in this change is that skilled combatants need no longer be skilled in every DEX skill, and the wily rogue, pickpocket or ballet dancer need no longer be a skilled combatant. But, from what little has been seen to date, these theoretical benefits are not being realized in practice. If the typical Super will still have a 20 - 23 DEX, and a 7 - 8 OCV and DCV, why did we bother de-linking DEX and CV?

 

When the founders created the game they tried to come up with a system that reflected the comics of the era. Comics have changed' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

That has also been described as the reason Supers have base stats of 10 and normals have base stats of 8. Supers don't need base stats of 20 - 23 to be "better than the average guy" if we actually keep the average guys average.

 

Of course, the problem is that, as others have stated, comics, novels, and movies are not games and vice versa. I'm surprised that there are not more powers or superskills to reflect how characters seem to avoid getting mortally wounded. However, if such powers are not there, the would be easy to create with the Hero System. I think Pulp Hero might have something similar to that.

 

I've always found it amusing in comics, movies, etc... how normal defense characters somehow avoid terrible damage, but on the other hand, characters with Regeneration frequently get shot up and stabbed. Bionic characters somehow always get their artifical left arm blown up, but their organic right arm never takes serious damage. Such is the power of the writer.

 

Such is also the power of the GM. In a good Hero game, points are used to guage what challenges should be faced and how they should be overcome. The indestructible character should get hit with attacks no one could survive, or his points spent on such defenses were wasted. Regenerators should take BOD so they can show off how fast it comes back, and agile characters should avoid those huge attacks.

 

I had a GM once point out "When you spend 20 points on +10 BOD, you are telling me you want and expect to take BOD damage in the game. Otherwise, you're wasting your points."

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Here's some of the thinking I've been putting into this and our nimble little bull (man, Taurus is just getting no respect here)....

 

 

Superheroes are - to me, a ex-comic book reader who doesn't much like the genre to begin with - supposed to be head and shoulders above normal people.

 

Not just better than, but Better. So I pull out 6E1, flip to pp438-440 and check out various normals. Competent Normals are shown to have a DEX of 14. So, I definitely expect my Supers to be above that guy. At least a full magnitude above, say at least 18, so that Supers have +1 or more on their DEX Based Rolls.

 

Now, really, there's nothing about a bull that makes actually think "slow and clumsy" ... I've seen a rodeo, and a bull fight (well, I watched a bull fight on TV). They're big animals, and while I'm not going to put them in acrobatic territory, I certainly don't think they're clumsy. Besides, I'm really looking at a Bull-Themed Superhero. So the DEX was put at 23. Could it have been lower? sure. Maybe a 20. Heck, maybe even 18. But to really make a Superhero POP in context with the displayed Normals, 23 is a good number. That, and he's a runner and this being a comic book world pretty much makes him an Athlete and his DEX should be really good.... don't care that runners and acrobats are different or whatever, it's a comic book and I'm blurring the lines.

 

(this is also where I notice that a Competent Normal is given a 13- DEX Roll, and email some errata to Steve)

 

Taurus also looks kinda like he might be built for the CU (VIPER in the hunted), but eh. Maybe not.

 

After all that... I realize that I'm actually kind of let down by two things - one is kinda just a quibble and the other possibly not much more.

 

1) Why are the sample characters not in the Character Creation book? ... space I'm guesssing, and the Genre By Genre section definitely belongs in the Combat And Adventuring book.

 

2) There's no New sample characters. Just converted ones. Woulda been cool to expand the Genre By Genre with some more sample characters - especially since Champions gets 4, Fantasy and Star get 2, Pulp, Cyber and Ninja get 1, and a bunch get none. More samples in more genres would have been extra cool.

[Vondy]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

except that the CU average isn't 23 DEX.

 

So yes, it did just happen.

 

It does, however, have a printed legacy: Classic Enemies, 4th Ed.

 

Its even mentioned in the notes in the beginning (IIRC).

[Trebuchet]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

2) There's no New sample characters. Just converted ones. Woulda been cool to expand the Genre By Genre with some more sample characters - especially since Champions gets 4' date=' Fantasy and Star get 2, Pulp, Cyber and Ninja get 1, and a bunch get none. More samples in more genres would have been extra cool.[/quote']I can't help thinking that characters built from scratch in 6E are going to be different from characters converted from 5th Edition to 6th Edition; and that creating entirely new sample characters would have done far more to illustrate the strengths of the new rules than trying to shoehorn "old" characters into 6E. A generous mix would have been the best way - hopefully the 6E genre books will have some of both.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Not just better than' date=' but Better. So I pull out 6E1, flip to pp438-440 and check out various normals. Competent Normals are shown to have a DEX of 14. So, I definitely expect my Supers to be above that guy. At least a full magnitude above, say at least 18, so that Supers have +1 or more on their DEX Based Rolls.[/quote']

 

But here again we get to the spread. If 14 were a typical Super, it would not be a Competent Normal. A Normal would be 8 (that's their average) and a Competent Normal would be a 10 or 11, in the range of a Super's base DEX. An elite soldier or agent of a villainous agency would have a 14, and many Supers would share this Elite level DEX.

 

Some of the problem comes from trying to have a descriptive range that fits all genres. The strength of Hercules is Legendary. If I follow the charts, he should have 21 - 30 STR, so call it 30. That's extreme in a Fantasy genre. But move him to Supers and he's pretty wimpy compared to the high STR people there. But characters like Herc who appear in Supers games are competetive with the strongest Bricks - that's at least a 60, probably more like a 75. Now toss Herc back into Fantasy with a 75 STR, and he's vastly overpowered.

 

One size does not fit all genres.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Nope you're right. One size does not fit all. But the book examples are - to me internally consistent. Hero is super flexible, there's no way im he** that the few examples in the book to show that. it'd take a whole book.

 

Which is why I compared the genre by genre example to another core rule book example. so where's the problem again?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

The rules have changed, the way you build characters has changed: it seems odd that the characters we are encouraged to build have not changed.

 

Of course you can argue that there is no intention to encourage a particular character build for superheroes with the sample characters, but that doesn't wash: why put them there at all unless they are examples of what you should do (they are all built to the same sort of standard so they are not examples of what you can do: there could have been MUCH more variety there).

 

I'm not saying you should build characters in the superheroic genre to any particular standard, but I am saying I'm disappointed with the example characters.

[Tasha]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Taurus given his Dex, Speed etc. It seems to me that he isn't a hard brick. He's more a balanced Melee Damage/Brick. He has lowish defenses for being a brick (IMHO a true brick would be at 25/25 PD/ED). He makes up for the lower defenses with the high Dex and High Speed.

 

Eagle Eye seems to be a bit Dex lite and even a bit DCV lite for a Martial artist

 

He's got waay too much END.

 

The one thing that I have to say about the pregens is that they are really generic and aren't that different from one another. It would have been real nice to see classic representations of Brick (High Str. High Def, Lowish DCV, Highish OCV, Low Speed), Martial Artist (Low strength, High Dex. High CV, High Speed, Low defenses) Energy Projector (Low strength, Middle Dex, Middle Speed, High End, High Dmg, Middle to weak defenses).

 

Instead everyone has CV 8, Dex around 23, and defenses around 20. One does Str Damage, One does Martial Damage, the last does Blast Damage. One boring generic mess.

 

Tasha

[Brett]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Another factor that may or may not have been discussed yet is the evolutionary effect the change in rules will have on future characters.

 

The 6E books have characters that were mostly converted very closely from their 5E counterparts. However, since DEX no longer has any effect on CV or SPD, maybe Taurus will discover in the future that some of those 26 points would have been better spent on something else. If this is the case, we may see DEX values dropping in characters.

 

As far as supers being legendary in all things, I don't think that tends to apply to other characteristics the way it has to DEX. I agree that bulls are not slow and clumsy. However, it should be noted that Taurus's INT is 14 and his EGO is 12. They are above average, but not Legendary. Personally, I would think that a bull-like character would be more strong willed than agile.

 

Eagle-Eye's Ego is 12. Hardpoint's is 15. Maelstrom has a STR of 15, an INT of 10, and an EGO of 11 (of course, he is a villian). None of the the sample super characters have and INT over 20 or an EGO over 15. They all have a DEX of 23 or 24.

 

It should be noted that they all have high CONs too. So maybe since combat is such a large part of games and comics, there is a bias towards the physical over the mental.

[Tasha]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

How super are superheroes.

 

Well when we see Thor and Hercules translated in comic books they can lift amazing amounts of Weight. They can Lift Main Battle Tanks, and jumbo Jets. This is far more than they can lift from reading their exploits in mythology.

 

Why did I choose gods to talk about? That's because Superheroes are our Hero Gods. In ancient times, people loved to hear about the exploits of Thor, Hercules, Pericles, and many other heroic gods. They were a level above the normal person, but not to high as to not have earthly worries. People went to plays dramatizing their stories, and loved listening to story tellers relating the old stories. Now we have Comic Books, Movies, Television and RPGs that fill the same purpose. To experience the lives of these larger than life individuals.

 

What does this have to do with Powerlevels in Champions?

 

Well with Thor and Hercules having transcended mere Legendary Strength, to have Superheroic strength. They also have Superheroic defenses, and reflexes. They are supposed to be better than anything that a Human can achieve (Batman not withstanding). So it is expected that they have stats in the high Legendary to Superheroic. That's the genre. If you change the the genre it becomes a different Genre.

 

What I am seeing some people propose here seems less like regular Superheroes, and more like "Street Level" heroes. There's nothing wrong with Street Level games, but I don't want the whole CU being brought down to that level and called Regular Superheroes. Street level games feel quite different. More like Fantasy Hero with Superpowers instead of Spells and swords.

 

Tasha

[James Gillen]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Well with Thor and Hercules having transcended mere Legendary Strength, to have Superheroic strength. They also have Superheroic defenses, and reflexes. They are supposed to be better than anything that a Human can achieve (Batman not withstanding). So it is expected that they have stats in the high Legendary to Superheroic. That's the genre. If you change the the genre it becomes a different Genre.

 

What I am seeing some people propose here seems less like regular Superheroes, and more like "Street Level" heroes. There's nothing wrong with Street Level games, but I don't want the whole CU being brought down to that level and called Regular Superheroes. Street level games feel quite different. More like Fantasy Hero with Superpowers instead of Spells and swords.

 

Tasha

 

That's an excellent point, but the reason I'm concerned is because not only do we have the de-coupling of "Figured" stats (intended to prevent both stat inflation and the perception that some 5E stats were either too cheap or too expensive for what they provided) but the decision that the CV and MCV stats ALSO counted as Figured stats that needed to be separated and bought separately AND that they further needed to be separated into Offensive and Defensive (OCV, DCV, OMCV, DMCV).

 

That is easily the main reason for why the costs of a character have gone up, given that all those former primary stats had their costs reduced (so that even if you have to buy SPD up from 2, for instance, DEX got cut by 1/3 so that this exactly makes up the difference, not considering decimals). The sample Superhero character sheet is a great example of how this works.

In the 5ER, Firebrand's Characteristics are 122 points. In the 6E1 sheet, his Characteristics are 180. And this is with his Powers and Skills at about the same costs.

 

It's even more ridiculous considering that OMCV, unlike OCV, is pretty useless if you're not a mentalist, meaning someone who has a Mental Power or someone with an ACV Attack. And since you have to buy BOTH OCV and OMCV up from 3, what's the point of adjusting your Attack to OMCV? The whole reason there was a debate on dropping COM- which, incidentally, is NOT an invitation to start THAT debate again- is that there wasn't much point in having a stat that at its base level had no application and would be better handled as a Talent or Skill. The same logic now applies to OMCV.

 

If the designer (Steve, in this case) wants to change costs from one edition to another, it is to make a certain trait more or less accessible than it was. Points are money. If DEX and SPD have been decoupled but are still reasonable costs for the character conception, and the main difference in point values from 5ER to 6E is in the need to buy up the CV stats, then there's point inflation. You're paying more to get the same values or less. Even with 25 to 50 points to make up the difference. That's why the quota went up.

 

In order for the current point values to not be redundant, then you have to reduce DEX to a "realistic" level and use some of those points to buy the CV stats to something competitive for the campaign power level. Keeping in mind that the Competent Normal with 14 DEX who did have a 5 CV in old rules has to buy both OCV and DCV up to 5 on points, and at 5 points per level that's 20 points. He could buy his SPD up to 4 with that.

 

So, if our standards for where a superhero ought to be are NOT artificially inflated by all our years of traditional HERO gaming, then it's gonna be really expensive to make these characters properly Superheroic, or even Legendary.

 

JG

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Taurus given his Dex' date=' Speed etc. It seems to me that he isn't a hard brick. He's more a balanced Melee Damage/Brick. He has lowish defenses for being a brick (IMHO a true brick would be at 25/25 PD/ED). [b']He makes up for the lower defenses with the high Dex[/b] and High Speed.

 

I'm going to quibble the bolded point. Please tell me how Taurus' high DEX makes up for lower defenses. This may have been the case in 5e, where that high DEX not only translated into a higher DCV, but was the only way to increase DCV that was always available. In 6e, DEX enhances your DEX skills and initiative only. It does not reduce the likelihood of an opponent hitting Taurus, or reduce the damage he takes from such a hit.

 

In 5e, a character who relied on avoiding, rather than absorbing, damage would have low defenses and high DEX. In 6e, such a character does not need high DEX. He needs high DCV.

 

Eagle Eye seems to be a bit Dex lite and even a bit DCV lite for a Martial artist

 

Here again, he needs DCV. DEX has become more of a niche player, a necessity to very few characters. In the process of shifting from 5e to 6e, we need to adapt to that new paradigm. Retaining the 5e "everyone has a high DEX" approach for the 6e sample characters fails to illustrate the fundamental change in DEX - it was a prime attribute for anyone capable in combat. In 6e, it is ancillary in combat.

 

Instead everyone has CV 8' date=' Dex around 23, and defenses around 20. One does Str Damage, One does Martial Damage, the last does Blast Damage. One boring generic mess.[/quote']

 

This is a trend I've seen in, and even before, 5e. With 350 (now 400) points, when the maximum damage is 12d6, the maximum CV is 10, Speed caps at 6 or 7, and the maximum defenses are 25, it is trivially easy to have a character hit the max in every area with points to spare. The maximum becomes the minimum and everyone becomes generic.

 

As far as supers being legendary in all things, I don't think that tends to apply to other characteristics the way it has to DEX. I agree that bulls are not slow and clumsy. However, it should be noted that Taurus's INT is 14 and his EGO is 12. They are above average, but not Legendary. Personally, I would think that a bull-like character would be more strong willed than agile.

 

It should be noted that they all have high CONs too. So maybe since combat is such a large part of games and comics, there is a bias towards the physical over the mental.

 

A good point. I would suggest there are very few characteristics I would tend to expect all Supers to be above and beyond the norm (as opposed to above average to "competent normal" 15 range). The ones that come to mind?

 

- CON - an unhealthy person would likely not survive most origins. Supers get a lot of physical exercise, so being in excellent physical shape seems like a given. The STUN mechanic makes this a necessity, so all Supers are high in this area.

 

- EGO - what kind of person, granted powers and abilities far beyond those of normal humans, chooses to use those powers to assist and defend his fellow man, shunning reward and even concealing his true identity? That 11-14 range afforded the sample characters seems to me a bit light on the willpower to resist the temptation to use one's powers for personal gain - not necessarily as a criminal, but in the many legal ways such powers could be used to generate wealth and celebrity.

 

- Speed - Heroes get panel time, and regular exposure to split-second decisionmaking would tend to enhance this ability. It might be reasonable to have a 2-3 SPD rookie hero, but I know where I would expect his xp to be directed.

 

- STUN/END/REC - this comes back to CON above. A person engaged in the lifestyle of a superhero would be physically fit, and these stats back that up. It's no coincidence they were linked to CON in the past. Again, a weakness in one of these areas for a rookie might not be uncommon, but the level of exercise they'll get will soon build that cardio, so I know where their xp is likely going. High CON has typically resulted in these stats bulking up.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

It's even more ridiculous considering that OMCV' date=' unlike OCV, is pretty useless if you're not a mentalist, meaning someone who has a Mental Power or someone with an ACV Attack.[/quote']Can anyone provide a reason for a non-mentalist character to have OMCV? Does it do anything if you don't have mentalist Powers?

 

Someone in our gaming group suggested you might use it to break out of a mental Entangle, but that doesn't make any sense - you don't need to make an attack roll to break out of a physical Entangle, so why would you on a mental one?

[Susano]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Just an observation based on all of this arguing over Taurus's DEX and SPD and whatnot. A lot of the strongest "bricks" in Marvel and DC are also their fastest. Superman, Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, and so all, are all every fast in terms of both DEX and SPD. I think the big, slow brick idea mainly comes from guys like The Thing and The Hulk, and doesn't really apply to a lot of superstrong supers characters.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Just an observation based on all of this arguing over Taurus's DEX and SPD and whatnot. A lot of the strongest "bricks" in Marvel and DC are also their fastest. Superman' date=' Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, and so all, are all every fast in terms of both DEX and SPD. I think the big, slow brick idea mainly comes from guys like The Thing and The Hulk, and doesn't really apply to a lot of superstrong supers characters.[/quote']

 

I agree in part (SpiderMan isn't one of Marvel's strongest Bricks), but Superman and Wonder Woman are noteworthy by their speed. To my knowledge, Taurus' agility is not mentioned as a trait that sets him apart from lesser beings. It's just there, like every other 23 DEX Super, ho hum. So I don't see them going for a "Fast and Strong" vibe here. If he had an 18 or 20, he'd be "slow" for a Super despite being near/at the highest non-legendary people ever get.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I'm going to quibble the bolded point. Please tell me how Taurus' high DEX makes up for lower defenses. This may have been the case in 5e, where that high DEX not only translated into a higher DCV, but was the only way to increase DCV that was always available. In 6e, DEX enhances your DEX skills and initiative only. It does not reduce the likelihood of an opponent hitting Taurus, or reduce the damage he takes from such a hit.

 

In 5e, a character who relied on avoiding, rather than absorbing, damage would have low defenses and high DEX. In 6e, such a character does not need high DEX. He needs high DCV.

 

Here again, he needs DCV. DEX has become more of a niche player, a necessity to very few characters. In the process of shifting from 5e to 6e, we need to adapt to that new paradigm. Retaining the 5e "everyone has a high DEX" approach for the 6e sample characters fails to illustrate the fundamental change in DEX - it was a prime attribute for anyone capable in combat. In 6e, it is ancillary in combat.

All these example - absolutely true observations, BTW - illustrate why 6E should have built entirely new characters from scratch rather than reworking pre-existing characters. The new rules create a whole new paradigm for character design; characters imported from 5E get the worst of both worlds.

 

This is a trend I've seen in, and even before, 5e. With 350 (now 400) points, when the maximum damage is 12d6, the maximum CV is 10, Speed caps at 6 or 7, and the maximum defenses are 25, it is trivially easy to have a character hit the max in every area with points to spare. The maximum becomes the minimum and everyone becomes generic.

This has nothing to do with deficiencies in 6E; it merely illustrates the inherent problem with caps which were just as troublesome in 5E or before. Point caps are not even official rules; they are and always have been house rules. There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize 6E; let's not beat on it for something that was just as problematical in all prior editions.

 

A good point. I would suggest there are very few characteristics I would tend to expect all Supers to be above and beyond the norm (as opposed to above average to "competent normal" 15 range). The ones that come to mind?

 

- CON - an unhealthy person would likely not survive most origins. Supers get a lot of physical exercise, so being in excellent physical shape seems like a given. The STUN mechanic makes this a necessity, so all Supers are high in this area.

 

- EGO - what kind of person, granted powers and abilities far beyond those of normal humans, chooses to use those powers to assist and defend his fellow man, shunning reward and even concealing his true identity? That 11-14 range afforded the sample characters seems to me a bit light on the willpower to resist the temptation to use one's powers for personal gain - not necessarily as a criminal, but in the many legal ways such powers could be used to generate wealth and celebrity.

 

- Speed - Heroes get panel time, and regular exposure to split-second decisionmaking would tend to enhance this ability. It might be reasonable to have a 2-3 SPD rookie hero, but I know where I would expect his xp to be directed.

 

- STUN/END/REC - this comes back to CON above. A person engaged in the lifestyle of a superhero would be physically fit, and these stats back that up. It's no coincidence they were linked to CON in the past. Again, a weakness in one of these areas for a rookie might not be uncommon, but the level of exercise they'll get will soon build that cardio, so I know where their xp is likely going. High CON has typically resulted in these stats bulking up.

All of this sounds like metagaming rationalization to me. If a superhuman character supposedly can't justify a DEX in the 20's, then why should a superhumanly high CON (20+), OVC/DCV, and/or STUN be any more acceptable simply because survival in the campaign requires it? This smacks more of an anti-DEX bias than anything else.

[Susano]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I agree in part (SpiderMan isn't one of Marvel's strongest Bricks)' date=' but Superman and Wonder Woman are noteworthy by their speed. To my knowledge, Taurus' agility is not mentioned as a trait that sets him apart from lesser beings. It's just there, like every other 23 DEX Super, ho hum. So I don't see them going for a "Fast and Strong" vibe here. If he had an 18 or 20, he'd be "slow" for a Super despite being near/at the highest non-legendary people ever get.[/quote']

 

Supposedly, Spidey's super strong, but he doesn't often use it. Still, he has around a 40 STR (he's lifted subway cars over his head) and his DEX is what? 35?

[Vondy]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I'm going out on a limb:

 

I'm seriously thinking about ditching CVs altogether and going with:

 

11 + attackers skill levels - defenders skill levels = to hit on 3d6.

 

Or, if you don't want to advertise NPC defensive levels:

 

11 + attacker's levels = to hit on 3d6 with MoS needing to be greater than the defenders levels.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

How super are superheroes.

 

Well when we see Thor and Hercules translated in comic books they can lift amazing amounts of Weight. They can Lift Main Battle Tanks, and jumbo Jets. This is far more than they can lift from reading their exploits in mythology.

 

Not completely true: IIRC Thor and Loki went to have some sort of 'Games' with the Giants and the giants tricked them in a number of ways: one of them was betting Thor could not lift a cat that belonged to one of the Giants. He tried again and again, getting three legs off the ground but could not manage the fourth. Good job too, because the cat was in fact the world (or possibly the World Tree) disguised by Giant magic, and had he managed to lift it he would have destroyed pretty much everything. Although he lost the challenge, the giants were so awed by the fact that he nearly succeeded that it kept them quiet for a long time.

 

Also Thor and Hercules in Marvel comics have massive continuity issues regarding how much they can actually lift that we would never get away with I a properly regulated game. They have their 'Class 100' cop-out: can lift more than 100 tons...

 

Why did I choose gods to talk about? That's because Superheroes are our Hero Gods. In ancient times, people loved to hear about the exploits of Thor, Hercules, Pericles, and many other heroic gods. They were a level above the normal person, but not to high as to not have earthly worries. People went to plays dramatizing their stories, and loved listening to story tellers relating the old stories. Now we have Comic Books, Movies, Television and RPGs that fill the same purpose. To experience the lives of these larger than life individuals.

 

What does this have to do with Powerlevels in Champions?

 

Well with Thor and Hercules having transcended mere Legendary Strength, to have Superheroic strength. They also have Superheroic defenses, and reflexes. They are supposed to be better than anything that a Human can achieve (Batman not withstanding). So it is expected that they have stats in the high Legendary to Superheroic. That's the genre. If you change the the genre it becomes a different Genre.

 

What I am seeing some people propose here seems less like regular Superheroes, and more like "Street Level" heroes. There's nothing wrong with Street Level games, but I don't want the whole CU being brought down to that level and called Regular Superheroes. Street level games feel quite different. More like Fantasy Hero with Superpowers instead of Spells and swords.

 

Tasha

 

Again, I'm not so sure: what makes Thor and Hercules and Hulk astonishing is their strength: you don't see them pulling many backflips. They might have amazing fighting skills - they probably have, but then they fight a lot. They probably have very quick reactions, but a lot of that is in the anticipation - which comes back to combat skill.

 

That is seperate from 'agility'. Anyone with a good strength to weight ratio (and there guys have a great stw ratio) and decent coordination is going to be agile enough for most tasks. Of course you can say that the reason they do not pull a lot of backflips is that they never bought the Acrobatics skill. Fair enough: they could be agile without demonstrating it in that way: the point I make though is that there is no real evidence of great agility here. It is not something that really matters to these characters.

 

Taking that a step further and moving away from an area where strength would play a part, Dexterity ALSO governs how steady and delicate your hand movements are. Are these guys going to be any better at assembling and painting miniatures than your average 12 year old kid? Probably not, even if they did spend enough time to get the Hobby skill.

 

The other angle, that others have mentioned, is that if superheroes are great at everything, why is is really just STR, DEX and CON that regularly exceed human norms? What is wrong with superhuman intelligence? Sure PRE is often above 20 and EGO and INT sometimes are, but we ignore them more because we are concentrating on physical combat than because we are building to a 'godlike' template. You could easily argue that all superhero characteristics should start at 30 rather than 10 (and double all the ones that don't start at 10) and I could not argue against the logic that is makes the genre consistent, but I do not think that actually reflects many genres, if any. It might make an absolutely spanking game, but it is not more 'right' than having basically human characters with (some) superhuman abilities.

 

I don't think you can really justify any position by argument: we are interpreting a genre that defies both definition and even consistency.

[Susano]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Not completely true: IIRC Thor and Loki went to have some sort of 'Games' with the Giants and the giants tricked them in a number of ways: one of them was betting Thor could not lift a cat that belonged to one of the Giants. He tried again and again, getting three legs off the ground but could not manage the fourth. Good job too, because the cat was in fact the world (or possibly the World Tree) disguised by Giant magic, and had he managed to lift it he would have destroyed pretty much everything. Although he lost the challenge, the giants were so awed by the fact that he nearly succeeded that it kept them quiet for a long time.

 

Actually, I'm fairly sure it was the Migard Serpent. But still, it amounted to the same thing.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

All these example - absolutely true observations' date=' BTW - illustrate why 6E should have built entirely new characters from scratch rather than reworking pre-existing characters. The new rules create a whole new paradigm for character design; characters imported from 5E get the worst of both worlds.[/quote']

 

I think a mix of all-new characters and prior examples would have been useful, but the prior examples in my ideal would have set out how things changed in 6e, not just taken the abilities the characters had in 5e, recosted them to the 6e pricing and added/subtracted ancillary abilities to balance. It would have been the same character description and concept from 5e reimagined using the 6e framework.

 

This has nothing to do with deficiencies in 6E; it merely illustrates the inherent problem with caps which were just as troublesome in 5E or before. Point caps are not even official rules; they are and always have been house rules. There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize 6E; let's not beat on it for something that was just as problematical in all prior editions.

 

Unquestionably it's a problem carried forward from prior editions, but the question of caps was raised, and there's the answer. And, again, the 6e characters suggest "everyone at the same caps with various SFX", rather than variation in character abilities.

 

All of this sounds like metagaming rationalization to me. If a superhuman character supposedly can't justify a DEX in the 20's' date=' then why should a superhumanly high CON (20+), OVC/DCV, and/or STUN be any more acceptable simply because survival in the campaign requires it? This smacks more of an anti-DEX bias than anything else.[/quote']

 

The suggestion put forward is that Superhuman characters are Super in all respects - across the characteristics. The rebuttal was that this seems apparent in some, but far from all, characteristics in-game. My list simply covers those abilities I would expect to be most commonly Superhuman based partially on genre and partially on in-game rationalization. A setting rationalization that part of being superhuman is having a "base template" of legendary to superhuman characteristics, or even only certain characteristics, could work very well. However, it should not be implicit in character designs (especially generic "here's how the rules work" sample characters) but explicit in the setting material, in my view.

 

As to "he's superhuman, why can't he have superhuman DEX", I come back to concept. Does Superhuman justify a mishmash of random superhuman abilities, or a carefully considered and realized concept? I can no more agree that "every/most Superhero" should have a legendary or greater DEX" than I can suggest this with any other characteristic. Is Z'lf less Superhuman because she lacks Legendary STR and CON? Are the vast majority of published characters "not all that Super" because their INT, EGO and BOD fail to reach Legendary levels? I don't think so.

 

I do think high STR is essential to realize some concepts, and at best a distraction from realizing others. And you can substitute pretty much any characteristic for "STR". Tiger Man is a superhuman with tiger powers. I envision a character with pretty high physical characteristics, likely a Killing Attack and some Enhanced Senses, and good combat skills. I don't envision him firing laser beams from his eyes, breathing underwater or duplicating into 4 Tiger Men. These are very Superhuman, so the simple statement "he's superhuman" justifies them as well as "he's superhuman" justifies Taurus' DEX pushing up into the Legendary - but it hardly strikes me as a great conceptual realization of a Tiger Man.

 

Supposedly' date=' Spidey's super strong, but he doesn't often use it. Still, he has around a 40 STR (he's lifted subway cars over his head) and his DEX is what? 35?[/quote']

 

He is Super Strong. He is neither in the category of "one of Marvel's strongest Bricks", nor in the same class as Superman or Wonder Woman in regards to strength, both of which were suggested by the post I was responding to. And, in any cross-company crossover I've ever seen, he is markedly more agile than Superman or Wonder Woman.

 

Not completely true: IIRC Thor and Loki went to have some sort of 'Games' with the Giants and the giants tricked them in a number of ways: one of them was betting Thor could not lift a cat that belonged to one of the Giants. He tried again and again' date=' getting three legs off the ground but could not manage the fourth. Good job too, because the cat was in fact the world (or possibly the World Tree) disguised by Giant magic, and had he managed to lift it he would have destroyed pretty much everything. Although he lost the challenge, the giants were so awed by the fact that he nearly succeeded that it kept them quiet for a long time.[/quote']

 

Similarly, Hercules held up the world and the sky for Atlas for a period of time. Sounds better than a 25 - 30 STR to me.

 

Again' date=' I'm not so sure: what makes Thor and Hercules and Hulk astonishing is their strength: you don't see them pulling many backflips. They might have amazing fighting skills - they probably have, but then they fight a lot. They probably have very quick reactions, but a lot of that is in the anticipation - which comes back to combat skill.[/quote']

 

In 5e and prior editions, that came back to "good DEX", since DEX was primarily a determinant of CV in terms of value, regardless of what the flavour text claimed it represented. In 6e, however, it is much closer to its description, as it does not determine CV. I agree Thor and Herc would likely have DEX in the human normal range - what need do they have for anything higher, based on what they have been shown capable of in the comics? Perhaps someone would care to cite some incredible feats of agility they have performed, which I am overlooking.

 

 

 

At the end of the day, what really makes my character feel Super, when I play, is the things he can do that are not only beyond the capability of Bob the garbage man, Al the shoe salesman, and Ted the middle manager, not just beyond the capability of those elite police officers or VIPER agents, but also out of reach of his teammates and opponents - not the things he can do that are just like the things all the other player characters can do. Treb, would Zl'f feel as Super if she had the same DEX and SPD, or maybe a point or two more, than everyone else she interacts with in a Superbeing capacity? Does she feel any less Super for having physical strength, defenses and damage capacity far below that of her teammates, and probably has some physical stats that an elite athlete might exceed? I suspect the answer to both questions is "no". I also suspect that, if the typical Hero did not have a 23 - 26 DEX, Z'lf might well feel just as Super with a DEX well below 43.

 

Being "one of the pack" at a specific DEX doesn't make my character "Super", whether that cluster is at 11 DEX, 23 DEX or 33 DEX. What makes him Super is having a DEX that pushes him far above the pack, to stand on his own and perform feats of agility that leave his teammate's mouths hanging open in astonishment.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I think a mix of all-new characters and prior examples would have been useful' date=' but the prior examples in my ideal would have set out how things [b']changed[/b] in 6e, not just taken the abilities the characters had in 5e, recosted them to the 6e pricing and added/subtracted ancillary abilities to balance. It would have been the same character description and concept from 5e reimagined using the 6e framework.

Agreed. My point was that, by using 100% ported-from-5th characters instead of including some entirely new characters, DoJ missed a golden opportunity to illustrate what 6E could do better rather than how it could emulate 5E. If all you're going to do with 6E is emulate 5E, why not simply stick with 5E?

 

Unquestionably it's a problem carried forward from prior editions, but the question of caps was raised, and there's the answer. And, again, the 6e characters suggest "everyone at the same caps with various SFX", rather than variation in character abilities.

Which simply illustrates the point Tasha made upthread: that the most likely result of using caps is that everyone ends up with characters that differ significantly only in their sfx. Similar DEX, similar OCV/DCV, similar defenses, similar Damage Classes. Yawn. That's not the way to create a dynamic and interesting team.

 

The suggestion put forward is that Superhuman characters are Super in all respects - across the characteristics. The rebuttal was that this seems apparent in some, but far from all, characteristics in-game. My list simply covers those abilities I would expect to be most commonly Superhuman based partially on genre and partially on in-game rationalization. A setting rationalization that part of being superhuman is having a "base template" of legendary to superhuman characteristics, or even only certain characteristics, could work very well. However, it should not be implicit in character designs (especially generic "here's how the rules work" sample characters) but explicit in the setting material, in my view.

 

As to "he's superhuman, why can't he have superhuman DEX", I come back to concept. Does Superhuman justify a mishmash of random superhuman abilities, or a carefully considered and realized concept? I can no more agree that "every/most Superhero" should have a legendary or greater DEX" than I can suggest this with any other characteristic. Is Z'lf less Superhuman because she lacks Legendary STR and CON? Are the vast majority of published characters "not all that Super" because their INT, EGO and BOD fail to reach Legendary levels? I don't think so.

I think the idea of what's superheroic and what's merely heroic has very little meaning in a superhero game. Frankly, I don't see a DEX of 23 to be something that automatically puts a character into the realm of the superhuman. It's useful (although a lot less useful in 6E), but I don't feel that a Characteristic has to be from the Superheroic column to make a character superhuman. To use your example of Zl'f, of all her Characteristics only her DEX and SPD are officially "Superhuman" according to RAW; all the others fall into the Skilled, Competent, or Legendary columns. Would I claim she's not superhuman? Of course not, but it's not because she passed some invisible point along the DEX continuum that suddenly elevated her to superhuman status: It's a combination of factors. To my mind her STR 15 (given her size and physique) is also superhuman. Were she to lose her DEX and SPD, I'd still consider her superhuman because she could still do things that "normal" humans cannot do. She might be somewhat less superhuman, but she'd still be superhuman - whatever that means.

[Tasha]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Taurus given his Dex, Speed etc. It seems to me that he isn't a hard brick. He's more a balanced Melee Damage/Brick. He has lowish defenses for being a brick (IMHO a true brick would be at 25/25 PD/ED). He makes up for the lower defenses with the high Dex and High Speed.

 

Eagle Eye seems to be a bit Dex lite and even a bit DCV lite for a Martial artist

 

He's got waay too much END.

 

The one thing that I have to say about the pregens is that they are really generic and aren't that different from one another. It would have been real nice to see classic representations of Brick (High Str. High Def, Lowish DCV, Highish OCV, Low Speed), Martial Artist (Low strength, High Dex. High CV, High Speed, Low defenses) Energy Projector (Low strength, Middle Dex, Middle Speed, High End, High Dmg, Middle to weak defenses).

 

Instead everyone has CV 8, Dex around 23, and defenses around 20. One does Str Damage, One does Martial Damage, the last does Blast Damage. One boring generic mess.

 

Tasha

 

Grumble:

 

Ok I THINK that people understood the comments I was making here. While it did have some real 5E think going in. I'll re-do my comments for those of your who have conviently forgot 5e...

 

Taurus is apparently a Brick that is more concerned with doing damage than absorbing it. His Dex and DCV are high'ish to make up for his average Defenses. In MMO terms he is a bit of a avoidance brick. In that he is expected to get missed more often than a more standard Mitigation brick (ie high PD/ED) who is expected to bounce more damage. His Dex is high to help him go first in combat. Now I keep seeing people say that going first isn't that important. Well I submit to you that going first is VERY powerful in any combat. It allows Mr Taurus to delay till the slower folk to and this allows him to react to the combat better than a person who went later in the segment.

 

Honestly I prefer "Classic Bricks" to have Dex 18-20 and have DCVs of 6-7. They should have defenses near the campaign max. (for me since I like a DC 12 game those defenses should be around 30PD/ED)

 

IMHO a properly written up Martial Artist SHOULD have High Dex, High Speed, High DCV. A martial artist survives the battlefield by being able to not be hit. Again that going first, this allows the MA to react to the battlefield dynamically. Eagle Eye misses out on all but the high speed. His Martial arts do pump his DCV up, but not to where a "Classic MA should be".

 

The energy projector seemed like the only one who's CVs/Dex/SPD are where they should have been.

 

What I am seeing is that perhaps instead of doing the problematic thing of using the average of all published characters to figure out the average Dex/Speed of the CU. Steve should have DECIDED what that average SHOULD be, then worked from there to come up with the range of stats that PCs in CU should have. As it is we probably have a bias in the numbers driving the average down to 20, instead of the higher dex of 23 that had been stated in early editions as being CU average.

 

Pg S22 of 4e Hard Cover Champions: based on survey data. Those campaigns ran with DC11, Average PD&ED 25, Average Dex 23, and Average SPD 5.5

 

Pretty much the averages of every campaign that I have ever played in/Run.

 

I like these levels, and I prefer to play within these levels. Heck it seems like most of the CU works in a game with those averages. I hope that Steve makes those or similar stat levels official when he publishes the 6e Version of the CU.

 

Now I think that SOME characters will take advantage of the separate DEX, OCV, DCV values and you might see high dex characters with low CVs that make up for it was skill levels. I think that most characters will stay the same as their 5e counterparts. Again there are real good reasons not to change.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Taurus is apparently a Brick that is more concerned with doing damage than absorbing it. His Dex and DCV are high'ish to make up for his average Defenses. In MMO terms he is a bit of a avoidance brick. In that he is expected to get missed more often than a more standard Mitigation brick (ie high PD/ED) who is expected to bounce more damage.

 

With a DCV of 8, I'm not seeing it. I don't see a lot of characters who won't hit DCV 8 at least 5 times in 8 (ie on an 11-), and an OCV greater than 8 is pretty common.

 

His Dex is high to help him go first in combat. Now I keep seeing people say that going first isn't that important. Well I submit to you that going first is VERY powerful in any combat. It allows Mr Taurus to delay till the slower folk to and this allows him to react to the combat better than a person who went later in the segment.

 

What will he do to react? Note that it's not a defensive action to avoid damage - he can abort to those, so it doesn't matter whether he moves first or not if he wants to Block or Dodge.

 

Honestly I prefer "Classic Bricks" to have Dex 18-20 and have DCVs of 6-7. They should have defenses near the campaign max. (for me since I like a DC 12 game those defenses should be around 30PD/ED)

 

I don't see a lot of DEX 18/DCV 6 characters, but 20/7 is pretty common.

 

However, I think your defense expectations are pre-5e. The expected defenses dropped from 30 being high to 25 being high between 5e and 4e, although a lot of us old guard players carried right along with higher defenses, and Bricks who take a lot of typical hits to take down (how many 12 STUN hits can a typical Brick absorb?).

 

Now I think that SOME characters will take advantage of the separate DEX' date=' OCV, DCV values and you might see high dex characters with low CVs that make up for it was skill levels. I think that most characters will stay the same as their 5e counterparts. Again there are real good reasons not to change.[/quote']

 

If your classic Brick has a 6 or 7 DCV, is there any reason not to drop that to 3 or 4? He's getting hit most of the time anyway, so it seems reasonable to believe that extra 15 points is better used elsewhere. Similarly, if he's got an 18 - 20 DEX, he's generally moving near the end of combat anyway. Would be be a lot worse off with an 8 - 10 DEX? Sure, the VIPER agents now move before him. Are their attacks going to be meaningful?