Thats one nimble little bull

[Alibear]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I 'think' I'll see a lot less Stat inflation in SIX but as I haven't seen SIX yet I can't say for sure.

[Rapier]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

To a certain extent you are correct.

 

As much as my neanderthal-hind brain wants to club something and shout 'CHANGE BAD!' I actually like breaking the link with figured characteristics. You can now have a big huge brick that is easy to hit (low DCV for his size), yet agile without going through the hoops of Disads and having to 'hold onto' a -2 DCV that doesn't appear anywhere on his sheet.

 

I agree that we are still running against History. We are still used to seeing DEXes in the +20 range as market qualifiers. We're used to it. Over time that will probably change and we'll see more normalised DEXes and the extra points shoved into Levels or Skills or something.

 

However, the amount of combat and rolling around that your average hero would do will, I believe, make him a little more agile than one might expect of your average normal. Chuck the Plumber should, in my estimation, have a lower DEX than your average hero. When was the last time Chuck dodges a slash from a laser cutlass wielded by a robotic, space, ninja-monkey?

[Alibear]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Sure, I fancy many heroes are gonna be more nimble than your average Infantryman but not that much so.

 

Do combat soldiers get taught how to present a smaller target to the enemy? If yes then I'd up there DCV not dex which makes much more sense to me.

 

Fabian Light-Loafers and his Twinkle-Toe ballet dancing chums can have 14 dex but still only 3 dcv while The Head! Her Majesty's Rifles can have 1o or 11 dex but ocv/dcv of 4 or 5.

 

Link to The Head in action. http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=15oxobd&s=5

 

 

edit: link is not totally work safe. The next picture is of a naked woman.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I've found the split stats to work out fairly well already. My Bryan Mills character sheet has a 16 DEX (he's fairly quick) a 6 OCV (he hits a lot) but only a 5 DCV. It nice to be able to simply define innate combat talent with OCV and DCV and not worry about cranking up the DEX to superhuman levels. Granted' date=' if you need the high DEX rolls you're going to needto do both, but that's the trade off.[/quote']

 

If high DEX rolls are part of the character's concept, that seems to cry out for a high DEX, so that seems very reasonable to me. What I like is that being skilled in combat does not require high DEX for efficiency any more.

 

I haven't seen the "superhuman" levels for CV but, given CV is largely training, I'm inclined to remove any "superhuman" level for CV. To me, at least, Batman and Captain America can only be so strong, agile and hardy without being Superhuman, but their combat training is not a superhuman ability no matter how high his CV's go.

 

Very similar. STR' date=' DEX, CON and BODY in 6th become Superhuman at 31+ in both versions. INT, EGO and PRE become Superhuman at 51+ in both versions. SPD becomes Superhuman at 8+ in both versions. PD and ED become Superhuman at 16+ in both versions. Recovery becomes Superhuman at 14+ in both versions. END and STUN become Superhuman at 61+ in both versions.[/quote']

 

I always wonder about that 30 vs 50 cutoff. I've seen very few EGO, INT or PRE stats approach 50 anyway, so a lower cutoff (nice consistent 30) would have worked fine for me. You need a 19+ roll to be "superhuman"? Seems very high.

 

To the rest, PD and ED have always seemed very high, as does SPD (but I think that's a bit of reverse engineering in that many ostensibly non-superhuman martial artists have SPD 7, so maybe this needs to be rationalized much like my opinion on CV's).

 

END, STUN and REC are tough to quantify and compare anyway, so the cutoffs chosen seem not unreasonable. Mind you, that means a non-superhuman (7 SPD) exhausts himself pretty quickly unless he also caps out REC and spends very little END (he can spend 2 per phase on an ongoing basis - I guess he could be a 15 STR martial artist and avoid averaging more than 1 END per phase for movement).

 

So it looks like between 5e and 6e the CU's benchmark levels didn't really change. Though it is nice that 6e also gives a large list of examples from both fiction and reality.

 

Is it nice, or isn't it? On the one hand, that consistency is nice. On the other hand, one purpose of a new edition is to introduce some changes, and I think the benchmark levels should have been considered in that regard. Of course, they could be considered and a decision made to change nothing.

 

Having benchmarks and examples should be very useful. How much higher must the stat be to go from "competent" to "incredible" is an issue of debate consistently.

 

I 'think' I'll see a lot less Stat inflation in SIX but as I haven't seen SIX yet I can't say for sure.

 

I think this depends on published examples. I don't see a ton of value in DEX, so I may the contrarian with characters having 8-13 DEX, but when the "average Super" has a 23+ DEX, it would be easy to feel like your character is deficient when he is "only" competent in that regard.

[Susano]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I will state this -- when I converted Kazei 5 over to 6E, I did the same thing Steve did and translated directly. Thus, some of the characters are really expensive, with DEXs of 26-30 and CVs to match. I also kept the O/DMCVs the same and didn't tinker any. With future projects, I'll be considering the various values more.

[Ragdoll]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I haz a question! Could yew not do a similar thing in 5E with turtle, simply by letting his DEX at 10 and simply buying Combat Skill Levels with his TK? =?

 

I was also thinking of Wild Cards. If you look at the GURPS book, a lot of the characters had fairly low DEXs. The Turtle, for example, has around a 10 or so. He's not very fast. The new system (6E) will let you build that, than up his OCV to account for his skill with TK (or just use lots of levels). On the other hand, you could argue for a 3-4 SPD, since he's been a hero for years and could react fairly well when acting as the Turtle. Of course, many of the characters also had high DEXs, but even then, not all of them were bullet proof.

 

I've found the split stats to work out fairly well already. My Bryan Mills character sheet has a 16 DEX (he's fairly quick) a 6 OCV (he hits a lot) but only a 5 DCV. It nice to be able to simply define innate combat talent with OCV and DCV and not worry about cranking up the DEX to superhuman levels. Granted, if you need the high DEX rolls you're going to needto do both, but that's the trade off.

[Susano]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I haz a question! Could yew not do a similar thing in 5E with turtle' date=' simply by letting his DEX at 10 and simply buying Combat Skill Levels with his TK? =?[/quote']

 

You could. I'll admit, that was a poor example. Golden Boy might have been better, since he had a lowish DEX (IIRC), but tended to hit things in combat. But still, Wild Cards is loaded with low-DEX "supers."

[lemming]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

My brickest brick was 8 dex under 3rd edition. He had OCV levels.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I built a brick with a 28 DEX.

 

Characters have as much or as little DEX as the creator wants them to have. There is no rule in the book that says "bricks" must have low DEX. How very Dungeons And Dragons Classes thinking that is.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I haz a question! Could yew not do a similar thing in 5E with turtle' date=' simply by letting his DEX at 10 and simply buying Combat Skill Levels with his TK? =?[/quote']

 

Sure - but the cost was prohibitive. A reasonably rounded TK character likely has a Multipower of TK effects, so that's 5 point skill levels. If he wants, say, an 8 OCV, that's 5 levels for 25 points.

 

For 30 points, he could buy +15 DEX, no Figured (or keep the Figured and reduce the cost of SPD), getting +5 OCV and +5 DCV, as well as all the other benefits of DEX.

 

He will likely never use his levels for DCV (he'll get hit anyway and it means his attacks are not going to hit), although he might occasionally use them for damage.

 

DEX was a bargain compared to the cost of skill levels (and everything else DEX provided - it was a bigger bargain than CON or STR, but this was buried a bit because CV had no independent price), so a character with a high OCV (unless he had only one attack) and low DEX was a highly inefficient design. Now, the character can meet concept without being penalized on a points basis.

[archermoo]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Is it nice, or isn't it? On the one hand, that consistency is nice. On the other hand, one purpose of a new edition is to introduce some changes, and I think the benchmark levels should have been considered in that regard. Of course, they could be considered and a decision made to change nothing.

 

Having benchmarks and examples should be very useful. How much higher must the stat be to go from "competent" to "incredible" is an issue of debate consistently.

 

Well, it is a new version of the rules. Not a new version of the CU, at least not yet. And it is important to remember that the Characteristics Comparisons given on 6e1 48 are an example list that is valid for the CU. It has very little to do with the rules and has much more to do with a setting, or I suppose a meta setting in the case of the CU. It is an example of how to design your own comparisons, and a listing of the basis under which characters in the CU are/should be created.

 

Oh, and CVs hit Superhuman at 11+. And I'd personally say that the CV stat itself is innate ability, while skill levels are a reflection of training.

[Ragdoll]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Why 5 points? Wouldn't Turtle's TK constitute a tight group? =?

 

Sure - but the cost was prohibitive. A reasonably rounded TK character likely has a Multipower of TK effects, so that's 5 point skill levels. If he wants, say, an 8 OCV, that's 5 levels for 25 points.

 

For 30 points, he could buy +15 DEX, no Figured (or keep the Figured and reduce the cost of SPD), getting +5 OCV and +5 DCV, as well as all the other benefits of DEX.

 

He will likely never use his levels for DCV (he'll get hit anyway and it means his attacks are not going to hit), although he might occasionally use them for damage.

 

DEX was a bargain compared to the cost of skill levels (and everything else DEX provided - it was a bigger bargain than CON or STR, but this was buried a bit because CV had no independent price), so a character with a high OCV (unless he had only one attack) and low DEX was a highly inefficient design. Now, the character can meet concept without being penalized on a points basis.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Why 5 points? Wouldn't Turtle's TK constitute a tight group? =?

 

That would at least improve matters. I think many GM's waffle between "tight group" and 5 point levels depending on the number of abilities in the group, so it depends largely on the scope of his telekinetic powers. 15 points would be a significant improvement, especially as the character likely has no other abilities he'll typically use OCV for.

 

Another 15 points to have OCV for anything, and +5 DCV, and +3 DEX rolls and +15 to combat order still seems like a significant bargain, but at least he's getting a discount.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Oh' date=' and CVs hit Superhuman at 11+. And I'd personally say that the CV stat itself is innate ability, while skill levels are a reflection of training.[/quote']

 

How does one build a character who is extremely accurate with pretty much any weapon or attack, but does not have the ability to trade that off with avoiding attacks against him or enhancing damage inflicted? Skill levels don't do it, unless I buy "overall combat skill levels, OCV only", which I would expect to cost about 5 points for +1 OCV (given that's what +1 OCV costs and that's what these skill levels would do). Having made that leap, why should he have to put them in as "skill levels" instead of "OCV"?

[archermoo]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

How does one build a character who is extremely accurate with pretty much any weapon or attack' date=' but does not have the ability to trade that off with avoiding attacks against him or enhancing damage inflicted? Skill levels don't do it, unless I buy "overall combat skill levels, OCV only", which I would expect to cost about 5 points for +1 OCV (given that's what +1 OCV costs and that's what these skill levels would do). Having made that leap, why should he have to put them in as "skill levels" instead of "OCV"?[/quote']

 

Actually that sounds like a perfect example of someone who should be buying OCV. I'm not quite sure why you seem to think I would disagree.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I built a brick with a 28 DEX.

 

Characters have as much or as little DEX as the creator wants them to have. There is no rule in the book that says "bricks" must have low DEX. How very Dungeons And Dragons Classes thinking that is.

 

IMO under 5e, the 'fast brick' (high STR and DEX, good SPD and defences) was just about the most combat efficient build you could manage, and not prohibitively expensive. I still remember the raw terror at discovering that Ogre as was back in 2nd ed (18 DEX, SPD 4, 3 overall (8 point) combat levels) could be re-engineered to have 30 DEX and no skill levels for the same cost (CV 6+3 levels to CV 10!). Monster. Literally.

 

Sure concept matters, but it is easier to build and play concept when you're not getting kicked in the kidneys for doing so.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

That was then. And irrelevant. And finally ... So what?

[tesuji]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

yes in 5e the amount of dex was whatever you wanted within campaign limits.

 

but imo in 5e the amount of dex chosen was most often chosen high because of the combat efficiency of buying dex as opposed to the other options.

 

so in this case, the pointing system being skewed caused the "concepts" to be limited. people would not usually play an actual hulking brute but more a world class gymnast of a hulking brute.

 

in 6e i see a definite improvement in the separation of those traits so that dex can be something you dont feel pressured by the budgetting system to ramp up.

 

if you start wanting an agile or fast brick, great, but there is no longer the pressure to make every brick into an agile brick in order to stay competitive.

 

the thing and te beast are both viable, neither favored mechanically. different but equally playable.

 

thats imo an improvement. i just wish that difference could have been spotlighted in the sample characters in the core book.

 

many people do follow those leads, particularly new guys if there are new guys.

 

bybthe time an enemies books gets out many new 6e campaigns will already be underway working off the core book examples.

 

its an opportunity missed imo.

 

not uncorrectable but it really depends on how much effort goes into reimagining the enemies characters and the cu specs.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Well, it is a new version of the rules. Not a new version of the CU, at least not yet. And it is important to remember that the Characteristics Comparisons given on 6e1 48 are an example list that is valid for the CU. It has very little to do with the rules and has much more to do with a setting, or I suppose a meta setting in the case of the CU. It is an example of how to design your own comparisons, and a listing of the basis under which characters in the CU are/should be created.

 

Oh, and CVs hit Superhuman at 11+. And I'd personally say that the CV stat itself is innate ability, while skill levels are a reflection of training.

 

How does one build a character who is extremely accurate with pretty much any weapon or attack' date=' but does not have the ability to trade that off with avoiding attacks against him or enhancing damage inflicted? Skill levels don't do it, unless I buy "overall combat skill levels, OCV only", which I would expect to cost about 5 points for +1 OCV (given that's what +1 OCV costs and that's what these skill levels would do). Having made that leap, why should he have to put them in as "skill levels" instead of "OCV"?[/quote']

 

Actually that sounds like a perfect example of someone who should be buying OCV. I'm not quite sure why you seem to think I would disagree.

 

Why, because my concept is a highly trained normal human, and not a Superhuman, with an OCV of 14 (meaning he can hit most targets in the CU - some will still be difficult). [sorry - I should have specified that his extreme accuracy stems from training and not, or at least not entirely, from natural aptitude.]

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

OCV is a Characteristic - it also has no SFX.

 

High OCV SFX:

Innate Ability ("I'm just that good")

Highly Trained ("I've been working for years")

Cybernetics ("I Had A Targeting System Implanted")

Precognition ("I know where he'll be")

Remo Williams ("I heard his leg tendons bend...")

 

While you could buy Limited CSLs, you can also buy Limited OCV.

 

OCV: Guns Only

OCV: Tae Kwon Leap Only

 

Options ... all about the options. We can do that now.

We can rethink everything from the ground up.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

OCV is a Characteristic - it also has no SFX.

 

High OCV SFX:

Innate Ability ("I'm just that good")

Highly Trained ("I've been working for years")

Cybernetics ("I Had A Targeting System Implanted")

Precognition ("I know where he'll be")

Remo Williams ("I heard his leg tendons bend...")

 

While you could buy Limited CSLs, you can also buy Limited OCV.

 

OCV: Guns Only

OCV: Tae Kwon Leap Only

 

Options ... all about the options. We can do that now.

We can rethink everything from the ground up.

 

I agree. But, to me, whether one is Superhuman is about the SFX, not the OCV. There are some abilities where the effects make one clearly superhuman (Strength is one of them - humans can't bench press a battleship), but many others where it does not. I don't see having an 11 OCV or DCV as making one "superhuman" by definition. If I did, it would not matter whether he got that 11 OCV with a characteristic entirely, or partially with skill levels - he would still be superhumanly accurate.

[Ice9]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

While you could buy Limited CSLs, you can also buy Limited OCV.

OCV: Guns Only

OCV: Tae Kwon Leap Only

That's true, and it makes me wonder if we really need CSLs any more. At very least, I don't think we need the 2-point variety - they could be entirely covered by a -1 1/2 "Only for Specific Attack" limitation on OCV. For the others, I guess they do serve as an easy way of allowing you to shift between offense, defense, and damage - but they're probably not needed for as many characters in 6E.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I agree. But' date=' to me, whether one is Superhuman is about the SFX, not the OCV. There are some abilities where the effects make one clearly superhuman (Strength is one of them - humans can't bench press a battleship), but many others where it does not. I don't see having an 11 OCV or DCV as making one "superhuman" by definition. If I did, it would not matter whether he got that 11 OCV with a characteristic entirely, or partially with skill levels - he would still be superhumanly accurate.[/quote']

 

We are in complete agreement.

 

That's true' date=' and it makes me wonder if we really need CSLs any more. At very least, I don't think we need the 2-point variety - they could be entirely covered by a -1 1/2 "Only for Specific Attack" limitation on OCV. For the others, I guess they do serve as an easy way of allowing you to shift between offense, defense, and damage - but they're probably not needed for as many characters in 6E.[/quote']

 

Some of that depends on whether one sees Characteristics As Powers as being inherently different from Skills.

 

I think we'll see less DCV Skill Levels. I definitely like the 6E distinction of Small Group and Large Group Skill Levels.

 

I believe that 2pt CSLs are OCV; Specific Weapon Or Attack -2.

(i.e. Limited Power, Power Loses Almost All It's Effectiveness)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

..............

 

Options ... all about the options. We can do that now.

We can rethink everything from the ground up.

 

 

So coming back to the OP, it is slightly surprising that there was not a rethink from the ground up of the showcase characters. Conversion is not a problem: there are only a couple of differences you really need worry about at all - but we could have explored a new paradigm.

[Susano]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Hopefully that'll come later.