1755

[ghost-angel]

Re: 1755

 

good point. sorry.

 

But, there seems to be a bias that the average DEX is 23, when I don't think it is.

[prestidigitator]

Re: 1755

 

The average difference was about 50? I'm curious: what were the min and max? the standard deviation (or average absolute deviation--I don't care, as long as it gives a feel)? (I'm not trying to question the results, just trying to more fully understand them.)

[ghost-angel]

Re: 1755

 

The highest difference was 154 points.

The smallest difference was -10 points (only one character cost less).

 

The Mode (most frequently occurring difference) was 54

The Average point difference was 51.

 

This is for almost every single published CU character compared (336 Characters).

 

I also compared the Teen Champions and Galactic Champions characters against only themselves.

As a grand total I looked at somewhere close to 400 characters from the Genre Books, Core Rules, Champions Line. I ran out of time to look at every single published character ever.

[Tasha]

Re: 1755

 

good point. sorry.

 

But, there seems to be a bias that the average DEX is 23, when I don't think it is.

 

It is interesting that the published Characters have an average Dex of less than 23. I had always assumed that since 4e that the Avg DEX was 23 and Avg SPD was 5 for a Superheroic game.

 

It may reflect a bias in the type of character that is published in the books. Perhaps an overabundance of Bricks?

 

On one of my FH characters, she became 7 pts more expensive from Stats alone. I will have to try more conversions and see what happens.

 

I am leaning toward a houserule that allows/reminds all PCs to sell back OMCV (even for characters in games that don't have Mental Powers).

[prestidigitator]

Re: 1755

 

Damn. That's a heck of a lot of work. Very well done.

 

So one thing to consider is that choosing the average (whichever average it is really) as the allowance for the change in editions is saying, "Half the characters are going to have enough points to convert properly, and half are not." Maybe that's okay. I think I would have preferred to go with the average plus 1-2 standard deviations or so (which is why I asked about the deviation). That would allow a majority of characters to have enough points to convert well. You can't solve all the differences when there is going to be a shift in cost (and particularly a change in the balance between some costs and others), but you can sometimes go with a solution that'll solve "most" problems rather than half of them.

 

So to me it's not a question of the accuracy of the analysis, but of the philosophy used to apply the results of that analysis.

[Tasha]

Re: 1755

 

Damn. That's a heck of a lot of work. Very well done.

 

So one thing to consider is that choosing the average (whichever average it is really) as the allowance for the change in editions is saying, "Half the characters are going to have enough points to convert properly, and half are not." Maybe that's okay. I think I would have preferred to go with the average plus 1-2 standard deviations or so (which is why I asked about the deviation). That would allow a majority of characters to have enough points to convert well. You can't solve all the differences when there is going to be a shift in cost (and particularly a change in the balance between some costs and others), but you can sometimes go with a solution that'll solve "most" problems rather than half of them.

 

So to me it's not a question of the accuracy of the analysis, but of the philosophy used to apply the results of that analysis.

 

When it comes to conversions, I would say to not sweat the extra points. As long as the player isn't inflating their character.

 

When 4th edition came out I remember all of our champions characters becoming from 50-90pts more expensive. Of course that depended on how badly your character was bending the previous edition's rules.

 

So if this edition inflated my character's point totals again, I am ready for it.

 

Though I will be annoyed if my non-munchkined beginning characters start to cost more than the new base points. That would tell me that the new point values don't quite allow me to build the same characters I was building earlier.

 

Tasha

[ghost-angel]

Re: 1755

 

Damn. That's a heck of a lot of work. Very well done.

 

So one thing to consider is that choosing the average (whichever average it is really) as the allowance for the change in editions is saying, "Half the characters are going to have enough points to convert properly, and half are not." Maybe that's okay. I think I would have preferred to go with the average plus 1-2 standard deviations or so (which is why I asked about the deviation). That would allow a majority of characters to have enough points to convert well. You can't solve all the differences when there is going to be a shift in cost (and particularly a change in the balance between some costs and others), but you can sometimes go with a solution that'll solve "most" problems rather than half of them.

 

So to me it's not a question of the accuracy of the analysis, but of the philosophy used to apply the results of that analysis.

 

If I get time I can try to provide deviations, or even most often occurring ranges.

 

I think there was an understanding going in that the increase was an average and likely wouldn't apply to many characters very well.

 

There's also the idea that the rules are not written around converting but creating.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 1755

 

HD could make this kind of thing much easier. I love HD but you should be able to look at a character sheet and intuitively understand what the numbers are for. If you cannot then you are effectively trying to sell UNIX to Mac users...

 

Doc

 

See I've never used HD myself. One guy in our group does and I swear his character creation seems slower and more fraught with questions than anyone else. I've never used the standard character sheets either. My groups never had any problems with character creation except the HD guy. The interface ( I know I'll get yelled at for this) seems very counter intuitive to us. Often its easier to look it up in the book than find it in HD. At least for me, my wife, and him. We end up with a fair amount of custom adders tc for the guy ( he's a computoor tech so he has to use the application of course) because its just easier after we know what the book says

 

So maybe it is presentation. I don't have 6th but unless it became a lot more complex the systen itself doesn't really seem that hard. Certainly no more complex than D&D 4th IMO. It does require you have a vision of your character as you are not spoonfed character classes.

[secretID]

Re: 1755

 

Damn. That's a heck of a lot of work. Very well done.

My reaction, too.

 

It is interesting that the published Characters have an average Dex of less than 23. I had always assumed that since 4e that the Avg DEX was 23 and Avg SPD was 5 for a Superheroic game.

 

It may reflect a bias in the type of character that is published in the books. Perhaps an overabundance of Bricks?

Lots of the published characters have inefficient builds. I've been using published villains in my campaign, but rewriting the important ones. They end up being a lot more powerful on the same points. I'm conscious of making builds efficient, but even players who aren't may have been intuitively using higher DEX because it made the character work better (i.e., freed up points).

 

Though I will be annoyed if my non-munchkined beginning characters start to cost more than the new base points.

I'd say that's highly likely if you have high-STR characters.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 1755

 

Had a free 30 minutes this morning before work kicks into higher gear...

 

The first 95 characters on my list includes Champions, Champions Universe, Arcane Adversaries and the first few from Evil Unleashed (Master Villains & Teams).

 

Average DEX: 20.3

Median DEX: 20

Mode DEX: 20

 

Average SPD: 4.8

Median SPD: 5

Mode SPD: 5

 

So far, closer to my assumptions. If I get time I'll try and either get everyone I have, or at least CKC - the presumed most used supplement.

 

Now, my thought? The average PC is DEX23/SPD6 because they want to be faster than everyone and many of us have subconsciously upped the numbers so we can be Heroes, and have projected our design onto published designs. Just a thought.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 1755

 

I have actually tried it. every year my old university friends have a gaming club reunion in the university we went to. We stay in halls of residence and game in the union bar. We have four days of gaming among friends.

 

In one year I ran a game twice, once with bog standard sheets and once with customised player friendly sheets. I actually played the same characters and claimed the second set were made up with a different system called BLAM! I said I wanted to test the two systems to see which of them got the genre better for the same characters.

 

In every case they said they preferred BLAM! to HERO and it was simply due to the more difficult system in HERO. 'Cept of course that both were played using HERO, just using a different presentation and different character sheets.

 

HD could make this kind of thing much easier. I love HD but you should be able to look at a character sheet and intuitively understand what the numbers are for. If you cannot then you are effectively trying to sell UNIX to Mac users...

 

 

 

Doc

 

I agree with this...almost against my own judgement: it is actually quite astonishing how presentation can make a world of difference to the play experience, and it is really pretty easy to create 'construction number free' character play sheets. You need the numbers for adjustment powers and such but they do not need to be in your face.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 1755

 

The first 95 characters on my list includes Champions, Champions Universe, Arcane Adversaries and the first few from Evil Unleashed (Master Villains & Teams).

 

Average DEX: 20.3

Median DEX: 20

Mode DEX: 20

 

Average SPD: 4.8

Median SPD: 5

Mode SPD: 5

 

So far, closer to my assumptions. If I get time I'll try and either get everyone I have, or at least CKC - the presumed most used supplement.

 

I'm surprised by both, but I have not read the 5e CU materials in any depth. I would have expected the SPD median and mode, but it surprises me there are more Supers below 5 than above. I also would have thought the typical DEX to be 23 rather than 20. Even a 20 DEX takes 40 more points in 6e than it did in 5e, though (DEX costs 2 in 6e, and 3-1 for SPD = 2 in 5e, so the difference is entirely the cost of OCV and DCV).

 

Someone suggested there were a lot of Bricks in the sample. I wonder whether there are a lot of characters focused on mental, rather than physical, attacks. They would tend to have a higher Ego (with their Ego + MCV stats costing more than in 5e, but not to the same extent), and lower DEX.

 

Now' date=' my thought? The average PC is DEX23/SPD6 because they want to be faster than everyone and many of us have subconsciously upped the numbers so we can be Heroes, and have projected our design onto published designs. Just a thought.[/quote']

 

I would have set the typical PC at DEX 23, SPD 5 (probably with more at higher values than lower values), but that's all experiential, so it will vary between gaming groups. A 23 DEX costs 50 points more than it did in 5e (39 for DEX - 13 saved on SPD = 26 in 5e; 26 for DEX + 25 for OCV and 25 for DCV in 6e = 76). A 5 or 6 speed hasn't changed in cost.

 

From a characteristics perspective, I see the following:

 

- DEX costs 167% more (+3 DEX, +1 OCV, +1 DCV cost 9 - 3 = 6 in 5e and 6 + 5 + 5 in 6e). This is the least visible cost increase since virtually all characters increased their DEX to some extent.

 

- STR costs 85% more (+20 STR, +4 PD, +4 REC, +10 STUN, +4" Leap costs 20 in 5e and 20 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 4 = 37 in 6e). This impacts Bricks most significantly, but I don't recall many 8 or 13 STR Supers either. Bricks tended to have lower DEX, so that should mitigate somewhat.

 

- EGO costs 50% more (+3 EGO, +1 MOCV, +1 MDCV costs 6 in 5e and 3 + 3 + 3 = 9 in 6e). This impacts mentalists primarily, and they tended to spend less on DEX.

 

- CON costs 2.5% more (+20 CON, +4 ED, +4 REC, +10 STUN, +40 END - 40 in 5e and 20 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 8 = 41 in 6e). Pretty much everyone used to buy up CON, but the negligible cost difference suggests we could have left CON at 2 points and kept its Figureds with no material change to the results.

 

- INT and PRE are unchanged.

 

- BOD costs 25% less (2 points for +1 BOD and +1 STUN vs 1.5 points in 6e)

 

- COM costs 100% less , exactly the same or some other modifier depending on how you decide to convert it to Striking Appearance.

 

It's much less practical to assess the change in costs for characters' skills, powers, etc. An Elemental Control is different from a Unified Power, and a few other powers have changed.

 

Sean's example is probably one of the highest-end examples, as it has a high (Brick level) STR, a moderate DEX (which alone absorbs the extra 50 points), a higher than average EGO, Resurrection (which lost a lot of limitations) and an efficient EC with no ancillary powers to enjoy a cost reduction due to the new Unified Power limitation.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 1755

 

Runnig numbers on a perfectly straight conversion for 14 DEX SPD 4 through 23 DEX SPD 4 and 14DEX/SPD5 through 23DEX/SPD5...

 

At 20 DEX / SPD 5 you only need 40 more points to convert. A 44% increase.

 

The only issue I have with your model is that the DEX increase doesn't factor in the SPD portion in any way. It uses a 5E Limited DEX number.

 

Let's look at Sapphire - Sapphire has a 23 DEX, and a 6SPD, giving her CVs of 8. Just that alone is a 50 Point increase.

 

Her 5E to 6E conversion was, well, 50 Points. Let's take a closer look and see what's going on.

 

STR 15 - 5E: 5pts / 6E: 5pts (0)

DEX 23 - 5E: 39pts / 6E: 26pts (-13)

CON 23 - 5E: 26pts / 6E: 13pts (-13)

BOD 10 - 5E: 0pts / 6E: 0pts (0)

INT 12 - 5E: 2pts / 6E: 2pts (0)

EGO 14 - 5E: 8pts / 6E: 4pts (-4)

PRE 25 - 5E: 15pts / 6E: 15pts (0)

COM 20 - 5E: 5pts / 6E: 0pts (-5) [or if we assume 2 levels of Striking Appearance: 6pts (+1); but I'm not, because I'm just like that]

 

Primary Characteristics Change: -35 Points .... moving on

 

PD 9 - 5E: 6pts / 6E: 7pts (+1)

ED 12 - 5E: 7pts / 6E: 10pts (+3)

SPD 6 - 5E: 27pts / 6E: 40pts (+13)

REC 9 - 5E: 2pts / 6E: 5pts (+3)

END 60 - 5E: 7pts / 6E: 8pts (+1)

STUN 35 - 5E: 5pts / 6E: 7pts (+2) [Rounded Down to 34 in 6E, I flipped a coin]

 

Taking a moment to look at it again: Total 6E Cost: -12 Points compared to what was spent in 5E.

 

OCV 8 - 5E: 0pts / 6E: 25pts (+25)

DCV 8 - 5E: 0pts / 6E: 25pts (+25)

OECV 5 - 5E: 0pts / 6E: 6pts (+6)

DECV 5 - 5E: 0pts / 6E: 6pts (+6)

 

Total Cost:

5E: 154 Points

6E: 204 Points

Difference: 50 Points

 

In Saphires case the difference happens to be exactly her OCV/DCV costs. While it does take more points to make up the loss of Figured CVs from DEX - it does not take nearly as many points to make up the Figured Numbers from the drop in cost of CON. Even keeping STR and BODY the same cost. This is one example - I actually thought she was a DEX23/SPD5 until I started posting.

 

One thing I've noticed just at a glance - the more reliance is placed on Primaries to get the Figureds up the higher the point increase. There are a lot of example characters who buy up the Figureds separately instead of inflating their Primaries. To me that says Steve did the opposite of Stat Inflation. . . He consciously made an effort to keep Characteristics withing certain ranges.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 1755

 

Runnig numbers on a perfectly straight conversion for 14 DEX SPD 4 through 23 DEX SPD 4 and 14DEX/SPD5 through 23DEX/SPD5...

 

At 20 DEX / SPD 5 you only need 40 more points to convert. A 44% increase.

 

The only issue I have with your model is that the DEX increase doesn't factor in the SPD portion in any way. It uses a 5E Limited DEX number.

 

Indeed it does. It does so because I have literally never seen a character "sell back" the Speed rebate. The points required to convert will always be the cost of the CV enhancements, as the 3 points per +1 DEX in 5e will be spend on 2 points for +1 DEX and 1 point for +1/10 SPD.

 

Let's look at Sapphire - Sapphire has a 23 DEX, and a 6SPD, giving her CVs of 8. Just that alone is a 50 Point increase.

 

Her 5E to 6E conversion was, well, 50 Points. Let's take a closer look and see what's going on.

 

STR 15 - 5E: 5pts / 6E: 5pts (0)

DEX 23 - 5E: 39pts / 6E: 26pts (-13)

CON 23 - 5E: 26pts / 6E: 13pts (-13)

BOD 10 - 5E: 0pts / 6E: 0pts (0)

INT 12 - 5E: 2pts / 6E: 2pts (0)

EGO 14 - 5E: 8pts / 6E: 4pts (-4)

PRE 25 - 5E: 15pts / 6E: 15pts (0)

COM 20 - 5E: 5pts / 6E: 0pts (-5) [or if we assume 2 levels of Striking Appearance: 6pts (+1); but I'm not, because I'm just like that]

 

Primary Characteristics Change: -35 Points .... moving on

 

PD 9 - 5E: 6pts / 6E: 7pts (+1)

ED 12 - 5E: 7pts / 6E: 10pts (+3)

SPD 6 - 5E: 27pts / 6E: 40pts (+13)

REC 9 - 5E: 2pts / 6E: 5pts (+3)

END 60 - 5E: 7pts / 6E: 8pts (+1)

STUN 35 - 5E: 5pts / 6E: 7pts (+2) [Rounded Down to 34 in 6E, I flipped a coin]

 

Taking a moment to look at it again: Total 6E Cost: -12 Points compared to what was spent in 5E.

 

OCV 8 - 5E: 0pts / 6E: 25pts (+25)

DCV 8 - 5E: 0pts / 6E: 25pts (+25)

OECV 5 - 5E: 0pts / 6E: 6pts (+6)

DECV 5 - 5E: 0pts / 6E: 6pts (+6)

 

Total Cost:

5E: 154 Points

6E: 204 Points

Difference: 50 Points

 

In Saphires case the difference happens to be exactly her OCV/DCV costs. While it does take more points to make up the loss of Figured CVs from DEX - it does not take nearly as many points to make up the Figured Numbers from the drop in cost of CON. Even keeping STR and BODY the same cost. This is one example - I actually thought she was a DEX23/SPD5 until I started posting.

 

Two quick items - first, I find the subtotals irrelevant. A 23 DEX with OCV and DCV 8 is not equivalent to a 23 DEX with an OCV and DCV 3.

 

Second, Speed 5, 6 or whatever makes no difference, because the cost of X DEX and Y SPD in 5e and 6e are identical - the only difference is the need to pay for CV in 6e.

 

The bolded items? See discussion below.

 

One thing I've noticed just at a glance - the more reliance is placed on Primaries to get the Figureds up the higher the point increase. There are a lot of example characters who buy up the Figureds separately instead of inflating their Primaries. To me that says Steve did the opposite of Stat Inflation. . . He consciously made an effort to keep Characteristics withing certain ranges.

 

This is definitely the case. The price of CON + Figured's in 5e is almost exactly equivalent to the price of CON + Secondaries in 6e. If, instead of buying CON up to buy up your Figured's, you bought the Figured's up independently, you were markedly disadvantaged in 5e. If a lot of the 5e CU characters took that approach, this would explain why the spreadsheet isn't generating the results I would expect, so that mystery appears to be solved.

 

I don't think many PC's fail to buy enough CON to get the lowest Figured, at least, up to the level they want. Sapphire's approach of buying up all five of those figured's is not point-effective compared to buying up CON and selling back one of the Figured's. I never saw a lot of sellbacks, but I also never saw a lot of buyups of STUN, REC or END, and rarely, if ever, two or more of them.

 

Characters who did buy up STUN, REC and END without buying up CON should come out ahead in 6e, since these have been priced more reasonably in 6e as separate purchases. I'm very happy with the repricing of CON and its attendant Figured's in 6e, as I did not think CON was "a bargain" in 5e, despite its significant contribution to figured's - rather, I thought the Figured's were overpriced purchased independently. I note, however, that we could quite easily have CON deliver the same Figured's, and make No Figured a -1 limitation to get the same result.

 

STR, DEX and EGO - not so much. If you want all the parts, you pay more. We can quibble over how the percentage should be computed, but you unquestionably pay more.

 

Does 50 points cover the typical character as designed by players using CON as a Secondary Builder, rather than buying Secondaries directly? I suspect not. Sean's character is an extreme example, but I would expect many characters to drop the 50 points, or more, on DEX/CV alone (as Sapphire has), break even more or less on CON, lose on STR and lose on EGO/MCV.

 

That said, I'm kind of OK with that result. STR and DEX were extremely efficient purchases in 5e. I'm not as sold on Ego, but it was clearly cheaper than building the components with skill levels, so that works for me as well. I now think that either DEX is overpriced at 2 points (getting bonuses with DEX rolls and enhanced combat order) or INT (bonuses with INT rolls and PER rolls) and PRE (bonuses with PRE rolls, PRE attack and PRE defense) are underpriced at 1 point. I'm more and more leaning to the latter belief, which would mean characters are out even more points from the conversion.

 

Regardless of what change to characteristic cost and starting points is selected, though, repricing the characteristics will mean that some characters win, and others lose, as they won't all have the same characteristics, so the change in points will never be identical. I think the best answer is to revise the characters under the 6e rules, not shoehorn their 5e abilities in. If some characters lose abilities as a consequence, then either they had too much in 5e, or the 6e pricing is inappropriate. If the latter is the case, I would rather fix the pricing than allow some characters to be grandfathered. If the former is the case, let's fix the balance.

 

We're only doing straight translations, rather than considering the new reality. Maybe my 20 or 23 DEX Brick should not buy a 7 or 8 DCV in the first place - he doesn't rely on avoiding attacks, but on bouncing them off. Perhaps he also doesn't need a 20 or 23 DEX, and that can also be lowered. Maybe my energy projector doesn't need a 60 STR to meet his concept. Or maybe, if he does, my concept is excessively powerful for the game in question. If a straight Brick and a straight EP each cost 400 points, shouldn't someone who combines both either cost more or be less effective in each area than the straight Brick/EP? Maybe, Sean, your character was simply overpowered under the old model. Or maybe he should consider putting that extra STR into a Multipower with his Energy Blast, if he'll only use one or the other at any given point in time. Maybe, if he's consistent with the rest of the group, your game mandates a higher starting point total.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 1755

 

A lot of example characters buy up some, if not most, of their Figured in the published books.

 

Oddly enough, so do almost every single one of my characters. Rarely do I leave Stun at the Figured level, I almost always buy END up for Superheroic characters, and REC is another favorite to put a few points into.

 

Regardless of what the sample characters do, my conversions have - to the last one of them - not been straight conversions. Parts have been tweeked to fit the concept better.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: 1755

 

See I've never used HD myself. One guy in our group does and I swear his character creation seems slower and more fraught with questions than anyone else. I've never used the standard character sheets either. My groups never had any problems with character creation except the HD guy. The interface ( I know I'll get yelled at for this) seems very counter intuitive to us. Often its easier to look it up in the book than find it in HD. At least for me' date=' my wife, and him. We end up with a fair amount of custom adders tc for the guy ( he's a computoor tech so he has to use the application of course) because its just easier after we know what the book says[/quote']

 

I can see this. HD does not work well as a reference. it is really for someone who understands the rules to create a character that is then available electronically for manipulation and even different presentations in custom made sheets. If the user of HD does not know the rules then I can see it providing them with options that they want to explore which leads to the kind of situation you have...

 

 

 

So maybe it is presentation. I don't have 6th but unless it became a lot more complex the systen itself doesn't really seem that hard. Certainly no more complex than D&D 4th IMO. It does require you have a vision of your character as you are not spoonfed character classes.

 

It isn't the system that I think is complex, it is the presentation of that complexity in the character sheet. D&D4 was a step up in character sheet complexity - there were more numbers that were less intuitive than D20 - a lovely streamlined presentation of a complex system. Everyone thought D20 was simple because they presented the numbers well - it was all numbers that you added to a D20 or compared the modified D20 against. Simple.

 

HERO does also have the added complexity of no fixed character classes etc and this added to the number strewn character sheet gives newcomers to the system a real culture shock that they often do not recover from.

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: 1755

 

You need the numbers for adjustment powers and such but they do not need to be in your face.

 

It might be my games but adjustment powers are kinda rare and if I am going to introduce a character with adjustment powers then I can make the necessary preparations to do the paperwork for that.

 

If a player has an adjustment power then they dont see the villain sheets - still no added complexity for them.

 

I am now committed to removing system numbers from my players as far as it does not interfere with their ability to play their character.

 

 

Doc

[Nevenall]

Re: 1755

 

It would be interesting to have a usability expert design a character sheet.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: 1755

 

It would be interesting to have a usability expert design a character sheet.

 

That is the kind of skill set I'd like to see applied to the task.

 

Doc

[gojira]

Re: 1755

 

Do you have samples of your character sheets available, Doc D? I'd love to see how you layout your simplified sheets.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: 1755

 

I've posted samples before and I change them each time I do a new game (not satisfied that I'm an expert )

 

Will see what I can dig up.

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: 1755

 

Here are two characters in an export format for HD that my friend came up with for my LoEG rip-off game....we never got round to colour but we had/have plans...

 

As it happens - I cant get these done as pdf just now so have loaded the hdc and hde files...

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: 1755

 

For some more character sheet stuff - especially the thoughts on colour and its impact - you might want to read Sean's Champions of the Unknown thread from a short while ago....

 

Doc