Impact of Figured Characteristics

[The Main Man]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

Once again, and maybe I and others have not been clear enough.

 

Turning OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV into independent CHAR allows for more precise character builds.

 

OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV as independent CHAR do not make CSL's obsolete, they only open up new possibilities.

 

Ballerinas are no longer combat experts and mighty warriors are no longer naturally more flexible due to earlier editions' coupling between CV and DEX/EGO.

 

From an abstract standpoint, think of it like this: OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV reflect a character's natural physical and mental combat abilities whereas CSL's reflect their trained physical and mental combat abilities.

 

OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV can be adjusted whether positively (Absorption, Aid, Healing) or negatively (Drain) whereas CSL's cannot unless bought as Powers themselves.

 

OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV are static whereas CSL's can be rearranged. On the other hand, CSL's have to be assigned, which can always be trouble when Mind Controlled or Drained of INT, EGO, or PRE, amongst other situations.

 

OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV are generic (Power Limitations not withstanding) whereas CSL's can be granular. On the other hand, increased granularity means fewer options for using individual CSL's. Conversely, decreased granularity means higher costs than just buying up OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV.

 

OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV are no more and no less of what they are whereas CSL's (depending on level) can be toggled between OCV, DCV, and Damage Classes.

 

 

 

 

 

What about any of that doesn't give the impression that CSL's and OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV as independent CHAR doesn't look like they all have their place in the system?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

Isn't that the case if we reduce Dex to 1 point? If we switch out the gymnast with the Dos XX guy' date=' a Pre of 30 is 20 points. That's comparative to the 22 point version of the gymnast. The same goes for a 30 Int scientist. All three have their appropriate skills at 15-. If we give up the Pre Attacks or Perception Bonuses, we can buy it as levels (Interaction or Intellect) for 12 points. The gymnast could be 12 points too, but the example assumed his nimbleness gave him a slight inherent bonus in combat, hence the extra CV and 10 extra points. All this is only true if Dex is 1 point.[/quote']

 

My initial take was to reduce the cost of DEX to 1. However, when I look at skill levels with DEX, INT or PRE skills, they fall well short of the benefits of +5 to the characteristic. For 4 points, I get +1 to any one skill roll based on that Char at a time. For 5 points, I get +1 to all rolls at the same time (nice if I want to do more than one thing in a phase, or use a complementary skill). Shouldn't there be a way to buy +1 with all skills (and, perhaps, the Char roll as well)? How much should that cost? Certainly less than +5 with the characteristic - that has other benefits.

 

So how much should it cost to independently purchase +1d6 PRE attack or +1 to all PER rolls? If I accept +1 with all rolls will cost 4 points, and +1 with any one roll will cost 3, then I have tacitly acceopted the ancillary benefits are worth only 1 point. I can bump them up to 2 points if I make +1 to all rolls cost 3, +1 to any one roll cost 2, and +1 to a single skill cost 1. But that's as granular as I can get.

 

Maybe the better answer is that DEX, INT and PRE should cost 2, with the benefits of +1 to all rolls costing 5 and the ancillary benefits also costed at 5. That seems a bit more reasonable to me. Although I will still likely never buy Lightning Reflexes, some people seem to think it has a value commensurate with that cost. +1d6 PRE attack valued at 5 seems reasonable (although I have to discount it if PRE keeps PRE defense as well, but I'd rather see that become the province of EGO). +1 to all PER rolls for 5 points also seems reasonable.

 

Now we can have a skill level that grants +1 with all rolls priced at 5 points (a -1 limitation on +10 stat), a level that grants +1 with one roll at a time at 4 (-1 1/2) and a level that only allows +1 to a smaller selection of skills priced at 3.

 

Combat levels also need to be priced in accordance with their benefits, of course. 1 CSL with all combat should not cost the same as +1 OCV and +1 DCV, but given it can also be used for mental CV's and damage, it doesn't need to be too discounted. In fact, the old CSL structure seems about right, as I think I suggested above.

[Tasha]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

Actually, upon closer inspection, the regular Skill Levels won't require much adjustment. The only thing that needs to be done is have Agility skills absorbed into the other types such as Intellect and Interaction because of the false premise that Dex is inherently worth more than the other characteristics.

 

To reiterate, my position as it now stands (it has changed a little since the start of this thread) is the following:

1. Str through Pre should be 1 point apiece
   There simply isn't enough difference between them to justify the increased cost. Although there is the argument that Dex is more combat effective, the others also offer advantages in combat with the difference being made up outside of combat. The Skill Level costs (providing Agility skills levels are merged into other type skill levels) are inline and effective with all chars being 1 point. It is also more streamlined.
   
2. CV and MCV should remain tied to Dex and Ego
   Buying them individually is simply too tempting and nerfs most of the CSLs, effectively eliminating some of the interesting specializations and design choices that they offer. Non-agile combat effective characters can still be -- and IMO should be -- built through CSLs. As always, with the GM's permission, CVs can still be purchased up or down.
   
3. Other "Figureds" should be used as a baseline
   We simply need a point of reference, especially for players who are new to Hero. So far, published characters follow this model.
   

 

1) I agree with the first one. While going first is a HUGE tactical adventage I am not completly sure that it's worth Dex being a point more expensive to pay for that advantage.

 

2) I LOVE CV's being untied from Dex/Ego. It allows many, many builds that I always found difficult at best to writeup. I also love that high OCV characters don't always have a high DCV and High DEX. It's making for some interesting heroic level characters.

 

3) There needs to be a good article in the 6E1 about buying secondary Characteristics. How to figure out how much a character needs. Somewhere (in this post earlier?) I posted how I come up with where my secondaries need to be. There are some simple math equations for figuring this out and they have no relationship to the original minimums for the Secondaries when they were figured from the Primaries. It's all about knowing how much damage is being thrown at your character on average, how tough your character is. Also knowing average CV's in the game and how common mental powers are. Actually the equations are for figuring most of your offensive and defensive stats in the game.

 

Published characters are following the previous ways of writing characters for 2 reasons. One, many of them are conversions of 5th edition characters and were not written up from scratch. Two Steve (and the other writers) are used to making characters in the older editions, so the way they build characters are roughly the same as in the earlier edition. I believe this will eventually start to change, due to all of the complaints that we see from the conversions and eventually the writers will start to truly rethink "Classic" writeups and will make slightly different decisions about stats.

[dmjalund]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

1) Personally I'm thinking of making STR through PRE costing 2 points (including an option for a power that allows you to lift without causing extra damage for 5 pts per x2 Lift (though this extra lift could add to crushing damage, but not Strikes or Move Throughs)

 

2) If we ever do reattach Figured Characterstics, I would definitely have OCV, DCV etc, be a Figured Characteristic which can be bought up or sold off

 

3) I totally agree with Tasha

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

1) Personally I'm thinking of making STR through PRE costing 2 points (including an option for a power that allows you to lift without causing extra damage for 5 pts per x2 Lift (though this extra lift could add to crushing damage' date=' but not Strikes or Move Throughs)[/quote']

 

I'm not sold on STR. How valuable Lift is depends a lot on whether the game uses encumbrance rules (Fantasy games, for example, where heavy gear is a factor) and how liberal the GM is with improvised weapons allowing freebies for high STR characters. Balancing "lift capacity" and "strike capacity" is a tough area. And why should a character who punches pay the same for his attacks as one who can blast from range? Unless there is no advantage to range and the ability to spread, the guy with the Blast should pay more.

 

DEX, INT and PRE I agree should cost equal. In order to make that balance out, I think my game would have to make more use of PER rolls, and I think presence defense should still be reassigned to EGO only.

 

CON? No way. It's sole function is to prevent being Stunned. That's important, but not broad enough to impose a 2 point cost. CON is, to a large extent, a "character tax". You must spend at least enough to prevent the average attack from stunning you, or your character will be useless. If we gave it more functions, so we could drop the value of "just to not be stunned", then I could see it.

[BeZurKur]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

My initial take was to reduce the cost of DEX to 1. However' date=' when I look at skill levels with DEX, INT or PRE skills, they fall well short of the benefits of +5 to the characteristic. Maybe the better answer is that DEX, INT and PRE should cost 2, with the benefits of +1 to all rolls costing 5 and the ancillary benefits also costed at 5. That seems a bit more reasonable to me. [/quote']

I totally get the deconstructionist approach and respect it. This discussion has made me more aware of the subtle relationships between Char, Skills, and Powers. However, I wonder if the game can be "fixed" to that point while still keeping it HERO. While I agree that Strength and Blast are comparable, I have difficulty accepting that Strength is worth less than Intelligence. That really is apple to oranges, though, and probably more determined by the group's play style.

 

I'm sure you already considered this, but I'm interested on your take. What if Skill Levels just came in two flavors: 2 points for a characteristic roll and 3 points for skill rolls within the group. Individual skills can be bought up at one for one.

 

Published characters are following the previous ways of writing characters for 2 reasons. One' date=' many of them are conversions of 5th edition characters and were not written up from scratch. Two Steve (and the other writers) are used to making characters in the older editions, so the way they build characters are roughly the same as in the earlier edition. I believe this will eventually start to change, due to all of the complaints that we see from the conversions and eventually the writers will start to truly rethink "Classic" writeups and will make slightly different decisions about stats.[/quote']

I think you're right on both points. However, I don't find that very reassuring. The implication is that we're all working this out as we go. Removing the relationships between Characteristics is a more fundamental change than a tweak on how a power works. The game has kept some of the fundamental relationships, such as Char to skills, while removing others. I get the simplicity and ease argument, but why stop halfway then? I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, but I'm not convinced it was the right one either simply on the grounds of ease. I'll certainly be watching.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

I totally get the deconstructionist approach and respect it. This discussion has made me more aware of the subtle relationships between Char' date=' Skills, and Powers. However, I wonder if the game can be "fixed" to that point while still keeping it HERO.[/quote']

 

Some would say the elimination of figured characteristics failed to "keep it HERO". What makes it HERO is very much a subjective thing. I can remember reading D&D 3e and thinking it was an interesting game - but it was changed so much that it was no longer D&D.

 

While I agree that Strength and Blast are comparable' date=' I have difficulty accepting that Strength is worth [i']less[/i] than Intelligence. That really is apple to oranges, though, and probably more determined by the group's play style.

 

Again, this comes back to pricing the components,as you allude to below. How much granularity is needed for skill levels? How much are Lightning Reflexes, PER roll bonuses or PRE attack dice worth? Do we underprice damage classes across the board? Maybe - most games cap damage classes, but very few cap skill rolls. But skill rolls have a diminishing return, where damage classes do not (or, I suppose, it's reached at a much higher point - once I can kill any opponent in a single shot, I guess further DC's have no further benefit).

 

To retain DEX, INT and PRE at 1 point, we would have to accept that +1 to all skill rolls (and likely the base stat roll) is worth about 3 points, and the ancillary benefit (+5 combat order for all actions; +1 to all PER rolls; +1d6 PRE attack) are each also worth no more than 3 points. In all fairness, the only one that gives me cause for concern is PRE attacks, and perhaps the answer there is to better specify the short-term nature of PRE attacks. However, I'd also expect the price of defending against PRE attacks to be lower than the cost of an attack, so if 1d6 PRE attack costs 3 points, PRE defense should be obtainable at 2 defense per CP. As noted previously, I think EGO should govern defense from PRE attacks, so we could simply price +1 with EGO rolls at 3 points, and +5 defense against PRE attacks at 2.5 points (or make each EGO with a -1 limitation, and make all the other effects CHAR with -1 limitation as well).

 

I'm sure you already considered this' date=' but I'm interested on your take. What if Skill Levels just came in two flavors: 2 points for a characteristic roll and 3 points for skill rolls within the group. Individual skills can be bought up at one for one. [/quote']

 

As indicated above, I think +1 with all rolls needs to be 3 points if we keep the characteristics at 1 point. With that in mind, 2 points for "add to only one roll at a time" and 1 point for +1 to an individual skill are the only available breakpoints. We could keep more granularity with 1.5 point skill levels (say, for three related skills), although a lot of Hero gamers dislike half points.

 

I think you're right on both points. However' date=' I don't find that very reassuring. The implication is that we're all working this out as we go. Removing the relationships between Characteristics is a more fundamental change than a tweak on how a power works. The game has kept some of the fundamental relationships, such as Char to skills, while removing others. I get the simplicity and ease argument, but why stop halfway then? I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, but I'm not convinced it was the right one either simply on the grounds of ease. I'll certainly be watching.[/quote']

 

I don't see a lot of scope for the published materials to change, for a couple of reasons. First, the sample characters, followed by the material in Champions, has set the benchmarks. A Super with 18 DEX will now be compared against Taurus' 23 DEX and the values established for typical archetype members in Champions. Practically, the ship has already sailed. If a real change was going to be made, it needed to be addressed in the context of the revised rules. I'm disappointed that, after making major changes to the characteristic structure, all it gets used for is to rebuild characters exactly as they worked in 5e and prior editions. If the change was truly needed, or even beneficial, it should result in changes to character design. If it was not, then it was just change for the sake of change.

 

Second, and probably more relvant to DoJ, making radical changes to the standard sharply reduces the backwards compatability of the new edition. That carries a potential of motivating gamers to buy all the 6e materials to get up to date, but it also carries the risk of a significant backlash of existing Hero gamers refusing to make the switch and invalidate all their old books, meaning they buy little or no 6e product. From a business perspective, significant change carries significant risk.

[torchwolf]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

There needs to be a good article in the 6E1 about buying secondary Characteristics. How to figure out how much a character needs. Somewhere (in this post earlier?) I posted how I come up with where my secondaries need to be. There are some simple math equations for figuring this out and they have no relationship to the original minimums for the Secondaries when they were figured from the Primaries. It's all about knowing how much damage is being thrown at your character on average' date=' how tough your character is. Also knowing average CV's in the game and how common mental powers are. Actually the equations are for figuring most of your offensive and defensive stats in the game.[/quote']

Defenses + CON, and such benchmarks, still need to be addressed per campaign as only the GM has a true handle (hopefully!) on how much average and above-average damage will be, or what the average PRE attack will be, etc.

On a related issue: although the Characteristic Guidelines seem to get a bit overlooked in this respect, they could use some expansion in the descriptions of various benchmarks as well as more real-world examples.

 

Published characters are following the previous ways of writing characters for 2 reasons. One' date=' many of them are conversions of 5th edition characters and were not written up from scratch. Two Steve (and the other writers) are used to making characters in the older editions, so the way they build characters are roughly the same as in the earlier edition. I believe this will eventually start to change, due to all of the complaints that we see from the conversions and eventually the writers will start to truly rethink "Classic" writeups and will make slightly different decisions about stats.[/quote']

 

I think you're right on both points. However' date=' I don't find that very reassuring. The implication is that we're all working this out as we go. Removing the relationships between Characteristics is a more fundamental change than a tweak on how a power works. The game has kept some of the fundamental relationships, such as Char to skills, while removing others. I get the simplicity and ease argument, but why stop halfway then? I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, but I'm not convinced it was the right one either simply on the grounds of ease. I'll certainly be watching.[/quote']

 

I don't see a lot of scope for the published materials to change, for a couple of reasons. First, the sample characters, followed by the material in Champions, has set the benchmarks. A Super with 18 DEX will now be compared against Taurus' 23 DEX and the values established for typical archetype members in Champions. Practically, the shop has already sailed. If a real change was going to be made, it needed to be addressed in the context of the revised rules. I'm disappointed that, after making major changes to the characteristic structure, all it gets used for is to rebuild characters exactly as they worked in 5e and prior editions. If the change was truly needed, or even beneficial, it should result in changes to character design. If it was not, then it was just change for the sake of change.

 

Second, and probably more relvant to DoJ, making radical changes to the standard sharply reduces the backwards compatability of the new edition. That carries a potential of motivating gamers to buy all the 6e materials to get up to date, but it also carries the risk of a significant backlash of existing Hero gamers refusing to make the switch and invalidate all their old books, meaning they buy little or no 6e product. From a business perspective, significant change carries significant risk.

I think it's starting to change already.

Champions 6E features some deviation from what 5th or earlier edition characters would look like; some characters have different OCV and DCV; some have CVs and/or MCVs that don't correspond to DEX and EGO values; etc. In particular, Pulsar 6E have lower CVs than his DEX would give him from the DEX/3 calculation, but I'm not going to go through every character here, just want to bring it up.

This new variation also holds true for the Superhero Gallery section.

I haven't read the entire book (OK, pdf) yet but there is definitely new variety that I am happy to see. In any case, Steve Long would probably not have disconnected the CVs if he hadn't already had in mind to use it in publications somehow.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

I think it's starting to change already.

Champions 6E features some deviation from what 5th or earlier edition characters would look like; some characters have different OCV and DCV; some have CVs and/or MCVs that don't correspond to DEX and EGO values; etc. In particular, Pulsar 6E have lower CVs than his DEX would give him from the DEX/3 calculation

 

See, I would expect a lot of these characters to have OCV greater than DEX would reflect. In 5e and prior, the only cost-effective way to have a competitive CV was to buy up your DEX. So every Super, regardless of his schtick, had a DEX at or above Olympic gymnast level. Now that DEX is disconnected, I would expect to see characters for whom agility is not part of their superhuman abilities have human level DEX, just like most characters for whom strength, intelligence or willpower is not part of their schtick have tended to have human levels in these characteristics. Not "average 8-10" levels, but "normal human 20 or less" levels.

 

Being routinely involved in combat, having higher CV's doesn't strike me as overly unreasonable, but why do all but the slowest Supers have 13- or 14- DEX rolls?

 

By the way, CV is a character tax. If opponents typically have 10-12 DCV, you need a 10-12 OCV - and you need a 10-12 DCV to have a chance of being missed by their 10-12 OCV. If we dropped down to 5-7 OCV's, we'd still hit, and be hit, just as often and we'd have 50 more points to buy other abilities that distinguish our characters, rather than make them look the same.

 

I'm tempted to consider making characters for a 10-12 CV game with OCV's of 4 - 6 and DCV's of 3 or 4. With the extra 75 or so points, my attacks can be Accurate (+1/4 advantage on a suite of 60 AP attack powers should cost no more than 30) and I can bump up my defenses a lot for the 40 points I save on DCV (if I spend 20 on DCV, I'll still get hit all the time anyway).

[BeZurKur]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

Some would say the elimination of figured characteristics failed to "keep it HERO". What makes it HERO is very much a subjective thing. I can remember reading D&D 3e and thinking it was an interesting game - but it was changed so much that it was no longer D&D.

Very true.

 

To retain DEX, INT and PRE at 1 point, we would have to accept that +1 to all skill rolls (and likely the base stat roll) is worth about 3 points, and the ancillary benefit (+5 combat order for all actions; +1 to all PER rolls; +1d6 PRE attack) are each also worth no more than 3 points. In all fairness, the only one that gives me cause for concern is PRE attacks, and perhaps the answer there is to better specify the short-term nature of PRE attacks. However, I'd also expect the price of defending against PRE attacks to be lower than the cost of an attack, so if 1d6 PRE attack costs 3 points, PRE defense should be obtainable at 2 defense per CP.

I'm okay with that. We can add them as talents, priced as you suggest: 3 pts. for +1d6 and 3 pts. for +5 Presence Def.

 

I feel much more comfortable with these approches and will be incorporating them into my games. I'll see how they hold up to actual play. Thanks.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

I'm okay with that. We can add them as talents, priced as you suggest: 3 pts. for +1d6 and 3 pts. for +5 Presence Def.

 

I feel much more comfortable with these approches and will be incorporating them into my games. I'll see how they hold up to actual play. Thanks.

 

Under the current model, that makes +5 PRE worth 9 points (3 for +1d6 PRE attack, 3 for +3 PRE defense and 3 for +1 to PRE based rolls). Move PRE defense to EGO and it would work better.

[BeZurKur]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

Under the current model' date=' that makes +5 PRE worth 9 points (3 for +1d6 PRE attack, 3 for +3 PRE defense and 3 for +1 to PRE based rolls). Move PRE defense to EGO and it would work better.[/quote']

Right. So every characteristic -- Str through Pre is 1 point. The characteristic roll is inherent, although it can be bought up with skill levels at +1 per 2 points. The other components of the characteristic can also be broken down into two elements that, if purchased individually, is 3 points for a +5 effect, or in the case of skill levels, 3 points for a +1 to all skills of that type.

 

Str -- Lifting and HTH Damage

Dex -- Initiative and Skills

Con -- vs. Stunning and ???

Int -- Perception rolls and Skills

Ego -- Pre Defense and vs. Mental Powers

Pre -- Pre Attack and Skills

[Jhamin]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

By the way, CV is a character tax. If opponents typically have 10-12 DCV, you need a 10-12 OCV - and you need a 10-12 DCV to have a chance of being missed by their 10-12 OCV. If we dropped down to 5-7 OCV's, we'd still hit, and be hit, just as often and we'd have 50 more points to buy other abilities that distinguish our characters, rather than make them look the same.

 

I'm tempted to consider making characters for a 10-12 CV game with OCV's of 4 - 6 and DCV's of 3 or 4. With the extra 75 or so points, my attacks can be Accurate (+1/4 advantage on a suite of 60 AP attack powers should cost no more than 30) and I can bump up my defenses a lot for the 40 points I save on DCV (if I spend 20 on DCV, I'll still get hit all the time anyway).

 

Back when I converted my 4th edition game to 5th I subtracted 6 points of Dex from everyone across the board (along with the figured 2 OCV/DCV it gave). It worked out *really* well. The team Blaster was no longer more agile than an Olympian because she could shoot fire, the Brick was actually slow, and the "20 is an amazing stat for a normal" thing just seemed to make more sense. Most published characters sill worked just fine against the PCs if you mentally removed the appropriate numbers from them when calculating inititive and attack rolls.

I was a really big fan for world-consistency reasons and my players loved the extra 18 points they could spend elsewhere and be no less effective.

 

I see the ability under 6th for the brick to now run with a 10 Dex, 3 DCV and 6 OCV in a world where 16 dex/5OCV/5DCV is normal as nothing but a good thing.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

Right. So every characteristic -- Str through Pre is 1 point. The characteristic roll is inherent' date=' although it can be bought up with skill levels at +1 per 2 points. The other components of the characteristic can also be broken down into two elements that, if purchased individually, is 3 points for a +5 effect, or in the case of skill levels, 3 points for a +1 to all skills of that type.[/quote']

 

I'm inclined to include the base roll with the skills. Otherwise, the stat costs 5 points to increase and the components cost 8 points. Too esxpensive.

 

Str -- Lifting and HTH Damage

 

What about STR rolls? STR is harder to split - does Lift or Damage affect Grabs, breaking grabs, throwing, etc.?

 

Dex -- Initiative and Skills

Con -- vs. Stunning and ???

 

CON has become a one use stat. Unless you use a lot of CON rolls, but most games don't.

 

Int -- Perception rolls and Skills

Ego -- Pre Defense and vs. Mental Powers

 

What about EGO rolls? Those are important for breaking out of mental powers, resisting some abilities and dealing with psychological limitations.

 

Pre -- Pre Attack and Skills

 

Back when I converted my 4th edition game to 5th I subtracted 6 points of Dex from everyone across the board (along with the figured 2 OCV/DCV it gave). It worked out *really* well. The team Blaster was no longer more agile than an Olympian because she could shoot fire, the Brick was actually slow, and the "20 is an amazing stat for a normal" thing just seemed to make more sense. Most published characters sill worked just fine against the PCs if you mentally removed the appropriate numbers from them when calculating inititive and attack rolls.

I was a really big fan for world-consistency reasons and my players loved the extra 18 points they could spend elsewhere and be no less effective.

 

Only really saves 12 - 6 go back into DEX. I've toyed with the same idea, generally looking at 9 DEX and 1 Speed. Net savings 28 points. The "slow Brick" with an 18 DEX drops down to 9. The "Typical EB"drops from 23 to 14. The "Low end MA" falls from 30 to 21 (just a bit higher than that amazing 20). Speeds move from the occasional slow 4 to 3 (still better than Joe Normal), a norm of 4, fast guys with 5s and really fast guys with 6+. You get a recovery more often per action, so END and STUn can drop off a bit too.

 

I see the ability under 6th for the brick to now run with a 10 Dex' date=' 3 DCV and 6 OCV in a world where 16 dex/5OCV/5DCV is normal as nothing but a good thing.[/quote']

 

Agreed.

[BeZurKur]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

I'm inclined to include the base roll with the skills. Otherwise' date=' the stat costs 5 points to increase and the components cost 8 points. Too expensive.[/quote']

What about EGO rolls? Those are important for breaking out of mental powers, resisting some abilities and dealing with psychological limitations.

Here is where we differ. I don't have a problem with the package deal offering more point for point than the separate parts. I agree that if they were equal, it would be a very elegant system, but I wonder how feasible it is to design. The problem is when what the package offers is too sweet a deal and the individual components become superfluous. Identifying those boundaries, which probably shift per player group, is another obstacle. For me, the benefit of the isolated char roll and rare mental breakouts, fit into the perk for buying the characteristic. However, CSLs being largely ignored, makes buying CVs directly too tempting. YMMV.

 

What about STR rolls? STR is harder to split - does Lift or Damage affect Grabs, breaking grabs, throwing, etc.?

I'd rule that anything not covered in essentially the purchase of buying a Hand-to-Hand Attack is covered by the other half.

 

CON has become a one use stat. Unless you use a lot of CON rolls, but most games don't.

Yeah, it is a one use stat, and it is a shame too.

[dmjalund]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

I vote for more poisons in HERO system adventures!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

Here is where we differ. I don't have a problem with the package deal offering more point for point than the separate parts. I agree that if they were equal' date=' it would be a very elegant system, but I wonder how feasible it is to design. The problem is when what the package offers is too sweet a deal and the individual components become superfluous. Identifying those boundaries, which probably shift per player group, is another obstacle. For me, the benefit of the isolated char roll and rare mental breakouts, fit into the perk for buying the characteristic. [/quote']

 

For mental breakout rolls to be rare, wouldn't mental powers also be rare, such that half the value of Ego could not be in resistance to mental attacks?

 

At the bigger picture, I think the whole being greater than the sum of the parts is problematic. Under your model, it would cost 3 points for +1 to all DEX skills, 3 points for +5 Lightning Reflexes and 2 points for +1 to base DEX rolls. Why should anyone ever buy two of the component parts? If a player wants his character to have high DEX skill rolls and act quickly in combat, he can either pay 6 points for what he wants, or 5 points to get what he wants and enhance his base DEX rolls. In my view, it should never cost more to get less. "DEX, does not enhance base DEX rolls" should be cheaper than "DEX". Under your model, it's 20% more expensive.

 

This was the problem with STR and CON "no figured" - you lost far more than you saved.

 

However' date=' CSLs being largely ignored, makes buying CVs directly too tempting. YMMV. [/quote']

 

I think the pricing of CSL's needs to be based on the price of CV, in part. CSL's provide flexibility, which has advantages. They provide enhanced damage (and the fact that many groups don't use that, and often have an unwritten rule against using them to get above the damage cap, makes CSL's less valuable in those groups, but not by the rules). They can provide a few other ancillary benefits, but these aren't used much. That said, I agree that both combat skill levels and other skill levels (the lattter to a greater extent) are presently overpriced compared to the alternatives.

 

I'd rule that anything not covered in essentially the purchase of buying a Hand-to-Hand Attack is covered by the other half.

 

In 6e, HTH Atttack is a -1/4 limitation, so 4 points. I assume under your model it would be a greater limitation, such that HTH attack would likely cost 3 points per 1d6. I'd be OK with:

 

- a -1/4 Limitation for STR that does not Lift. 4 points adds a DC to all HTH attacks. This is not dissimilar from a 4 point Martial Arts damage class, which would not add to non-martial maneuvers, but does add to martial NND's and killing attacks. It seems fair they would cost the same.

 

- a -1/2 limitation for STR that only adds to HTH damage (not holding, throwing, etc.). However, that depends largely on how much a given game alllows Bricks to use terrain to gain advantages to STR damage. I'd like to see those advantages be difficult to achieve (if you can routinely use terrain to get Range and/or AOE for your STR, why should anyone pay points for ranged attacks and AoE attacks?)

 

- a -1 1/2 limitation for STR that does not add to HTH damage (you could hold, but not squeeze; lift, throw but not inflict significant damage with a throw, make STR rolls to escape grabs and win arm wrestling matches, etc.) would then seem about right. +15 STR with this limitation would cost 6 points, and +15 STR with the Only Damage limitation would cost 6, so buying STR directly would provides only a very small discount.

 

 

Yeah' date=' it is a one use stat, and it is a shame too.[/quote']

 

It's no different from STUN, BOD and END in that regard.

[BeZurKur]

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

 

At the bigger picture' date=' I think the whole being greater than the sum of the parts is problematic. Under your model, it would cost 3 points for +1 to all DEX skills, 3 points for +5 Lightning Reflexes and 2 points for +1 to base DEX rolls. [b']Why should anyone ever buy two of the component parts?[/b] If a player wants his character to have high DEX skill rolls and act quickly in combat, he can either pay 6 points for what he wants, or 5 points to get what he wants and enhance his base DEX rolls. In my view, it should never cost more to get less. "DEX, does not enhance base DEX rolls" should be cheaper than "DEX". Under your model, it's 20% more expensive.

(Emphasis added)

You're right: there is no reason to buy two separate components. The player has the option for fine tuning to one component, but under that model, not two. Still it is more than what the current system offers, so I'm okay with that. Right now, we have some false choices. At least with fine tuning to one component, we have a legitimate choice under that circumstance, but you're totally right: not to two. Personally, I don't need that kind of control; I just need the choices I have to be meaningful. They want to decouple CV from Dex, then completely eliminate CSLs. If they want to get rid of Figureds, decouple skill rolls from characteristics. I bet regular skill levels will get a whole lot more use then. In other words, separate everything to the individual components. Until they do that, there will most likely be a discrepancy at some point. I do, however, get your argument of the "whole being greater than the sum of the parts," but this takes up deep into design philosophy, and no answer will always be right for everyone.