I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

[BeZurKur]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

I understand the utility argument: the more things it does, the more it should cost. However, I don't quite get the campaign's importance on the stat argument. I mean, yeah, if the campaign puts a higher value to combat, won't it autocorrect itself because people would simply spend more on the stat? What does it matter if someone spends 20 points to get a 20 Dex, or if he spends 20 points to get a 30. After all, it's relative; a 30 Dex is only high if other characters don't have 30s as well.

[incrdbil]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

So INT's Perception' date=' Int roll and Int Skills doesn't rate? Smart guys unite![/quote']

 

Oh, they rate. But for what Dex does, as compared to what INT does, Dex does more for your character when averaged over most common settings, especially in conflict situations, which is, at the heart of all balancing schemes, the area of most concern in terms fo gettign balance right.

[Matt Holck]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

I agree about the rarity -I've been playing games for over 30 years now and I can point to maybe 2 settings that I've run or played in where I would consider recosting the Hero characteristics as they are now' date=' and that's just consider not a lock by any stretch. There are probably half a dozen more rettling around in my head where I'd look at characteristic costs but the ideas are odd and unlikely to ever be run, they probably won't end up written down (Unless I try to do another Savage Summer, in which case Hero Characteristics won't be a priority)[/quote']

 

almost all hit points(body) in champions are between 10 and 20

 

I wouldn't mind seeing hero characters with a few more hit points.

[prestidigitator]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

almost all hit points(body) in champions are between 10 and 20

 

I wouldn't mind seeing hero characters with a few more hit points.

 

I've seen monsters and superheroes in the 20-30 Body range, but keep in mind that Defenses (and other Defense Powers like Damage Negation and Damage Reduction) play the role that huge amounts of Hit Points do in systems like D&D.

[Matt Holck]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

I have

and sadly while I wish my dragon had more body,

it is simply more efficient to buy defenses.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

It is also interesting to note that the actual cost of DEX is effectively unchanged between 5th and 6th Edition. In 5e, it was 3 points, but you got one rebated for Speed. In 6e, you pay 2 points and get no Speed Rebate. Yet DEX has lost both OCV and DCV. Certainly, DEX was the bargain of characteristics in all previous editions, and I agree with deocupling OCV and DCV for that reason. But leaving DEX priced at 2 has swung the pendulum the other way - DEX is now overpriced compared to many of the other characteristics.

[azrad]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

Ah. That could be it. A bias towards action! Not just a crappy business motto anymore.

That is exactly it. If we were playing "Office Cubical Hero", then perhaps Ego, Pre, and Int might cost more. But typically we play an action oriented game.

[prestidigitator]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

That is exactly it. If we were playing "Office Cubical Hero"' date=' then perhaps Ego, Pre, and Int might cost more. But typically we play an action oriented game.[/quote']

 

Keep in mind that the consequences of action are often a little more dire than the consequences of social interaction or intellectual pursuits as well. Unless we're playing a game where you can literally die of embarrassment or go incurably insane from failure to grasp the solution to a difficult problem, I'd say physical challenges probably trump social and intellectual ones even if they aren't the major focus of the campaign.

[Greywind]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

Indeed

which is why con and body should be one statt called health that cost 1:1

since neither con nor body provide skills or rolls they are rather under rated compared to strength

CON Rolls happen. BODY Rolls happen. Not all poisons act the same way. If at some point there isn't a chance for either roll, then the GM isn't fully utilizing the system.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

[quote=Hugh Neilson;2035210

Personally, I have never found "going first" to be all that valuable. However, even if you do, then a good PRE allows you to make a PRE attack that causes others to delay - result you go first. A good INT allows you to make PER rolls - result being you are not surprised, allowing your attackers to go first.

 

 

I have said it before, but to me "going first" is worth the price of admission. Being able to hold a phase then dodge if needs be suite me well. This is definitly a YMMV type of thing. (I'm not saying your wrong, I just have a different view on the matter.)

 

But I wanted to point out Hugh, that the advantge of DEX over PRE or INT which you mentioned is that with DEX it is an absolute advantage. You either go before a foe or after, only rarely is it a roll off due to a tie. (Of course there are some optional rules which can change this, but as a general rule this is the case.) But your PRE attack can fail, and so can your PER roll. (Unless of course you by either of these to superhigh levels, but even then-technically three sixes means you fail.)

[ajackson]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

32 people isn't much of a sample to go by.

The standard error on 38 would only be 8%, so it's enough to be statistically significant (though this ignores non-random bias sources, such as who would answer such a poll). However, it seems at a minimum that 1 point is a rather common house rule.

[jtelson]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

I have said it before' date=' but to me "going first" is worth the price of admission. Being able to hold a phase then dodge if needs be suite me well. This is definitly a YMMV type of thing. (I'm not saying your wrong, I just have a different view on the matter.)[/quote']

 

Hmmm, have I been doing it wrong? I thought you could abort to a Dodge or Block in any segment that you have not acted giving up your next action, even if that was coming later in the segment - So going first doesn't have an effect on defenisve actions. There are advantages to going first - I just didn't think that was one of them.

[薔薇語]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

Jt, unless something very strange has happened in 6e, you are correct. You can abort at anytime so long as you have yet to take an action in that segment and have aborted previously without having taken a turn yet. And, iirc, aborting has priority such that if you abort, it puts you as going before the other person even if they have a higher initiative - but I could easily be wrong on this last point. GA?

 

La Rose.

[casualplayer]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

It's aesthetically displeasing to have one primary stat cost differently per point than the others. IMO one of the few 6th glitches but easily remedied.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

Hmmm' date=' have I been doing it wrong? I thought you could abort to a Dodge or Block in any segment that you have not acted giving up your next action, even if that was coming later in the segment - So going first doesn't have an effect on defenisve actions. There are advantages to going first - I just didn't think that was one of them.[/quote']

 

No, you are right. I should have said hold-then strike. (I just did alot of dodging when I was a ninja!)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

That is exactly it. If we were playing "Office Cubical Hero"' date=' then perhaps Ego, Pre, and Int might cost more. But typically we play an action oriented game.[/quote']

 

Action-oriented games include PER rolls in combat (surprise, targets using stealth or invisibility) and PRE attacks. I don't think EGO is comparable to PRE, INT and DEX, another reason I am leaning to the belief that PRE and INT are underpriced, rather than DEX being overpriced.

 

Keep in mind that the consequences of action are often a little more dire than the consequences of social interaction or intellectual pursuits as well. Unless we're playing a game where you can literally die of embarrassment or go incurably insane from failure to grasp the solution to a difficult problem' date=' I'd say physical challenges probably trump social and intellectual ones even if they aren't the major focus of the campaign.[/quote']

 

I think this depends largely on the game as well. If you can avoid a potentially deadly combat situation by parlaying with your opponent, isn't that a win? The consequences of failure seem quite significant. If you can't defuse the bomb, the consequences seem quite severe. I think the relative level of "consequences" depends largely on how the GM runs his game, not on the nature of the skills. And DEX's impact on combat is "who gets the first shot", which I rarely find to be the trump card some others do.

 

The way we play the game is the key, though. If interaction and knowledge skills are simply treated as fluff, largely used in bridge scenes to get us to the next combat, and the GM will fudge the rolls, or just allow the characters to succeed regardless of whether they possess appropriate skills or not, then INT and PRE skills are useless, and INT and PRE devalued accordingly. If PRE attacks always fail and PER rolls are rarely considered, then the GM also devalues these stats. Of course, the GM can also devalue first strike and DEX skills as well.

 

I have said it before' date=' but to me "going first" is worth the price of admission. Being able to hold a phase then dodge if needs be suite me well. This is definitly a YMMV type of thing. (I'm not saying your wrong, I just have a different view on the matter.) [/quote']

 

As others have noted, you can Abort to a defensive action. If you want to attack, and I want to Dodge, your extra DEX is completely wasted.

 

But I wanted to point out Hugh' date=' that the advantge of DEX over PRE or INT which you mentioned is that with DEX it is an absolute advantage. You either go before a foe or after, only rarely is it a roll off due to a tie. (Of course there are some optional rules which can change this, but as a general rule this is the case.) But your PRE attack can fail, and so can your PER roll. (Unless of course you by either of these to superhigh levels, but even then-technically three sixes means you fail.)[/quote']

 

DEX becomes a character tax. If the campaign average is 30 DEX, I can save 40 points for other stuff by accepting that my character will go last. If campaign average is 15, I only get 10 points back. With 40 points, I could buy:

 

- +8d6 to my primary atttack. You strike first; I strike way harder.

- +20/+20 Defenses - which of us will fall first?

- +40 STUN and +20 REC - I can keep going much longer than you

- +4 SPD - you go first in Segment 12, which I'll Abort to avoid your attack. Now, who will go next?

- a more judiciously selected mix of the above, of course, would be much more effective.

 

No' date=' you are right. I should have said hold-then strike. (I just did alot of dodging when I was a ninja!)[/quote']

 

So the advantage of First Strike is that you won't use it, but instead delay to let those with lower DEX move first anyway? You still have a small advantage if you want to interrupt another's attack, since that requires DEX rolls, but now your absolute advantage has been reduced to a roll that can fail, hasn't it?

 

Is there an advantage to first strike? Sure. But I don't believe it's significantly greater than the advantage of better PER rolls or better PRE attacks (and defense). And it is presently costed a lot higher. First Strike is also very dependent on the game itself - in Wild West Hero, especially a ggritty game, where rDEF is negligible and guns deadly, first strike is worth a lot more than in a game where DC to Defense ratios are lower. Just like the value of INT and PRE varies from game to game.

 

I think we have an unconscious bias that DEX is very valuable because in the past it was the only way to make a character who is viable in combat. But that's no longer the case.

[prestidigitator]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

I think this depends largely on the game as well. If you can avoid a potentially deadly combat situation by parlaying with your opponent, isn't that a win? The consequences of failure seem quite significant. If you can't defuse the bomb, the consequences seem quite severe. I think the relative level of "consequences" depends largely on how the GM runs his game, not on the nature of the skills. And DEX's impact on combat is "who gets the first shot", which I rarely find to be the trump card some others do.

 

The way we play the game is the key, though. If interaction and knowledge skills are simply treated as fluff, largely used in bridge scenes to get us to the next combat, and the GM will fudge the rolls, or just allow the characters to succeed regardless of whether they possess appropriate skills or not, then INT and PRE skills are useless, and INT and PRE devalued accordingly. If PRE attacks always fail and PER rolls are rarely considered, then the GM also devalues these stats. Of course, the GM can also devalue first strike and DEX skills as well.

 

While those are very good alternate routes to success, usually if they fail the GM does give some kind of last-ditch action-oriented method for success (or at least partial success so they can live again to "fight" another day). For example, if parlaying fails there's combat; if you fail to disarm the bomb, often there is the possibility of getting it away from innocents or at least getting the heck out of dodge yourself. I'm not saying it can't be run otherwise, but even when the primary focus of the game isn't the action, action is usually waiting in the background as a final recourse for avoiding disaster.

 

And honestly, I think the additional game focus on non-action resolution will be as much incentive to focus a character on those things as reducing the cost of Dex would, don't you? It would seem counterproductive to tell players you want to focus on roleplaying, then give them a cost break on action-related traits....

[Matt Holck]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

I have said it before, but to me "going first" is worth the price of admission. Being able to hold a phase then dodge if needs be suite me well. This is definitely a YMMV type of thing. (I'm not saying your wrong, I just have a different view on the matter.)

 

Unless a character wants to take a recovery

in which case it must declare the recovery on their initiative and be prone for the rest of the phase

 

CON Rolls happen. BODY Rolls happen. Not all poisons act the same way. If at some point there isn't a chance for either roll' date=' then the GM isn't fully utilizing the system.[/quote']

 

yes but are both rolls really necessary

 

Champions was created to build a character around 8 characteristics

 

Calculate characteristic were just that

Constitution's primary function was to determine endurance, stun and recovery.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

Calculate characteristic were just that

Constitution's primary function was to determine endurance, stun and recovery.

You could always buy END, REC, an STUN up anyway, and most people, IME, did. I'd argue that CON's primary function has always been preventing getting stunned and losing an action, with CON rolls, though rare in many people's games, and important and close second. The boost to secondary characteristics was just that, a secondary effect. One that people really learned how to take full advantage of, but not the primary reason for purchasing the stat. (Well, maybe it was the main reason for some people, I tend to build to concept however, and would never build a "trained normal" with 30 CON just to get the Figured Characteristics out of it, but YMMV).

[Matt Holck]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

really ?

people bought up Stun. Endurance and Recovery ?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

really ?

people bought up Stun. Endurance and Recovery ?

IME yes, with the exception of Bricks who got huge ammounts of figured characteristics. Often times they may use a END Reserve instead if it fit the concept, but the point remains the same.

[BeZurKur]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

DEX becomes a character tax. If the campaign average is 30 DEX, I can save 40 points for other stuff by accepting that my character will go last. If campaign average is 15, I only get 10 points back. With 40 points, I could buy:

 

- +8d6 to my primary atttack. You strike first; I strike way harder.

- +20/+20 Defenses - which of us will fall first?

- +40 STUN and +20 REC - I can keep going much longer than you

- +4 SPD - you go first in Segment 12, which I'll Abort to avoid your attack. Now, who will go next?

- a more judiciously selected mix of the above, of course, would be much more effective.

 

Exactly. That's why arbitrarily increasing the cost because it is more "useful" in the campaign is, IMO, not the path to take. Break down the costs; see what it's worth, but stop right there. Let the utility beyond mechanical bonuses be determined by the player when he decides to sink x amount of points in. It should not be determined by the GM increasing the cost on a whim without the numbers to back him up.

[Matt Holck]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

before sixth edition,

5 points Constitution costing 10 points gave

+10 points of endurance (5 point value)

+1 recovery (2 point value)

+1 energy defense (1 point value)

+2.5 Stun (2.5 point value)

total 10.5 point value in figured characteristics

 

If I wanted to buy up Recovery, Stun or Endurance, I would buy up my constitution.

I admit I have one character with increased recovery though.

 

Now constitution only determines stun threshold + the rare constitution roll.

Both roles are passive

as is body which only determines how much damage after defenses a character can take

 

which is why con and body should be one statt called health that cost 1:1

since neither con nor body provide skills or rolls they are rather under rated compared to strength

 

I have said it before, but to me "going first" is worth the price of admission. Being able to hold a phase then dodge if needs be suite me well. This is definitely a YMMV type of thing. (I'm not saying your wrong, I just have a different view on the matter.)

 

Unless a character wants to take a recovery

in which case it must declare the recovery on its initiative and be prone for the rest of the phase

[bigbywolfe]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

It doesn't determine a skill roll so it must be under rated? Only if staying alive in your campaign is "under rated". Furthermore, if you make this "health" stat, then how do you determine if you are stunned or not? Do you base it off your current Health, or your max Health? Does every time you lose Health from a poison that would require a Health Roll (instead of a CON roll) reduce your chance to resist further applications? Increasing Health would make you both harder to stun and harder to kill, which might not always be desirable (I know I've played Heroic characters that can take a pummeling in a fist fight due to high CON and STUN, but have average BODY keeping guns and knives a legitimate threat to the character). This suggestion has much deeper implications than merely recosting a single characteristic, and depending on how you answer the questions above (and undoubtably many others) could drastically change the feel of the entire game...

[Matt Holck]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

Current Health would determine stun threshold.

A wounded character would be easier to stun.

Poison would be handled by a health roll.

 

It is my intent to make the game more open to characters taking body(health)

I would expect characters to have more body to take if it is linked to their stun threshold.